U.S. shoots down Syrian military aircraft

[sean miguel]

Jun. 18, 2017 7:39 PM ET

Pentagon: US shoots down Syrian aircraft for first time

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES


WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military on Sunday shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet that bombed local forces aligned with the Americans in the fight against Islamic State militants, an action that appeared to mark a new escalation of the conflict.

The U.S. had not shot down a Syrian regime aircraft before Sunday's confrontation, said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. While the U.S. has said since it began recruiting, training and advising what it calls moderate Syrian opposition forces to fight IS that it would protect them from potential Syrian government retribution, this was the first time it resorted to engaging in air-to-air combat to make good on that promise.

The U.S.-led coalition headquarters in Iraq said in a written statement that a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian government SU-22 after it dropped bombs near the U.S. partner forces, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces.

The shootdown was near Tabqa, a Syrian town in an area that has been a weekslong focus of fighting against IS militants by the SDF as they surround the city of Raqqa and attempt to retake it from IS.

The U.S. military statement said it acted in "collective self defense" of its partner forces and that the U.S. did not seek a fight with the Syrian government or its Russian supporters.

According to a statement from the Pentagon, pro-Syrian regime forces attacked the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces-held town of Ja'Din, south of Tabqah in northern Syria, wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.

Coalition aircraft conducted a show of force and stopped the initial pro-regime advance toward the town, the Pentagon said. Following the pro-Syrian forces attack, the coalition called its Russian counterparts "to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing," according to the statement.

A few hours later, the Syrian SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters and, "in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces," was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet, the Pentagon said.

"The coalition's mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria," the Pentagon said, using an abbreviation for the Islamic State group. "The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. "

U.S. forces tangled earlier this month with Syria-allied aircraft in the region. On June 8, U.S. officials reported that a drone likely connected to Iranian-supported Hezbollah forces fired on U.S.-backed troops and was shot down by an American fighter jet. The incident took place in southern Syria near a base where the U.S.-led coalition was training Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State group.

An Army spokesman at the Pentagon said at the time that the drone carried more weapons and was considered a direct threat, prompting the shootdown.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/*/A...tes-Syria/id-8a92d6bae00846daa1d1bbf8ab54c719


Syria: the flashpoint of the next World War

 

[Jack Davenport]

That Su-22 was steam Gauge controlled.
The Superhornet probably took it out from 15 miles away.

 

[meesterperfect]

So lets get this straight.
Syria is fighting our enemy in their own country.
We are there militarily against the will of the Syrian government which by every definition is another illegal invasion.
Now we shoot down one of their war planes. We've already killed many of their soldiers "Accidentally".
The reason- "They dropped bombs near where we didn't want them in their own country".
Netanyahoo smiles.
Are we still the good guys?

No, we are the bullys who need to be stopped.
I'd like to see our entire miltary wiped out...for everybodys sake.
Because we suck.

 

[Justaman]

Letting Mattis make these calls is a very smart thing for Trump to do. General Keane thinks Russia's threat to respond is "bluster". We'll see how it plays out.

Gen. Jack Keane (Ret.) expressed skepticism over Russia's threat to shoot down U.S. aircraft in Syria. Russia's defense ministry said planes flying in Syria, west of the Euphrates River, would be considered targets after the U.S. Navy shot down a Syrian warplane. The Syrian SU-22 had just attacked U.S. partner forces battling ISIS and was shot down by a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet.

Keane said on "Fox & Friends" he sees the statement from the Kremlin as more "talk" and "bluster" by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"That's rubbish. They're not gonna shoot at U.S. airplanes. They're not gonna take on the United States. They have very limited capability in Syria by comparison to U.S. capability," said Keane, a Fox News military analyst.

It's the first time in nearly 20 years that a U.S. fighter jet shot down a warplane in air-to-air combat. The last time was a Serbian jet downed in Kosovo in 1999.

Watch Keane's full analysis above, including on what President Trump should do about Afghanistan.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/19/syria-plane-shot-down-us-navy-russia-threatens-retaliation

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

So lets get this straight.
Syria is fighting our enemy in their own country.
We are there militarily against the will of the Syrian government which by every definition is another illegal invasion.
Now we shoot down one of their war planes. We've already killed many of their soldiers "Accidentally".
The reason- "They dropped bombs near where we didn't want them in their own country".
Netanyahoo smiles.
Are we still the good guys?

No, we are the bullys who need to be stopped.
I'd like to see our entire miltary wiped out...for everybodys sake.
Because we suck.

We really haven't been the good guys for a very long time.
It becomes more and more clear every day the scope of our governments evil.
US soldiers are great people and the American people are good hard working honest folk but the shit perpetrated against the world in our name boggles the mind.
Another Empire.........

 

[sean miguel]

Russia is threatening to shoot down US aircraft flying west of the Euphrates. Meanwhile, Iran launches 6 ballistic missiles into Syria targeting ISIS in reprisal for the attack in Tehran.

All these belligerents fighting it out within a failed state. It's reminds me of the Battle of the Five Armies in Tolkien's The Hobbit. "Kill the Russians! Kill the elves! Save the gold for ourselves!"

 

[bodie54]

How did our ass whopping president respond to this?

By repositioning our aircraft.

Wow, that's one heck of red line.

 

[Jack Davenport]

How did our ass whopping president respond to this?

By repositioning our aircraft.

Wow, that's one heck of red line.

What the hell is an "ass whopping"?

Mattis is implementing the game plan for Syria.

The Pentagon has been clear about that.

Do you know more about strategy than he does?

 

[sean miguel]

How did our ass whopping president respond to this?

By repositioning our aircraft.

Wow, that's one heck of red line.

collusion.

and what red line? Obama sets those then bows down and sucks dick when they get crossed.

The U.S. has bombed a Syrian airfield and shot down a Syrian plane. We're not exactly cowering before Russia anymore. Speaking of which, we should let them have Ukraine. If Obama's MREs weren't enough, we tried.

 

[meesterperfect]

I'll try to say this without coming across with an I told you so attitude.
I told you so. Syria is a powderkeg which can start a world war, and its the US who is playing with the matches.

Super cereal here.
The US has no business at all in Syria.
Zero.
Never have.
Syria refused to allow a pipeline that would profit Israel and Saudi Arabia to go through their country and ever since they have been "an enemy".
Its actually more complicated than that but regardless, the US should not be there.

That's not just an opinion that is legally speaking. They have done nothing to warrant US military in their country.
Add to that that it is the US funding and arming and the mercenaries which many call ISIS these days.
That can not be denied at this point. Its time for all Americans to wake up to that fact.

They have been using the bearded murderers as proxys but they have been getting beaten by the Syrians for years so now the US has gone in to try to finish the job themselves.
They wanted to go in for most of the Obama years but they couldnt justify it. They tried a few false flag gas attacks in which they murdered children but it didnt fly.
They barely got away with destroying Libya in the public eye but thanks to a controlled media they did.
But Syria was no Libya especially with the backing of Russia and Iran.
So I suppose at the Bilderberg meetings a few weeks ago the money printers gave the green light to just start the war.
Get a war going with Russia over Israels interests and put all our lives at risk in doing so.
Just Great.
And what sickens me even more is Trump.
He was suppose to stop this crap.

Anyway. Syria is fighting our enemy. The enemy we've had since 2001.
The one we never actually fight or catch but spend trillions in supposedly trying to do so.
Which is the biggest reason our economy is in the toilet when it should be thriving.
So instead of allying with the people - Syria, Iran, Russia who are fighting "the terrorists" we are instead attacking them.
Provoking them and holding stupid hearings over the non existent Russian interference.

Final thought for those who still have the if youre not with us ....... mentality.
Syria has been around literally since the begining of history.
They have a legitimate government not a "regime".
They do not want the US military in their country.
Now we're shooting down their aircrafts, total act of war.
How can that be on the side of right and good?

 

[bodie54]

Mattis is implementing the game plan for Syria.

God I hope so.
I actually think our response to this incident made pretty good sense. I'm just amused that when Trump appropriately backs down (or should that be bows down?) due to the circumstances of a particular situation some still hail him as Mr. Tough Guy, whereas when Obama did he was an unmitigated pussy

Do you know more about strategy than he does?

Highly unlikely, but I recall hearing Trump at one point state he knows more than all of his generals.
And after all, in the end, no matter what advise Trump receives from Mattis, the final decision on all things military is Trump's (which should be enough to make anyone lose some sleep).

 

[bodie54]

And what sickens me even more is Trump.
He was suppose to stop this crap.

Well the good news from your perspective is that it appears he's going to make every effort to de-escalate this incident - which had it been Obama would have been referred to instead as bowing down and sucking dick

So instead of allying with the people - Syria, Iran, Russia who are fighting "the terrorists" we are instead attacking them.

Could be wrong but I don't think Russia has any particular interest in fighting ISIS, except insofar as they might become a threat to Russian puppets.

 

[sean miguel]

We really haven't been the good guys for a very long time.
It becomes more and more clear every day the scope of our governments evil.
US soldiers are great people and the American people are good hard working honest folk but the shit perpetrated against the world in our name boggles the mind.
Another Empire.........

U.S. soldiers are not great people if they are perpetrating evil. They have a moral obligation to refuse unlawful orders if they were "great people." Nazi concentration camp guards were after all just following orders, right?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Justaman]

....we should let them have Ukraine. If Obama's MREs weren't enough, we tried.

"Let them have" Ukraine? With all due respect that's a really bad idea. These aren't chess pieces we're talking about here. Ukraine is a sovereign state with 45 million citizens and the second largest nation in Europe (Russia is first). I think Petro Poroshenko and many other Ukrainians would have serious objections to this (in addition to the NATO nations). Russia maintains activity in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in order to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Putin's game is not really an imperial expansion as you might suspect. Rather, he wants to establish a stalemate standoff between east and west, maintain a balance of power based on the MAD principle (because the nuclear threat is really all he has to offer as a deterrent) in order for him to proliferate his authoritarian kleptocracy with total impunity (as if he already isn't??). He knows he has Belarus in his pocket and he'd love to add Ukraine as an additional buffer against NATO. If they weren't already NATO members, it has been speculated that he would make a move to take the Baltic states back. If Ukraine joined NATO, US troops and weaponry could be placed directly on the Russian border. Putin's war in Ukraine is designed to stifle that possibility, the implied threat being that war would likely result between Russia and the NATO members should Ukraine join the organization. Although he'd love to have Ukraine back as a part of the contiguous Russian Federation he'll be happy to simply continue to support the separatist rebels in the eastern oblasts and keep the conflict going to check the possibility that Ukraine would join NATO. The NATO threat is one of the biggest worries that Putin has and it must be maintained at optimal levels and at all cost. Ukraine is a central component in the equation and ensuring its continued sovereignty is of utmost importance in my opinion.

 

[Justaman]

So lets get this straight.
Syria is fighting our enemy in their own country.
We are there militarily against the will of the Syrian government which by every definition is another illegal invasion.
Now we shoot down one of their war planes. We've already killed many of their soldiers "Accidentally".
The reason- "They dropped bombs near where we didn't want them in their own country".
Netanyahoo smiles.
Are we still the good guys?

No, we are the bullys who need to be stopped.
I'd like to see our entire miltary wiped out...for everybodys sake.
Because we suck.

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say. However, I think it must be realized that, unfortunately, this isn't about being good or bad, it's about protecting and expanding spheres of influence. This can be easily cloaked in the never-ending and completely futile attempt to stamp out international Islamic terrorism. The only convenient thing about terrorism is that it gives us the justification to interfere both politically and militarily virtually anywhere we desire. That being said, it must be remembered that Syria, the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, ISIL and many other factions are involved to one degree or another in this horrific conflict. Just take a look at the multitude of various groups that are engaged in activity in the Syrian civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Mind-boggling to say the least. It is an unfortunate truth that we cannot afford to simply sit idly by and let the situation unfold. If we wipe out our military as you suggest our democracy, freedom and culture would topple. Perhaps that's what you want?

 

[meesterperfect]

Yeah thanks but still.
If anyone hasn't caught on by now that the ISIS or Al-Qaeauaeda or whatever name they use this week is part of the US Military and is controlled by them I don't know what you need to figure it out.
Nobody in the US GOV is going to hold up a sign to tell us.

Syria is fighting ISIS in Syria.
So instead of helping Syria fight them we attack THEM.
And put us at risk , a very real risk of war with Russia. What I see is inevitable at this point.
And that will play out like this:
Russia will kick our ass over there and the US instead of trying to work out a peace deal will go nuclear.

And the fucked up thing is that the USA has nothing to gain from any of it. Only Israel does.

Its also come out now that the plane thatwas shot down was targeting ISIS.
So its another example of the US protecting is bearded mercenary proxy army.
Like I said if anyone hasnt caught on by now they are truly propagandized.

Its a lot to accept. Because if its true than 9/11 and the whole "war on terror" is a lie.
And all these fake phony terror attacks which never happen in Israel or Saudi Arabia that ISIS "claims responsibilty for" are lies also.

Anyway the US is in Syria illegally. There is no constitutional reason for us to be there.
Now we are openly attacking their military, an act of war.

We are the bad guys here and we are wrong.

Final thought. Lets say everything I just said was bullshit and you dont believe it.
Fine. But look at our economy, look at the state of our country.
Endless wars caused much of that. We paid for them with borrowed money with interest.
Do we really need more right now?

If there is ever a time to become an anti war activist it's now.
But people won't react until its too late because news media, the entire media has Americans so far removed from reality they haven't a fucking clue about anything.


I say the only hope is if our Military itself, the soldiers, put an end to it.

 

[bodie54]

"Let them have" Ukraine? With all due respect that's a really bad idea.

Yeah it is.

These aren't chess pieces we're talking about here. Ukraine is a sovereign state with 45 million citizens and the second largest nation in Europe (Russia is first).[/QUOTE]

With the great majority feeling more of an affinity for the west than for Russia.

Good analysis of the NATO situation.
The only other thing I'd add is that should the U.S. have a laissez faire enough president and/or one who's looking to barter a larger deal Putin would also be wanting to annex part or all of the Donbass region primarily to create a strategic land bridge between Russia and Crimea.

 

[himperv203]

That Su-22 was steam gauge controlled.
The Superhornet probably took it out from 15 miles away.

The missile probably costed us more than the su 22 itself

 

[sean miguel]

"Let them have" Ukraine? With all due respect that's a really bad idea. These aren't chess pieces we're talking about here. Ukraine is a sovereign state with 45 million citizens and the second largest nation in Europe (Russia is first). I think Petro Poroshenko and many other Ukrainians would have serious objections to this (in addition to the NATO nations). Russia maintains activity in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in order to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Putin's game is not really an imperial expansion as you might suspect. Rather, he wants to establish a stalemate standoff between east and west, maintain a balance of power based on the MAD principle (because the nuclear threat is really all he has to offer as a deterrent) in order for him to proliferate his authoritarian kleptocracy with total impunity (as if he already isn't??). He knows he has Belarus in his pocket and he'd love to add Ukraine as an additional buffer against NATO. If they weren't already NATO members, it has been speculated that he would make a move to take the Baltic states back. If Ukraine joined NATO, US troops and weaponry could be placed directly on the Russian border. Putin's war in Ukraine is designed to stifle that possibility, the implied threat being that war would likely result between Russia and the NATO members should Ukraine join the organization. Although he'd love to have Ukraine back as a part of the contiguous Russian Federation he'll be happy to simply continue to support the separatist rebels in the eastern oblasts and keep the conflict going to check the possibility that Ukraine would join NATO. The NATO threat is one of the biggest worries that Putin has and it must be maintained at optimal levels and at all cost. Ukraine is a central component in the equation and ensuring its continued sovereignty is of utmost importance in my opinion.

If Putin did make a move on the rest of Ukraine, what would we as the U.S. do? Other than slap on further sanctions? There is no Article 5 trigger, and we aren't treaty-bound in any other way to defend them. While we can't extricate ourselves from Afghanistan 16 years later and are having to ramp up our forces there as well as in Iraq and Syria, while a potential full-blown war looms on the Korean peninsula, all while the operational readiness of our armed forces has been hampered by budget restrictions that will take years to recover from. Add to that the war-weary American public, the majority of whom couldn't locate Ukraine on a map of Ukraine. What exactly would we do about it?

For the record, I don't think the rest of Ukraine falling to Putin would be a good thing either. That was more a dig at another poster and the former president he supports.

 

[Justaman]

Yeah it is.

These aren't chess pieces we're talking about here. Ukraine is a sovereign state with 45 million citizens and the second largest nation in Europe (Russia is first).

With the great majority feeling more of an affinity for the west than for Russia.

Correct. The previous government under Yukunovich was very pro-Russia and corrupt as you can get. Conversely, the present administration under Poroshenko is seriously skewed toward the west and the USA. In fact, Poroshenko met with President Trump just a few days ago.

http://www.president.gov.ua/en/photos/robochij-vizit-prezidenta-do-spoluchenih-shtativ-ameriki-1122

It was good to see the president reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine. I'm sure it was duly noted in Moscow.

The only other thing I'd add is that should the U.S. have a laissez faire enough president and/or one who's looking to barter a larger deal Putin would also be wanting to annex part or all of the Donbass region primarily to create a strategic land bridge between Russia and Crimea.

Putin's methodology is to proceed aggressively if he senses weakness or lack of resolve on the part of his adversary. Likewise, if he perceives strength and determination, he will back off. That's why he's fucking with Lithuania's banks via cyber warfare right now. He's probing to see what he can get away with and how the west will react.

http://in.reuters.com/article/lithuania-russia-cyber-idINKBN18X2BY

In addition to the obvious geopolitical benefits that would come with the annexation of the Donbass region, Russia would obtain a substantial industrial and technological complex as well. I'm sure Putin would be very interested in a brokered deal that would include Donetsk and Luhansk (he'd also love to get Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov as well but, unless there is an outright annexation of Ukraine en total, that won't even be a remote possibility) in exchange for peace and a formal recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty but that still doesn't solve the Ukraine-NATO problem for him. Ironically, a cessation of hostilities in the eastern oblasts would provide a peacetime window of opportunity for NATO to approve Ukraine for membership.

If Putin did make a move on the rest of Ukraine, what would we as the U.S. do? Other than slap on further sanctions? There is no Article 5 trigger, and we aren't treaty-bound in any other way to defend them. While we can't extricate ourselves from Afghanistan 16 years later and are having to ramp up our forces there as well as in Iraq and Syria, while a potential full-blown war looms on the Korean peninsula, all while the operational readiness of our armed forces has been hampered by budget restrictions that will take years to recover from. Add to that the war-weary American public, the majority of whom couldn't locate Ukraine on a map of Ukraine. What exactly would we do about it?

For the record, I don't think the rest of Ukraine falling to Putin would be a good thing either. That was more a dig at another poster and the former president he supports.

In all likelihood, we wouldn't do anything other than what you mentioned. Logistically, it would be almost impossible for us to mount any military response (other than the nuclear option). Ukraine is almost landlocked, the only outlet to the water being the Black Sea around the Crimean peninsula. This area is heavily patrolled by Russian naval vessels based in Sevastopol and any attempt to make a seaborne invasion would face very long odds. Forces could go in through eastern Europe but that would technically involve a NATO response and since Ukraine is not a part of the organization, Article 5 would not apply as you mentioned. Putin is playing poker here and betting that treaty obligations will remain static. However, if Ukraine's NATO application were to suddenly be approved, there would be an immediate obligation by all NATO members to come to Ukraine's aid. I don't see that happening since the result would be a full-scale war, at the very least on the conventional level, with an implied nuclear threat being involved. There is no doubt the sanctions are having an effect. Otherwise, Putin wouldn't react in this manner.

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-cancels-ryabkov-shannon-meeting/28571466.html

I think the most likely outcome for the foreseeable future is to maintain the status quo. Putin cannot back out of the conflict for the NATO reasons cited previously. It's in Russia's best interests at this point to maintain the conflict as a stalemate from my perspective.