There's literally a big obvious example in the third paragraph: Here's a more general list from 2014 detailing Russia's increasingly aggresive posutring and brinksmanship with this kind of thing: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html And of course there aer the incidents in Turkey which preceded this one and which the US and NATO warned Russia about almost 2 months ago.
Here's like the first link on google: http://globalnews.ca/news/2358786/russia-has-a-long-history-of-violating-nato-airspace/ http://www.ibtimes.com/despite-nato-warnings-russia-has-history-violating-airspace-turkey-baltics-2198519 I honestly don't know why this is surprising if you've been paying any attention to Russia lately or made even the most cursory effort to look it up. Russia and the US did this kind of crap alot during the Cold War and Russia has been stepping it up recently again. Violating air space or just coming really really close to provoke a response.
Wha? One gets the impression between the complaining about "political correctness" () and the "real ideas and real will" comments that what you actually mean is "they dislike religion so they are better, because reasons".
But all the reformation did in Christianity was breakup parts of that formal hierarchy and create new religions with either separate hierarchies or none at all. And this still persists to this day. The Reformation didn't make Christianity less central to european life and it's silly to link the two. It's probably the horrible wars that sprung from the Reformation (and various other similar incidents) that lead to more religious toleration.
Yeah, that's the thing here. Regardless of whether it was a good idea to shoot the thing down (it wasn't) and regardless of what other people have done, this incident is exactly why these kind of antics, that Russia has been frequently guilty of lately in their bid to reinvigorate national pride via cockwaving, are so damn dangerous. Playing chicken is goddamn stupid.
They go for the other party in the general. Neither party wants to pull the trigger and tell Iowa and NH they aren't special because they are afraid it will cost them the state. Such is the fear. On top of that there is also the internal primary issues in that if the DNC does strip either state of it's position, candidates will then fight over giving it back cause it basically guarantees you a primary win in that state. There's just generally alot of incentives to pander to them and little gain for either parties or individuals for fixing the system.
Staggered primaries can actually be a good thing. They aren't at all rendered obsolete by modern communications speeds. The general argument for them is that they allow lesser known candidates to build momentum in primaries by winning a few early and thus leveraging that into increased support in later ones. All primaries on the same day heavily favours established candidates with national-level name recognition. This, for instance, is how Obama beat Clinton back in 2008. His early wins turned him into a national name and helped his support surge by proving that he could win primaries. And later, proving that he could win white votes. If all primaries were on the same day, he loses to Clinton almost certainly. How much you care about that kind of thing is, obviously, up to you but it's a big factor.
If you are keeping staggered primaries, the order of primaries should definitely be changed though. It won't happen because everyone is afraid of pissing off Iowa and New Hampshire, but the set order is fucking stupid and leads to lots of political distortions.
The portion of the vote shared by the crazies (according to the polls anyway) is larger then 50% though. More moderate primaries in more moderate states may screw him but there's not enough establishment support out there between the not-Cruz/Trump/Carson types to get higher then Trump right now.
The key difference here being that you know about those. The biggest problem with basically every crazy inside job theory is the idea that it could be kept secret. When it comes to this kind of thing, the bigger and crazier your theory gets the less plausible it becomes.
There is a history of this sort of incursion being really dangerous because of exactly this outcome. Which many people (including SoS Kerry as I remember) have been warning Russia about. This seems at this point to be that kind of reckless behaviour finally biting them in the ass.
FYI, looks like torture is back on the menu for the GOP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/23/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it-anyway/ http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/torture-becoming-key-campaign-issue-gop-candidates The GOP is slowly walking from things like "waterboarding isn't torture" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" to just straight up "Yeah, let's torture some people".
Tunisia still has issues with islamist rebels and terrorists and such. I also think I remember reading that AQ (and probably ISIS these days) are trying to hit them to destabilize the government because a functioning democracy in the area where various groups have all learned to at least tolerate one another is a bad precedent for them.