smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
France being France (just trying to sell some wares etc) can justify many things,
There is this example and then there is example of IAF which during Kargil operations assuming that the people on the summit of the various hills were Terrorists (and not Pak army regulars) did not get into Pakistan air space and thus mantaining sanctity of Pakistan, Even during some of the fights, it was more better to attack from Pakistan space and yet keeping the sanctity of another nation and attacked from Indian space and suffering more losses as a result.
Let me give you an unrelated classic example. There was a Soviet guy who was in charge of launching nuclear missiles on Soviet side, and there was a warning that the Americans had launched, He had some data to suggest the Americans had launched and the protocol was that he had to counter launch, but instead of that he waited for the confirmation that there was an actual launch and not a mistake.and it turned out that it was an error and there was no launch, That guy saved the world from nuclear strike..
There are various examples, Turkey when it shot down the Su-24 thhe pilot had trigger finger (same as the Greek pilot) Was the Russian plane hitting turk troops or positions? Russia and Turkey had no conflict. So there was no need for the Turkish plane to open fire on Su-24 rather just plane locking on the plane would have been enough, else to move closer and to show that ".. you are in our air space" Now did the Russian plane actually enter the Turkish air space is another debtate, But then what happened after immediate aftermath? The Russians brought in their Su-30 SM and flew the same route, and the Turks now started to fly 50-100 kms inside their border because the Russians were ordered that if there was a lock from any plane they were free to launch against it. I guess that ensured that in Syrian conflict, both the Turksish F-16 and French Rafales flew well outside the route of Su-30 SM.
Now the action of what you talk turks and Greeks, did the Turkish plane lock on the greek plane trying to show that it plans to get into combat? I dont think so. If the Turkish pilot had also tried to lock on then it would be justified else not. So would that be called a victory? I guess not.
There is another example that I might put, and it depends how you look at it, The French have sent their forces to various theatres, Afghanistan Iraq etc, and of course these forces have killed who you term as Terrorists.
So technically A Foreigner (French) has killed Afghan/Iraqi/Libya etc in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya etc and sometimes these are innocent civilians also. So when some of these nationals blow up and shoot French people in France why should they be termed as terorist when you actually did the same to them?
If you want to justify you can justify. Whats the difference? The French fighter planes were under orders, so were these people, The people killed were innocent civilians in both cases. But the only difference perhaps is that the French did it from Stand off range and these guys did it right in the middle of it? They did not ask France or USA to come and lay their country to waste but yet it happened.
Like I said, if you want to justify, anything can be justified.
Rafale is conducting strikes now in Iraq and where Su-30s are not operating. Su-57 were there for less than a week. But surely after the Su-30 SM arrived Rafales changed their routes and limited their strikes to Iraq and border around Iraq.
Also another point to add here,, prior to Russians coming, The French were conducting strikes for over a 12 months and nothing happened, In fact ISIS became more stronger (seems the French were conducting token bombing to show they are involved) but after the arrival of the Russians, within a year the ISIS is almost destroyed.. Thats the difference.
There is this example and then there is example of IAF which during Kargil operations assuming that the people on the summit of the various hills were Terrorists (and not Pak army regulars) did not get into Pakistan air space and thus mantaining sanctity of Pakistan, Even during some of the fights, it was more better to attack from Pakistan space and yet keeping the sanctity of another nation and attacked from Indian space and suffering more losses as a result.
Let me give you an unrelated classic example. There was a Soviet guy who was in charge of launching nuclear missiles on Soviet side, and there was a warning that the Americans had launched, He had some data to suggest the Americans had launched and the protocol was that he had to counter launch, but instead of that he waited for the confirmation that there was an actual launch and not a mistake.and it turned out that it was an error and there was no launch, That guy saved the world from nuclear strike..
There are various examples, Turkey when it shot down the Su-24 thhe pilot had trigger finger (same as the Greek pilot) Was the Russian plane hitting turk troops or positions? Russia and Turkey had no conflict. So there was no need for the Turkish plane to open fire on Su-24 rather just plane locking on the plane would have been enough, else to move closer and to show that ".. you are in our air space" Now did the Russian plane actually enter the Turkish air space is another debtate, But then what happened after immediate aftermath? The Russians brought in their Su-30 SM and flew the same route, and the Turks now started to fly 50-100 kms inside their border because the Russians were ordered that if there was a lock from any plane they were free to launch against it. I guess that ensured that in Syrian conflict, both the Turksish F-16 and French Rafales flew well outside the route of Su-30 SM.
Now the action of what you talk turks and Greeks, did the Turkish plane lock on the greek plane trying to show that it plans to get into combat? I dont think so. If the Turkish pilot had also tried to lock on then it would be justified else not. So would that be called a victory? I guess not.
There is another example that I might put, and it depends how you look at it, The French have sent their forces to various theatres, Afghanistan Iraq etc, and of course these forces have killed who you term as Terrorists.
So technically A Foreigner (French) has killed Afghan/Iraqi/Libya etc in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya etc and sometimes these are innocent civilians also. So when some of these nationals blow up and shoot French people in France why should they be termed as terorist when you actually did the same to them?
If you want to justify you can justify. Whats the difference? The French fighter planes were under orders, so were these people, The people killed were innocent civilians in both cases. But the only difference perhaps is that the French did it from Stand off range and these guys did it right in the middle of it? They did not ask France or USA to come and lay their country to waste but yet it happened.
Like I said, if you want to justify, anything can be justified.
Rafale is conducting strikes now in Iraq and where Su-30s are not operating. Su-57 were there for less than a week. But surely after the Su-30 SM arrived Rafales changed their routes and limited their strikes to Iraq and border around Iraq.
Also another point to add here,, prior to Russians coming, The French were conducting strikes for over a 12 months and nothing happened, In fact ISIS became more stronger (seems the French were conducting token bombing to show they are involved) but after the arrival of the Russians, within a year the ISIS is almost destroyed.. Thats the difference.
).
