Timeline for Did the US (ab)use the "deconfliction channel" with Russia to shoot the Syrian Su-22 plane? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 24, 2017 at 10:28 | comment | added | user541686 | @Sklivvz: Is that a no? | |
| Jun 24, 2017 at 9:44 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @Mehrdad there is a difference between asking someone to explain a decision and asking someone to defend themselves against accusations of bias. Seeing no comment is absolutely not a justification for the second. | |
| Jun 24, 2017 at 0:28 | comment | added | user541686 | @Sklivvz: Thanks for the reply. Any chance in the future you could at least leave a comment or something so the OP has a chance to respond before you single-handedly close a question with the modhammer? I wouldn't have thought this was politically motivated if anyone else wanted to close it, but when you close a political question without giving anyone a chance to discuss it at all, and your provided reason isn't crystal-clearly-obvious (e.g. there was no sign anyone is "investigating" this like you claimed, so at least a link showing that would've gone a lone way) it really isn't helpful. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 18:31 | comment | added | vartec | @Andrew in 2012 version the Wolverines fight North Koreans ;-) | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 16:52 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Regarding the accusations of being politically motivated, please leave this behavior at the door on this site. It will get you nowhere close to a reopened question, whether it's accusing me, other mods or other users. Just don't. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 16:50 | comment | added | Sklivvz | There are multiple reasons why this is closed: 1) it's asking for an opinion on whether a fact is an abuse; 2) we are talking about events which still have no historical analysis and only rely on news which are generally not reliable in these cases; 3) it is a false dichotomy to ask whether something is true or fake news (most stuff is inaccurate to some degree, what you consider fake news is subjective). | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 9:27 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 23, 2017 at 14:28 | |||||
| Jun 23, 2017 at 9:19 | comment | added | ChrisW | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 9:16 | comment | added | user541686 | @ChrisW: Uhm, I'd already edited the question to remove the "lie" part, but the entire point of the question is figuring out whether they specifically avoided telling Russia about the fact that they will be downing a plane because they might otherwise not have been able to fly through. i.e., to figure out if the quoted section is true. You know that means I'm not merely asking if "a deconfliction channel" was "used" to "communicate with Russia", so why waste my time on that... | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 9:05 | comment | added | ChrisW |
Yes if you change the question from "lie by abusing the channel" to simply "using the channel" then I think it's answerable and maybe easy to answer ... it's all over the news, e.g. The Washington Post says, Before it downed the Syrian plane, the U.S. military used a “deconfliction” channel to communicate with Russia, Syria’s main ally, to prevent the situation from escalating, the Pentagon said., which I think would be a satisfactory answer (and a little further search might find more details elsewhere for a better answer).
|
|
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:51 | comment | added | user541686 | @ChrisW: "Lie" I was a word I saw used by the person referring to this article, I just ended up copying it in the title. I removed it. Are you happy now? I'm literally just asking for evidence supporting that these events happened... you can call them whatever you want... | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:50 | history | edited | user541686 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:26 | comment | added | ChrisW | "Lie" isn't even mentioned in the source you quoted in the OP. The quote says "not having announced their intention" which you paraphrase/interpret as "lie" ... which IMO adds more ambiguity to the question (i.e. "is "'not announcing' the same as 'lying'?"). | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:20 | comment | added | ChrisW | I find it hard to imagine: e.g. I imagine if Le Monde or someone happened to report on the incident, they would report known facts and not include a statement about whether the US did or didn't lie. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:12 | comment | added | user541686 | @ChrisW: A media report from outside a mostly-neutral (and possibly not-English- or Russian-speaking) third-party country would go a long way toward convincing me. (Maybe even from a non-neutral country but a reasonably reputable outlet would too... it just depends on the content.) Hell, even backing up the circumstancial evidence with reputable reports would go a long way. Is it really that hard to imagine something more convincing than an article from an unreputable outlet that cites zero sources? | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 7:53 | comment | added | ChrisW | Other questions in the past e.g. "Who used chemical weapons in Syria: was it the Syrian government, or was it anti-government fighters like ISIS?" have been closed on this site for a similar reason (i.e. "unresolved current events"). There are reports in various newspapers from various countries, maybe quoting government officials, maybe contradicting each other ... and no imaginable way to get evidence or an answer that's more authoritative than that. If anyone does acquire suitable evidence and wants to use it in an answer, then they can ask for the question to be reopened, | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 7:47 | comment | added | ChrisW | The question asked was, "Did the US lie to Russia?" but what evidence do you hope someone could present? If they did lie wouldn't that be a national secret? If they didn't lie, how would you prove a negative? One may ask these kinds of questions about the second world war, for example, where documents have been declassified and historians have written about it; but I can only imagine people presenting circumstantial evidence (e.g. "They flew in from the west and weren't shot down")... which wouldn't be more nor less solid than the evidence presented in the OP. So this question is unanswerable? | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 6:53 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | Merhdad: Please raise a flag or a meta-question, so @Sklivvz can see the accusation and defend himself (if required). Part of our "Be Nice" policy is assuming good intentions of other users, including moderators. Jumping to presumptions about political motivations isn't helpful. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 6:09 | comment | added | Andrew | @vartec Woooolveriiiines | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 3:43 | comment | added | user541686 | @Oddthinking: If I'm being frank it seems pretty politically motivated from my perspective, even if it wasn't. (I see no evidence otherwise, and the fact that it was done so silently and single-handedly such that I wouldn't have even been aware without checking back supports that fact.) could you guys talk about it and please re-open it and let the community decide at least? Although now I'm worried someone will re-close it even if you do open it just because someone's already lit the match, but still... | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 3:37 | comment | added | user541686 | @Oddthinking: Sklivvz closed this, but I don't understand why. Who is currently "investigating" this issue? I'm not under the impression either the US or Russia is investigating this issue; Sklivvs certainly hasn't provided any evidence to that effect. How does that work? Couldn't he at last hold off on the mod-hammer and let the community close it if it deemed this off-topic? Literally nobody else has agreed with him as far as I can see. I'm really upset that it seems people are trying to get rid of this question either by dismissing the premise or closing it just because they don't like it.. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 23:28 | history | closed | Sklivvz | Not suitable for this site | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | vartec | Soviets? What year is this?! | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 13:43 | comment | added | Federico | @jwenting "after the Soviets announced" I am pretty sure that the announcement came AFTER the incident, not before. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 13:39 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | @jwenting: [citation-needed] | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 13:37 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | What does deconfliction mean? An answer | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 13:22 | comment | added | Ben Barden | @jwenting ...or the US was engaging in brinksmanship and Russia blinked. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 9:53 | comment | added | jwenting | they shot down a Syrian aircraft, they flew over Soviet manned SAM batteries after the Soviets announced they'd consider the US or anyone else except them and the Syrians flying there an act of war. So either there was an agreement with the US to allow them to be there OR someone's trying to save face who failed to do his duty. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 9:51 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 22, 2017 at 23:32 | |||||
| Jun 22, 2017 at 9:38 | comment | added | user541686 | @jwenting: I'm not debating what to call it; I'm asking if these events did occur. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 8:02 | comment | added | jwenting | honour bound? More likely told to not create an international incident and potentially a major war by engaging in open combat with US forces. Rules of Engagement... | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 7:35 | history | asked | user541686 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |