SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The administration said. So these are trainers only, and not combat troops?
Or are they combat troops? Because special forces implies combat troops.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The war in Syria (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Geezil
- Start date
Or are they combat troops? Because special forces implies combat troops.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
50 is the right number (if god forbid they get killed) to start WWIII. Nation will be substantially upset without being horrified (if it were something like 500). This is so ####### stupid. Like 50 Soldiers can make a difference in that region. Again I can't help but feel they are sacrififical lambs for some game the US is hellbent on playing with Russia.
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
higgins
Footballguy
Why Obama Should Just Let Putin Have the Mess in SyriaOne way or another, the war in Syria will remain a hopeless mess -- best we leave it to Moscow.
But Putin is setting himself up for disappointment. That’s because there is no political solution to the Syria crisis: Russia’s purported aspiration to hold talks with the “full spectrum” of rebel groups in Syria will inevitably fail because that spectrum plainly includes hard-line Islamists and the Islamic State — contingents that neither Washington nor Moscow is prepared to deal with. In the absence of a political solution, recapturing areas held by Islamist rebels will necessarily involve a long, bitter fight to the death — a fight that Assad, Iranian proxies, and now the Russians are stuck with.
The idea that Putin’s decision to deploy several dozen aircraft to prop up Assad resembles some strategic masterstroke is a fantasy. Those in the Beltway crowd who say Washington should aggressively escalate to counter Moscow’s move in Syria are wrong. Drawing Russia into the Syrian swamp is, in fact, the best opportunity the Obama administration has had in months to weaken Putin.
Conversely, Putin’s Syria strategy isn’t tough to grasp. The location of Russian strikes in Syria in recent weeks suggests that he wants to help Assad and his Shiite militia proxies connect government-held areas in Homs to those in Aleppo by clearing Latakia, Hama, and Idlib provinces of non-Islamic State rebels. If successful, this campaign would eliminate most of the rebel groups in these areas, ranging from the sorry remnants of the CIA-equipped Free Syrian Army to al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, leaving the Islamic State and the Kurds as the only serious fighters left in northern Syria. Washington and its allies, by Putin’s calculation, would be forced to accept Assad as the only option to take on the Islamic State in the Sunni parts of northern and central Syria. Assad stays in power. Putin becomes the new regional power broker. And U.S. regional hegemony is upended.
Given that Putin actually has a political strategy, Western criticism of him for failing to drop more than a few token bombs on the Islamic State while directing his strikes at non-Islamic State rebels is faintly ridiculous. The United States, by contrast, has settled on the apolitical aim of “degrading” the Islamic State without explaining how its bombing campaign in Syria ends, politically. Who does the White House imagine will control territory cleared of the Islamic State, for example? We don’t know.
Rather than condemning Putin for acting in Russia’s self-interest, both the White House and its hawkish critics in Washington should instead focus on his plan’s glaring weakness: the political and fiscal credibility he will lose while trying to bolster Assad and broker an unattainable political solution. What lies ahead for those defending what’s left of the crumbling Syrian state is an open-ended counterinsurgency nightmare.
Those in Washington who want the White House to escalate in Syria to counter Putin must first understand that, as things currently stand, he can’t deliver a negotiated end to the war. There just isn’t one. Consider the facts on the ground. Leaving aside the Kurds, there are likely no moderate rebels left in Syria with whom to broker a political solution. If there were, Washington wouldn’t have abandoned its program to train a cadre of them after finding only a few dozen (who seemingly had no will to fight, anyway). Following that fiasco, the burden is on the Obama administration to prove that the “moderate rebels” are anything other than a fiction. Conversely, there is ample evidence that many of the non-Islamic State rebels who would have to be part of such a solution are in fact hard-line Islamists.
This is why the very idea of a political solution, whoever the broker, is largely a fantastic projection of our desire for an end to the Syrian civil war, rather than a project anchored in reality. There simply isn’t going to be a deal with hard-line Islamists, let alone the Islamic State, regardless of whether the counterparty is Assad, Russia, the West, regional powers, or some combination thereof. Can we seriously imagine al-Nusra Front, the major non-Islamic State rebel group, coming anywhere close to the negotiating table to discuss a “pluralistic Syria”? No. It’s a fantasy.
Rather, the endpoint in much of the Islamist rebel- and Islamic State-held areas is a bitter fight to the death. This is not the kind of fight with a decisive military endpoint. Once the ground is cleared, troops will need to stay in place to hold it and restore order. And if the Iraq War showed anything, holding ground against a follow-on insurgency is where the open-ended nightmare of daisy chain IEDs, unseen snipers, and sectarian bloodletting begins.
There should be no doubt that an insurgency would rise in the Sunni heartlands of Syria in territory recaptured from hard-line Islamist rebels or the Islamic State. The intense grievances that motivated rebellion against Assad won’t suddenly evaporate. Such an insurgency will last either until a political solution is imposed militarily, which could involve forcing Islamist rebel- or Islamic State-held areas back into the Syrian state, or partitioning the areas into autonomous political units. Or, if no such political solution arises, whoever overtly claims to control the ground will need to permanently garrison and subjugate the territory with militias — think Chechnya on steroids. Either way, this is a road to quagmire.
If Putin doubles down on his support for Assad, he will be drawn further into the swamp. When he fails to deliver a political solution, his play for influence in the Middle East will look ridiculous. But he’ll still be stuck with Assad, given the capital he has invested in his survival. Can Putin break free of this deadlock? No. He can’t realistically afford to escalate much further, given the state of the Russian economy and the still-vivid memories of the former Soviet Union’s experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The cost of the Russian campaign — somewhere between $2.3 million and $4 million a day, by one estimate — may not look like much now, but it will start to add up.
The bottom line is that Putin is stuck in Syria, as are the hard-liners in Tehran who are backing the Shiite militias on the ground. That’s not a bad thing if you want to see them weakened. Assad is a lead weight dragging Putin down, not a life raft that will keep Russian power afloat in the Middle East.
The Obama administration should view this as an opportunity to hand as much of the Syrian mess over to Putin as possible, rather than admonishing him for ramping up Russia’s involvement. Put differently, President Barack Obama could use this moment to devise a real political strategy, rather than oscillating between moralizing tirades against Putin’s support for what remains of the Syrian state and the apolitical, meaningless mission of degrading the Islamic State. U.S. strikes in Syria should only be tied to positively defined goals, such as counterterrorism to defend U.S. interests, stopping the Islamic State from resupplying operations to Iraq, or supporting Kurdish enclaves. Then, at least, we would start to understand who the Obama administration sees as having de facto control of ground cleared from the Islamic State or Islamist rebels, since that’s about as close to a political solution as we’re likely to see in Syria.
- By Emile Simpson
- October 29, 2015
But Putin is setting himself up for disappointment. That’s because there is no political solution to the Syria crisis: Russia’s purported aspiration to hold talks with the “full spectrum” of rebel groups in Syria will inevitably fail because that spectrum plainly includes hard-line Islamists and the Islamic State — contingents that neither Washington nor Moscow is prepared to deal with. In the absence of a political solution, recapturing areas held by Islamist rebels will necessarily involve a long, bitter fight to the death — a fight that Assad, Iranian proxies, and now the Russians are stuck with.
The idea that Putin’s decision to deploy several dozen aircraft to prop up Assad resembles some strategic masterstroke is a fantasy. Those in the Beltway crowd who say Washington should aggressively escalate to counter Moscow’s move in Syria are wrong. Drawing Russia into the Syrian swamp is, in fact, the best opportunity the Obama administration has had in months to weaken Putin.
Conversely, Putin’s Syria strategy isn’t tough to grasp. The location of Russian strikes in Syria in recent weeks suggests that he wants to help Assad and his Shiite militia proxies connect government-held areas in Homs to those in Aleppo by clearing Latakia, Hama, and Idlib provinces of non-Islamic State rebels. If successful, this campaign would eliminate most of the rebel groups in these areas, ranging from the sorry remnants of the CIA-equipped Free Syrian Army to al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, leaving the Islamic State and the Kurds as the only serious fighters left in northern Syria. Washington and its allies, by Putin’s calculation, would be forced to accept Assad as the only option to take on the Islamic State in the Sunni parts of northern and central Syria. Assad stays in power. Putin becomes the new regional power broker. And U.S. regional hegemony is upended.
Given that Putin actually has a political strategy, Western criticism of him for failing to drop more than a few token bombs on the Islamic State while directing his strikes at non-Islamic State rebels is faintly ridiculous. The United States, by contrast, has settled on the apolitical aim of “degrading” the Islamic State without explaining how its bombing campaign in Syria ends, politically. Who does the White House imagine will control territory cleared of the Islamic State, for example? We don’t know.
Rather than condemning Putin for acting in Russia’s self-interest, both the White House and its hawkish critics in Washington should instead focus on his plan’s glaring weakness: the political and fiscal credibility he will lose while trying to bolster Assad and broker an unattainable political solution. What lies ahead for those defending what’s left of the crumbling Syrian state is an open-ended counterinsurgency nightmare.
Those in Washington who want the White House to escalate in Syria to counter Putin must first understand that, as things currently stand, he can’t deliver a negotiated end to the war. There just isn’t one. Consider the facts on the ground. Leaving aside the Kurds, there are likely no moderate rebels left in Syria with whom to broker a political solution. If there were, Washington wouldn’t have abandoned its program to train a cadre of them after finding only a few dozen (who seemingly had no will to fight, anyway). Following that fiasco, the burden is on the Obama administration to prove that the “moderate rebels” are anything other than a fiction. Conversely, there is ample evidence that many of the non-Islamic State rebels who would have to be part of such a solution are in fact hard-line Islamists.
This is why the very idea of a political solution, whoever the broker, is largely a fantastic projection of our desire for an end to the Syrian civil war, rather than a project anchored in reality. There simply isn’t going to be a deal with hard-line Islamists, let alone the Islamic State, regardless of whether the counterparty is Assad, Russia, the West, regional powers, or some combination thereof. Can we seriously imagine al-Nusra Front, the major non-Islamic State rebel group, coming anywhere close to the negotiating table to discuss a “pluralistic Syria”? No. It’s a fantasy.
Rather, the endpoint in much of the Islamist rebel- and Islamic State-held areas is a bitter fight to the death. This is not the kind of fight with a decisive military endpoint. Once the ground is cleared, troops will need to stay in place to hold it and restore order. And if the Iraq War showed anything, holding ground against a follow-on insurgency is where the open-ended nightmare of daisy chain IEDs, unseen snipers, and sectarian bloodletting begins.
There should be no doubt that an insurgency would rise in the Sunni heartlands of Syria in territory recaptured from hard-line Islamist rebels or the Islamic State. The intense grievances that motivated rebellion against Assad won’t suddenly evaporate. Such an insurgency will last either until a political solution is imposed militarily, which could involve forcing Islamist rebel- or Islamic State-held areas back into the Syrian state, or partitioning the areas into autonomous political units. Or, if no such political solution arises, whoever overtly claims to control the ground will need to permanently garrison and subjugate the territory with militias — think Chechnya on steroids. Either way, this is a road to quagmire.
If Putin doubles down on his support for Assad, he will be drawn further into the swamp. When he fails to deliver a political solution, his play for influence in the Middle East will look ridiculous. But he’ll still be stuck with Assad, given the capital he has invested in his survival. Can Putin break free of this deadlock? No. He can’t realistically afford to escalate much further, given the state of the Russian economy and the still-vivid memories of the former Soviet Union’s experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The cost of the Russian campaign — somewhere between $2.3 million and $4 million a day, by one estimate — may not look like much now, but it will start to add up.
The bottom line is that Putin is stuck in Syria, as are the hard-liners in Tehran who are backing the Shiite militias on the ground. That’s not a bad thing if you want to see them weakened. Assad is a lead weight dragging Putin down, not a life raft that will keep Russian power afloat in the Middle East.
The Obama administration should view this as an opportunity to hand as much of the Syrian mess over to Putin as possible, rather than admonishing him for ramping up Russia’s involvement. Put differently, President Barack Obama could use this moment to devise a real political strategy, rather than oscillating between moralizing tirades against Putin’s support for what remains of the Syrian state and the apolitical, meaningless mission of degrading the Islamic State. U.S. strikes in Syria should only be tied to positively defined goals, such as counterterrorism to defend U.S. interests, stopping the Islamic State from resupplying operations to Iraq, or supporting Kurdish enclaves. Then, at least, we would start to understand who the Obama administration sees as having de facto control of ground cleared from the Islamic State or Islamist rebels, since that’s about as close to a political solution as we’re likely to see in Syria.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
So ####### dumb
msommer
Footballguy
How would you start WW III without the military?That's right.......Charge.......Using our military as pawns to start WWIII.Obama should be impeached.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well Russians killing Americans or Americans killing Russians would not be a good situation. It's a crowded shooting gallery over there right now. We also are both running bombing raids.How would you start WW III without the military?That's right.......Charge.......Using our military as pawns to start WWIII.Obama should be impeached.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Higgins as usual thanks for the quality reading.
It's not just the above, it's just that it's too late. Ceding hard military presence to the Russians was a foreseeable event of evacuating the Levant and then also allowing Assad to survive. It was also foreseeable for Bush if his long term nation building projects (plural) failed. It's like a chess board, we evacuated this square, now the Russians have their rook on it, we cannot move them off it unless we take it.
Also btw the Afghans are negotiating weapons purchases with the Russians. Hence the latest decision by Obama to stay there indefinitely instead of withdrawing. Lesson learned there at least I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Assad will hand power down to his son, as his father did to him, it is a defacto monarchy. - And, there is no strategy, how are we "degrading" them? What is the physical goal there? As pointed out on 60 Minutes ISIS has grown since Obama announced his policy. They are on the outskirts of Damascus, have taken on governmental stature (like delivering water and electricity) and they are now in Libya (where like Iraq we overthrew the regime, and it's now chaos) and Sudan.
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Unless they did it by sabotage, that seems highly unlikely. The plane was at an altitude that would have required more than a shoulder fired missile and the pilot reported having trouble with the plane before it crashed. I also read that the plane exhibited pretty classic stalling behavior before it crashed (quick climb, reduction in airspeed from 400ish knots to under 100 knots, rapid descent).
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Just a reminder - Iraq used to be Russia's client state. They have a history together as allies dating back to the 50s. It was only in the 70s-80s that we started to coop Hussein as one of "our b@stards" and the Iranian revolution sealed that deal. Now it's flipped again, the Shiites are in power. The Iranians and Russians are likely to going to completely bring them into that entente soon.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Oh hey we're supplying antiaircraft guns to and missiles to our rebel friends, aren't we? I haven't read this report so I'm not saying that happened here but it's an example of the kind of thing that could happen that we saw in East Ukraine. US "advisors" "advising" guerillas on how to fire on enemy aircraft, in Syria being Russian. This situation is full with risk.
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
As far as I know we've explicitly not provided shoulder fired anti air missiles for this reason (I swear I've read an article about it in the last couple of months, too lazy to search for it right now). However, you also need a much larger AA system to take down an aircraft at those altitudes, something like a mobile vehicle with a targeting radar system. Not impossible for IS to have, but highly doubtful especially in that area given that those system have to be driven around and are not in any way inconspicuous.
I did read an article speculating that, if IS really did take it down, they might have either used a bomb on board or shot it down with a shoulder fired missile after the plane descended for other reasons.
Found the articles:
From Oct 2nd:
From Oct 15th:
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well the Russians have just gotten theer, but I think the rebels (as opposed to IS) have had SAM type missiles for a while. Now you are right though I think, not from us.
As for Isis, who knows, it's amazing how they have built such a fighting force which is so well armed so quickly, I don't think it's just from the leftover stuff that our Iraqi allies left behind while running away. But Isis has obtained impressive capabilities somehow.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I have not heard anyone talk about something that really scares the hell out of me.
If we have men on the ground working with rebels in Syria and Russia is attacking all rebels regardless of whom they are because they do not see the difference between Daesh and any other rebel group- what happens if the Russians kill US military members on a bombing raid?
If we have men on the ground working with rebels in Syria and Russia is attacking all rebels regardless of whom they are because they do not see the difference between Daesh and any other rebel group- what happens if the Russians kill US military members on a bombing raid?
cstu
Footballguy
And as long as the Assads have power it will remain a stalemate, which like it or not is a strategy. There is no 'physical goal', only to contain ISIS while keeping Assad weak.
msommer
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
Saddam was a mistake, but Gadaffi was a real head scratcher. He was an ally at the time. Still don't understand the rationalization behind that one.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Right. So what is our goal here? We put boots on the ground to help them overthrow Assad? Same thing, that is a strategy, is that what we are doing?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Then why boot US boots on the ground to aid rebels overthrow Assad? - Btw, we're not containing Isis, they have metastasized. The rebels are fighting Assad, as is Isis.
Last edited by a moderator:
tri-man 47
Footballguy
I just don't get it. I don't see that anyone we support in Syria will come out of this with any sort of "win." By getting involved in this manner, we keep ourselves visibly in play, and it's just too messy for that.
Mark Davis
Footballguy
I don't get it either. There are finally a few political figures admitting we would have been better with Saddam, Gaddhafi, etc staying in power and in this case Assad. We can't nation build and the logical people to fill a vacuum should Assad go are the radicals. The Russians and Iranians are propping him up, and while he is a bad guy, it seems to me we are better off with him there than ISIS or some other radical faction. Assad isn't a direct threat to the U.S. I think we are fooling ourselves right now to think there is a 3rd option other than the binary choice of Assad or radicals. Personally I'd rather have Assad and even better if the Russians want to spend their money and lives there.
Last edited by a moderator:
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
In every instance that we have over thrown a dictator in the Middle East, the situation has become worse. But I am sure this one will work out fine.
msommer
Footballguy
Don't think there was ever much chance of a 'win' in Syria. Maybe this move is to prop up the secular resistance to keep the chance of a three way 'stalemate' alive. Dunno
Seems rather short-sighted imo - the only person to give less of a #### than any ISIS member is Putin.
Its more likely that Obama ordered the airplane shot down than ISIS actually downed a Russian airplane.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline).
But the
in me thinks if the US really wanted to deal with ISIS, the most effective way would be to utilize the Russian military, which may be less constrained in what it can do in the region than the US military...what better way to get the Russian military involved than to suggest ISIS downed a civilian Russian airline?
Last edited by a moderator:
I was just reading a story that, through great journalism, was quite convincing that this was Israel's doing. As we all know Israel has been a great ally to ISIS, providing weapons and training and intell, and so when Russia started putting down Israel's pet dogs, they decided to strike at Russian civilians... Freaking crazy, hopefully the UN will invade them.Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline).
But the
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Y9u have a link to this great journalism?I was just reading a story that, through great journalism, was quite convincing that this was Israel's doing. As we all know Israel has been a great ally to ISIS, providing weapons and training and intell, and so when Russia started putting down Israel's pet dogs, they decided to strike at Russian civilians... Freaking crazy, hopefully the UN will invade them.Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline).
But the
Are you trying to insuate my integaritity is on level with Chris Kyle's?Y9u have a link to this great journalism?I was just reading a story that, through great journalism, was quite convincing that this was Israel's doing. As we all know Israel has been a great ally to ISIS, providing weapons and training and intell, and so when Russia started putting down Israel's pet dogs, they decided to strike at Russian civilians... Freaking crazy, hopefully the UN will invade them.Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline).
But the
No I accidentetly closed the tab without bookmarking.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
No, I was asking for the link to the journalism you said was great. You could look in your browser's history.Are you trying to insuate my integaritity is on level with Chris Kyle's?Y9u have a link to this great journalism?I was just reading a story that, through great journalism, was quite convincing that this was Israel's doing. As we all know Israel has been a great ally to ISIS, providing weapons and training and intell, and so when Russia started putting down Israel's pet dogs, they decided to strike at Russian civilians... Freaking crazy, hopefully the UN will invade them.Mostly because i don't think ISIS would shoot down a Russian airline (or blowup a Russian airline).
But the
No I accidentetly closed the tab without bookmarking.
Sand
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
Mark Davis
Footballguy
I think we can be pro-democracy without actively trying to intervene in the affairs of another country militarily. I think it's different if there is a legitimate democratic movement that has a true chance to govern and the government in place is a direct threat to us. In Libya, I don't see where there was ever any hope of a stable democracy emerging in Libya, so by default leaving it in the hands of Gaddafi was our best option. He also was no threat to the United States. It wasn't too hard to forsee that Libya would dissolve into a free for all and haven for radical militants once Gaddafi was removed. It's the same song, just a different verse. I'm not sure why it would be any different from the other quagmires in the region.Gaddafi wasn't an ally,
We cannot claim to be pro-democracy if we refuse to encourage it by helping to prop up dictators who agree to serve our goals.
msommer
Footballguy
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34692132
Sinai plane crash: What caused it?
- 6 hours ago
- From the sectionMiddle East
Image copyrightEPAEgyptian and international experts have begun their investigation into why a Russian airliner carrying 224 people crashed in the north of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, killing all on board.
What will be their main lines of inquiry?
Technical fault?Egypt's prime minister has said a technical fault was the most likely cause of the disaster, but that it would be up to the air accident investigators "to prove or deny this".
Egypt's civil aviation minister Hossam Kamal said there had been no sign of any problems on board the flight, contradicting earlier reports that the pilot had asked to make an emergency landing after experiencing technical problems.
In Russia, the wife of the plane's co-pilot, Sergei Trukhachev, told NTV that said her husband had complained the plane's condition "left much to be desired" during a telephone call before the flight left Sharm el-Sheikh.
But the Kogalymavia airline has insisted the 18-year-old plane was fully airworthy, and Hossam Kamal said that "there were no reports that the airplane had faults, the checks done before takeoff did not reveal anything".
Human error?The airline has said that the pilot - who reports identified as Valery Nemov - had more than 12,000 hours of flying experience, including 3,860 hours in A321s and that there was no reason to suspect that "crew error" was a factor in the disaster.
But the aircraft's "black boxes" - the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, both of which have been found - will provide investigators with detail on the last minutes of the flight and enable them to deduce whether any actions taken by the flight crew caused or contributed to the crash - which happened during fine weather.
The CVR records the voices of the pilots and other sounds from the cockpit. It retains two hours of recording - on longer flights, the latest data is recorded over the oldest.
The FDR records technical flight data, including at least five basic sets of information: pressure altitude, airspeed, heading, acceleration and microphone keying (the time radio transmissions were made by the crew).
Both recorders are designed to withstand a massive impact and a fire reaching temperatures up to 1,100C for 60 minutes.
Shot down by missile?Image copyrightEPASecurity experts have poured scorn on claims from jihadis allied to the Islamic State (IS) group, who are active in the Sinai area, that they downed Flight KGL9268, but examinations of the aircraft wreckage and debris field will enable investigators to definitively pronounce on this theory.
A senior Russian aviation official has confirmed that the plane broke up in mid-air. But Viktor Sorochenko said it was too early to draw conclusions about the causes of the disaster from that fact.
The jet was cruising well above the maximum range of any surface-to-air missile that the jihadists are thought to possess. These are far less powerful than the vehicle-borne Buk system that shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine last year.
Experts have also questioned the logic of why Islamic State's Sinai affiliate would risk inviting a massive international retaliation by such an action when its battle is primarily with the Egyptian state.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says that with Russia fighting a war against IS in Syria, and Egypt's fragile economy in desperate need of tourists, both countries will be hoping this has nothing to do with terrorism.
Bomb on board?Image copyrightAPImage captionEgyptian PM Sherif Ismail ® has dismissed claims from Islamic State that it was responsibleAnalysing the aircraft's black boxes will help investigators determine what caused it to suddenly plummet from the sky.
No hard evidence has emerged to suggest that a bomb on board the plane caused the crash - and there are questions about how a would-be bomber would evade heightened security measures around Sharm el Sheikh airport - but one expert told the BBC that descriptions of the wreckage indicate that such an event remains a possibility.
Professor Michael Clarke, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said: "Early reports said that [the aircraft] split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but that suggests perhaps an explosion on board.
"So I'd be much more inclined to think if we have to guess at this stage, it's much more likely to have been a bomb on board rather than a missile fired from the ground."
Again, analysis of the main wreckage site and the debris field will enable investigators to evaluate this theory.
