Turkey shoots down fighter jet violating their airspace

[Thunderball]

I gotta say a couple things about this.

(1) Fox's viewership is 42% 55 or older, and 36% 35-54. Chances are if you encounter someone on a video game forum and "Fox News" is the reason that you subscribe their beliefs to being what they are, you got it wrong. Chances are, you're not talking to a 35-80 year old on a Video Game forum.

(2) Fox's reporting on international issues is miniscule. It's mostly along the lines of "A Boat Capsized in Bangladesh today" and 3-4 sentences of follow up before moving on to the next issue. Most of Fox's coverage and it's conservative editorial position is in relation to domestic politics and commentating on foreign issues as they relate to domestic politics. Why is this? Because international news coverage is extremely expensive. CNN is pretty much the only US news organization able to finance a large global news gathering operation... the old "bureaus in most middle eastern countries" model. It's what CNN's known for which is why it's always the 2nd place (well 3rd place until MSNBC declined again), except when some international crisis happens, when it rockets to first. Fox has the pockets to do it, but it doesn't, despite it's relations with News Corp, which it draws on very meagerly. MSNBC doesn't do it. NBC News, a different entity, doesn't do it. ABC News and CBS News have been shells of their former selves for years. Even the New York Times, the paper of record, has closed up it's national bureaus and replaced them with regional ones, as it's print business shriveled.

Fox news plainly does not have an international footprint comparable to CNN, by design. And organizationally, they're completely different. CNN has one manager, for all it's shows, and his direction since he took over a couple of years back, is hard news. This is why they replaced late primetime repeats with CNN International, which used to never be shown in the US except on a separate network. Fox News by contrast, is managed by two different people - one in charged of hard news, mostly during the day time, and his rival who runs prime time shows (the O'Rielly, Hannity, The Five style political shows). They're both pushing to take over for Roger Ailes when he dies or retires.

Put together, you're not going to find someone who gets their international perspective, especially as it relates to other countries, from Fox News. Fox barely reports it and doesn't have the organization to do it. To put it another way, from Fox News, you're going to hear "Obama is weak on international issues because X, Y and Z", not "Country X, Y and Z are/should be our enemies because of A B and C", which are two very different things.

Sorry, I'm no good in differentiating all sorts of s**t. Fox is just most known for this. Essentially all western media has the same agenda when it comes to those topics. Also, the fact that reporting of international news is so sparce in US media in general is not doing any good for the people. In the end it should be pretty obvious that anyone who gets very little information on international matters will be a lot more likely accept any information/official position on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

It actually comes down to common sense, that's the only universal tool we have to judge. Common sense means being rational, and there's only one way to be so. Truth is that cultures influence a LOT on people's behaviour, but it doesn't mean that it does so for everyone.
The best example is woman covering their head and face in European countries; that is irrational and a cultural influence. The are basically meant to do so in order to cover their "Goodies", according to the Quran, which is a discriminatory thing from the past. It's ok, all religions had their fucked up things, but in 2016 you expect people to realize that it's time to get over certain aspects of their culture which actually account for the many factors which forced them to leave their original countries.

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing here. Common sense only works if you understand the principles of the society and therefore the reason behind certain things. Your logic here is that if muslim people come to Europe then should follow european culture and that's not true - it's people that make the culture and not the place. If europeans dont want muslims in the countries they should stop accepting them in, plain and simple. Secondly, your logic is that hijabs are required in Islam to discriminate women. It's wrong again: hijabs were required to keep women from unwanted attention of men in the time when law system was not in effect. Same guidelines were present in Christianity aswell, for the same purpose. I agree that religion is the thing of the past but you should understand how things actually work: all modern religions and their cultural elements were designed to stabilize the society and keep the simple folk believing. You cant expect people to throw away things that worked for them for centuries because someone in the world all of a sudden have said that it's wrong.

[StayTuned]

Just a quick question

Why is it always the PEW research center that comes up with those statistics who are always in such disfavor to Islam, Muslim countries, black people, immigration, etc.

I cannot remember seeing another organization backing up their statistics, but PEW keeps on being posted all the time. At least here.

[Rudkobing]

I had a totally different idea what this thread was about. I thought Turkey's the bird were finally revolting after centuries of being eaten.

[Haven]

So, only the bad Russians leave Russia?

Just a month ago I've been to China. The ship I'm working on was sent there for repairs. So, every once in a while I'd spent an evening at the bar near the docks; you can imagine the kind of public out there, sailors from Greece, Romania, Philippines, Korea, Holland, etc. So, the thing is: the barmaid couldn't guess where I was from for several days, until she overheard me talking with some other guys from my ship. She genuinely thought I was British, because of my pronounciation (I speak English quite fluently, and try to mimic British accent just because I like the way it sounds) and manners. The morale of the story: stereotypes are deceiving. She only knew Russians by the types that go get drunk at the bars, and I'm not the type that usually does that (I was more interested in talking to foreigners to polish my communication skills).

[caervek]

We've now had independent confirmation on the crash sites location, it isn't where either Russia or Turkey claim (so there goes the hope that we could find out who's lying about the flightpath by finding out whos lying about the crash site) however Turkeys guess was closer than Russia's.

[Deleted]

Cool, a real life version of "guess the price"
Who comes closer wins.

[caervek]

Who comes closer wins.

It does look a lot like the Turks were correct about the flightpath doesn't it, or at least more correct than the Russians.

[Keeponrage]

It does look a lot like the Turks were correct about the flightpath doesn't it, or at least more correct than the Russians.

link investigation materials plx

[Bakis]

Russians simply have a natural skill for being able to navigate and enter airspaces they should not.

[caervek]

link investigation materials plx

The isn't really much investigation involved/needed, it's essentially the real crash location overlaid onto a BBC map showing the Russian/Turkish claimed crash sites. If it helps though you can double check it, here's is where the plane came down:



And here it is on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8436.../data=!3m1!1e3

[Deleted]

Not saying it's wrong caervek but... did you get that info from that site on the bottom right of your picture?

[caervek]

Not saying it's wrong caervek but... did you get that info from that site on the bottom right of your picture?

Nope, but the validity of it cannot really be challenged unless physics work differently in Syria. The were two cameras pointed at the plane from different angles when it crashed, drawing lines from them in the direction they are pointed results in the lines intersecting at the approximate crash site.

Unless you can think of a reason it doesn't apply in this situation?

[Keeponrage]

Nope, but the validity of it cannot really be challenged unless physics work differently in Syria. The were two cameras pointed at the plane from different angles when it crashed, drawing lines from them in the direction they are pointed results in the lines intersecting at the approximate crash site.

Unless you can think of a reason it doesn't apply in this situation?

errors in angles estimation of few degrees alone (even if cameras positions are provided precisely) may yield an error of couple of kilometers in crash site estimation. So I would like to see how did they calculated angles and, preferably, camera positions.

[caervek]

errors in angles estimation of few degrees alone (even if cameras positions are provided precisely) may yield an error of couple of kilometers in crash site estimation. So I would like to see how did they calculated angles and, preferably, camera positions.

That's why the is a red circle for the approximate position of the crash site.

[Deleted]

Nope, but the validity of it cannot really be challenged unless physics work differently in Syria. The were two cameras pointed at the plane from different angles when it crashed, drawing lines from them in the direction they are pointed results in the lines intersecting at the approximate crash site.

Unless you can think of a reason it doesn't apply in this situation?

Not saying it's wrong but if it comes from such a website chances are it's fake that's all I am saying.
I don't care much about this issue anyway. Whether the jet wasn't in turkish airspace or it was in turkish airspace for a few seconds still does not justify their actions.

[Kuntantee]

Not saying it's wrong but if it comes from such a website chances are it's fake that's all I am saying.
I don't care much about this issue anyway. Whether the jet wasn't in turkish airspace or it was in turkish airspace for a few seconds still does not justify their actions.

You are confusing justification with overreaction. Turkey is entitled to shoot down every single Russian jet violating its airspace, especially after warning Russia several times. However, it's indeed overreaction and would be much better if it was avoided.

[Cybran]

Turkey is entitled to shoot down every single Russian jet violating its airspace

You are not. NATO has clear rules of engagement and Turkey broke them to protect it's oil trucks.

[Deleted]

You are confusing justification with overreaction. Turkey is entitled to shoot down every single Russian jet violating its airspace, especially after warning Russia several times. However, it's indeed overreaction and would be much better if it was avoided.

I'm not sure the rules of engagement have been respected in here. I'd like to know more about how you're supposed to behave in such circumstances.

[Kuntantee]

I'm not sure the rules of engagement have been respected in here. I'd like to know more about how you're supposed to behave in such circumstances.

Turkey has changed RoE after two Turkish jets were shot down. Those engagement rules are public.

[Deleted]

Turkey has changed RoE after two Turkish jets were shot down. Those engagement rules are public.

Thanks for pointing that out, do you know if i can google them? Can i get them in english? I'm just curios.