Russian Ambassador shot in Turkey

[Babbylonian]

Depending on who the shooter is, the ambassador might be a legitimate war-target.

Only if the shooter represents people who absolutely hate even the concept of diplomacy. Ambassadors should be considered off-limits for violence by any civilized people. I hate Putin (and, by extension, any representative of his government) as much as anybody but if credentialed ambassadors (and, by extension, their embassies) are to be considered legitimate targets then no one is off-limits.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Putin and Erdogan strike me as two of a kind -- sort of like HItler and Mussolini. This will only bring them closer. It gives Erdogan yet another excuse to extend dictatorial power.

but they are quite at cross-purposes in the region: Erdogan wants Assad gone.

 

[Spindrift]

Wait, why will Russia attack Turkey?

I get that there might be angry calls about Turkish security screw ups... but actually launching an attack... what would be the gain from that? It's far more likely to result in an intensification of Russian attacks in Syria.

Putin doesn't need rational or real excuses to attack his neighbors.

 

[Giz]

Putin doesn't need rational or real excuses to attack his neighbors.

I agree. But Turkey would likely prove indigestible for the Russian bear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Putin and Erdogan strike me as two of a kind -- sort of like HItler and Mussolini. This will only bring them closer. It gives Erdogan yet another excuse to extend dictatorial power.

And yet Russia had implemented some sort of sanctions against Turkey because last year Turkey shot down a Russian jet.

Turkey will not compensate Russia over shooting down of jet

Russia and Turkey are on opposite sides in Syria.

 

[theprestige]

Putin doesn't need rational or real excuses to attack his neighbors.

On the other hand, since Turkey controls Russian access to the Mediterranean, Putin absolutely has a rational reason to view Turkey as a source of risk to Russian interests. And therefore attacking Turkey will always be on Russia's list of rational strategic options. After that, everything is down to circumstance.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Check out that trigger discipline...

Off duty cop

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You think Drumpf will commit troops? Wouldn't shock me but I think his M.O. will be to look the other way as Putin runs ruffshod over the planet.

Who is Drumpf?

 

[Ziggurat]

Who is Drumpf?

Trump.

Apparently some people think it's the height of wit to use the family name his ancestors had several generations back before they anglicised it, as if it's somehow insulting to him. Doesn't really make sense, but as with most school-yard taunts it doesn't really need to.

 

[Stacko]

Check out that trigger discipline...

That is one brave photographer sticking around for that shot.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

On the other hand, since Turkey controls Russian access to the Mediterranean, Putin absolutely has a rational reason to view Turkey as a source of risk to Russian interests. And therefore attacking Turkey will always be on Russia's list of rational strategic options. After that, everything is down to circumstance.

Attacking Turkey, highly unlikely. Using this to put diplomatic pressure on Turkey to tow the Russian line, highly likely. Especially with a new US president that pretty much declared to not want to honour NATO obligations.

 

[beren]

Trump.

Apparently some people think it's the height of wit to use the family name his ancestors had several generations back before they anglicised it, as if it's somehow insulting to him. Doesn't really make sense, but as with most school-yard taunts it doesn't really need to.

While I don't use the name, I do consider it legitimate satire for the following reasons.

1. It sounds "Unamerican" and ties him to his immigrant roots, which I find legitimate grounds for satire given his statements and positions about immigrants.

2. He seems to set a very high store on the value of the name "Trump" valuing, iirc, in the billions. (I may be wrong on the number, am willing to be corrected.) I consider this sort of self-obsession mockable.

3. He once made fun of Jon Stewart for changing his name.


I think there is great value in the use of satire and other forms of mockery to expose the foibles of the powerful (yes, even the ones I actually like.) I, personally, consider this particular one to be rather weak and ineffective, but there is at least a small reason for it.

Opinions, of course, will vary.

 

[Shiner]

So does anyone have a rational, or logical reason why this might lead to military action by Russia against Turkey? This appears to be the action of a rogue pro-Syrian terrorist. Why would Putin take it as an act of war by Turkey?

Sounds like more of the same old narrative. And of course we have to attempt to tie Trump into the conspiracy theory. It's not a good look. It smells of desperation.

 

[Dr.Sid]

That is one brave photographer sticking around for that shot.

All the pictures and video comes from single static camera. The ambassador was holding a speech. The person controlling the camera clearly ran away and jerked the camera in the process (visible in the video) but after that there are no more inputs. The shot is static.

It's almost too well shot ..

PS. no pun intended throughout this post. Blame English ..

 

[kookbreaker]

While I don't use the name, I do consider it legitimate satire for the following reasons.

1. It sounds "Unamerican" and ties him to his immigrant roots, which I find legitimate grounds for satire given his statements and positions about immigrants.

2. He seems to set a very high store on the value of the name "Trump" valuing, iirc, in the billions. (I may be wrong on the number, am willing to be corrected.) I consider this sort of self-obsession mockable.

3. He once made fun of Jon Stewart for changing his name.


I think there is great value in the use of satire and other forms of mockery to expose the foibles of the powerful (yes, even the ones I actually like.) I, personally, consider this particular one to be rather weak and ineffective, but there is at least a small reason for it.

Opinions, of course, will vary.

While I can see that, I also think using "Drumpf" smacks too much of anti-Hun hysteria, which may have been a cause for the family name change (and nothing to do with immigration when it happened). Any irony in its usage is pretty much wasted on Trump anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

While I don't use the name, I do consider it legitimate satire for the following reasons.

Sure, it's "legitimate". It's just lame.

 

[Spindrift]

Trump.

Apparently some people think it's the height of wit to use the family name his ancestors had several generations back before they anglicised it, as if it's somehow insulting to him. Doesn't really make sense, but as with most school-yard taunts it doesn't really need to.

Correct, it's like libtard, Democrat Party, leftist, Killary, etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

So does anyone have a rational, or logical reason why this might lead to military action by Russia against Turkey? This appears to be the action of a rogue pro-Syrian terrorist. Why would Putin take it as an act of war by Turkey?

You have that backwards. This would be an anti-Assad terrorist, killing the Russian ambassador because Russia is helping Assad kill civilians in Aleppo. And Turkey is on the other side of that conflict: they support (some of) the Syrian rebels against Assad. I doubt this will lead to direct war, but it absolutely will increase tension, and could spill over into more proxy conflict.

 

[NoahFence]

Sure, it's "legitimate". It's just lame.

So is "Crooked Hillary".

Need a safe space?

 

[Shiner]

You have that backwards. This would be an anti-Assad terrorist, killing the Russian ambassador because Russia is helping Assad kill civilians in Aleppo. And Turkey is on the other side of that conflict: they support (some of) the Syrian rebels against Assad. I doubt this will lead to direct war, but it absolutely will increase tension, and could spill over into more proxy conflict.

I stand corrected. I worded that the wrong way. I'm aware of the structure of the conflict. I agree that diplomatic tensions are unavoidable in this scenario.

But this talk of WW3, and the US ditching NATO?