Turkey trying to goad the West into attacking Assad

originally posted by: Willtell
It’s crystal clear this running dog Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has made a deal with the devil, ISIS. What leader in his right mind would want a mad group of lunatics on their border like ISIS?

The release and exchange of those hostages has proven this also.

I think you're right about the hostage situation. Did they secure their release by guaranteeing they would not intervene against the Kurds? Win, win situation for them.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

With no international backing, no one apart the most rabid, right-wing US president would go it alone against Iran - they'd never get the UNSC clearance for it for starters and would find it impossible to justify, regardless what those bastards in Israel say.

Oh, and they didn't get rid of Europe's last dictator in Kosovo - not that the Serbian President could have really been called a dictator anyway - as the President of Belarus holds that title.

The Turks appear to be using the Kurds as a bargaining chip - they will intervene but only if the West agree's that toppling Assad is on the agenda, which is a problem for some of the Western nations, not least the UK.

originally posted by: stumason
I know there will be those who won't believe it - everything must be an evil Western plot - but I wanted to post this thread to show that the problem in the ME is not a 2 dimensional, black and white situation.

well well .. now is turkey plot...

Be sure not to forget the Obama plan to overthrow Assad, clearly mentioned at 23 September:

we will move forward with our plans,(..), to ramp up our effort to train and equip the Syrian opposition, who are the best counterweight to ISIL and the Assad regime

The Plot is from the US, Saudi Arabs, Israelis and Turks... Heres a black and white scenario..
President Obama's full statement on the beginning of airstrikes in Syria

Quick question who is spending 7 to 10 million dollars a day since June, with a total spent of 1.1 billion dollars?
you don't know? check it out

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

They secured the release by exchanging prisoners, I thought that was old news now?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: thesmokingman
As a fellow member of NATO and the 8th strongest military, and lets not forget they are host to approx. 60-80 nuclear weapons for the US. Turkey has been licking their chops as this whole thing has progressed....

And its just not Turkey that wants Assad out. Pretty much every country does...

Except of course Iran who see him as a Shia ally against the Sunni and a pathway for support to their Hezbollah allies.

You are correct there. However, Iran has no clout in the ME, and they , as well as everyone else pretty much knows that them or Pakistan will be the next dominoes to fall.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: intrptr

No, the US doesn't "occupy" them in the slightest - talk about stretching a definition!

And people have been saying we're going to "bomb Iran" since I've been on the forum - still nothing yet and if anything, relations have warmed between Iran and the West.

Don't be naive...

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

a reply to: stumason

Which kind of makes ISIL a convenient excuse. Today on the Jeremy Vine show a Kurd, in London, was calling for the U.K to put boots on the ground to tackle ISIL. All Vine kept referring to was Assad and the fact that by doing so, it would appear we were allied to him and his regime. A regime that the Conservatives were willing to start bombing 12 months ago.

Turkey May go in, but only once the Kurds have been humiliated I'm sure.

a reply to: Hanslune

Wait are you saying we occupied Jordan, SA, Bahrain and Egypt ----- and no one noticed this?

We have airbases, troops and ports in over 150 countries. Thats occupation. Invasion too I guess. Oh they say it was necessary and we were invited and all. How many foreign armies build bases on American soil?

I also know that many more operations such as guerrilla movements and clandestine operations that train fighters and move arms around are not counted (publicly).

If asked the US government will deny everything. Check it out for yourself.

a reply to: intrptr

No, it isn't remotely close to occupying or invasion - you're simply making it up to fit your ever so dodgy position. Yes, they were invited, which then makes any claims of occupation or invasion totally baseless (pardon the pun)....

Now, the reason why there aren't any bases in the USA of any foreign powers is that there is no strategic sense to doing so. However, UK (and other NATO and Allied forces) do go to the USA and train there. The UK does have a base in Alberta, Canada, but that is because there are large area's for us to train our Armoured forces, so there is a strategic need.

EDIT: By your logic, Russia is occupying/invading Syria, Vietnam or a smattering of Central Asian countries, or that India is occupying Tajikistan, or the UK is occupying Germany - just to select a few foreign bases from around the world.

a reply to: namehere

yeah we've only declared war on 2 middle eastern nations ever

US doesn't "declare war" anymore. They don't seek a UN approval anymore either. They just go ahead and do it.

What do you call bombs landing in Syria, a peace offering?

How about Drone strikes in Yemen?

We never occupied Saudi Arabia or Turkey? Saudi Arabia was the launch platform for Desert Storm. There are still US airbases there. And Turkey is NATO.

Your list of nations is a head in the sand list. You should pay more attention to something besides the Main Stream News.

I heard this place called ATS is pretty good.

a reply to: stumason

No, it isn't remotely close to occupying or invasion - you're simply making it up to fit your ever so dodgy position. Yes, they were invited…

Can;t have it both ways…

Was it invasion or invitation? Conquerors alway say they are doing it upon request or for Humanitarian reasons. You believe that thats your problem.

Just a few "Invitations":

Wiki

a reply to: intrptr

What do you mean, I can't have it both ways? I am just having it one way!

Yes, in every case, the host country has agreed to have the US bases. In cases where there have been bases and the host country changes its mind, the US leaves - hardly an occupation or invasion. However, few do as there are definite benefits to hosting, such as economic boosts to the local area, direct payments for the basing rights or simply being a good friend.

C'mon chap, you're desperately clinging to your position here and it doesn't look good. I also notice you failed to address the other nations with foreign bases - they're all occupying/invading those nations too, are they?

a reply to: intrptr

The US had the required UN mandate to act on Iraq.

NATO had the UN mandate to act in Libya.

The US, while not seeking permission from the Syrian Government to bomb IS, has been praised by the Assad regime who have heralded the air strikes against the Jihadists as a "victory" on State TV.

The drone strikes in Yemen have the agreement of the Yemeni Government

Desert Storm? You're using that as an example? That was sanctioned by the UN and a force was built up in Saudi comprising elements from dozens of nations, including Saudi Arabia who had the 3rd largest contingent after the UK and US and even funded the cost of the operation to the tune of $30 odd Billion. Bases that remain in Saudi are there by invitation.

Yes, Turkey is in NATO and has agreed to host US bases but - importantly - has denied the US use of such bases for various operations and the US complied.

You are really talking out of your behind here and obviously haven't got a clue. You say we have our "heads in the sand" but it seems it is you who has your head up your arse and live in some fantasy world.

How stupid that idiot in Turkey is.
Think about them attacking Syria and then they would be allies with ISIL! A three dimensional war:

Side A (America/Allies) fighting side B (Syria)

Side A (America/Allies fighting side C (ISIL)

Side C (ISIL) fighting side B (Syria)

SIDE D ( Syrian "moderates") fighting Side B(Syria) and C(ISIL)

Add in this mix Iran and Russia and Hezbollah (the only group that has routed ISIL) and you would have the most confused jumbled war in the history of warfare!

a reply to: stumason

I also notice you failed to address the other nations with foreign bases - they're all occupying/invading those nations too, are they?

As you failed to address the most recent "invitation" into Syria. Or Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. I had my say. You can believe in your warm friendly morass of a middle eat enterprise if you want. You aren't fooling me.

ISIS is just the next in a long line of lies about WMD, Bad presidents, and Humanitarian crises over there. Crises that need bombs, lol.

What a lark. The crisis is US, not them. The prize is resources and territory. The fact that the west (and NATO) haven't won a conflict since WWII. What, Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan??? Iraq? Afghanistan is the longest war in US history. The last four US presidents have all announced the bombing of Iraq… thats four campaigns to pound the rubble. Oh but it will stick this time. Have a nice decline of empire.

Done here.

a reply to: Willtell

Add in this mix Iran and Russia and Hezbollah (the only group that has routed ISIL) and you would have the most confused jumbled war in the history of warfare!

Thats the whole idea. A long expensive un winnable war. And through it all, the oil will flow.

Cha ching!

a reply to: stumason

The same sorry ass UN hat sat around and watched almost a million Rwandans get slaughtered under Bill Clinton…
And the same Lame UN that will and is watching ISIL slaughter people right now.

The UN now is useless just because the US and NATO deceived it in the Libyan fiasco.

Now Libya is a failed state. This is what they want to doin Syria as well.
Assad is ONLY praising this because it helps him get a breath from the onslaught on his country.

Indeed, the people of Syria are the victims here of these slimy leaders of America, Israel, Turkey, the Gulf states, UK, France, ISIL, Syrian "Moderates" and Asaad.

God help them!

And may he dam all those leaders to hell!

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: SLAYER69

Fairly well armed? They're a NATO member with the second largest Army in the organisation (after the US of course) and the largest in the region, with modern, Western weaponry. Not to mention their large, advanced Air Force and considerable Navy, they are arguable the regional superpower.

Their lack of action against IS previously was a pragmatic response to work towards the toppling of Assad, though it seems this policy has bit them on the arse and now they are looking for Western backing to topple Assad if they are to move against IS.

Turkey is a wicked country with aspirations to reinvent the Ottoman empire. Most of the ISIS recruits from west first go to Istanbul and then hitch a ride across the border to Syria. Turkey can very well stop them by heavy screening etc. But it lets them pass. ISIS has indirect support from Turkey and when time needs the direct support will be available.

One radical cleric in UK says that ISIS will be in US and Europe in "few decades".
The way it works for them is
a) immigrate to US/West
b) have lots of kids and raise them radical
c) use a big portion of their household earnings like 10% to support radical causes
d) prey upon lost/misguided/needy "non Islamics" to convert and go to ME and fight

West and other nations have to reconsider their immigration policies and impose restrictions on countries that fund such groups. Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar come to mind right away. HOWEVER, US/UK are more busy toppling pro-Russia secular regimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria and winking at the allies who are the real force behind the global terror networks.

Can anyone explain this double faced self betraying foreign policy? Idiots make such policies and SuperIdiots do the fighting for these stupid policies. Upto 15,000 US troops are on their way to Iraq to fight ISIS. Many will come back in bags and others in bandages, badly crippled etc.

Sad but true..........time to US Army to WHACK these policy makes and bring them to senses.

I thought Turkey and Iran had become "buddy buddy" here as of late. Syria surely wouldnt want to risk that new found friendship by having the US attack Assad. Calling BS on this one.

originally posted by: stumason
So, as IS have been fighting over the Syrian Kurdish border town of Kurbane for the past 3 weeks, right on the frontier with Turkey and with the their Parliament recently authorising action against IS, you'd think they'd get involved to stop them, but it would appear they are holding back from taking any action, even if it means the town will fall, in an effort to blackmail the Western powers.

Turkey wants Assad gone, that much has been obvious for a while and in return for sending their troops over the border (which they are prepared to do) to attack IS and to allow foreign jets to launch from inside their country they want something in return.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan admitted on a visit to a refugee camp for Syrians that "right now, Kobane is about to fall".

He said: "We had warned the West. We wanted three things: no-fly zone, a secure zone parallel to that, and the training of moderate Syrian rebels."

Mr Erdogan said that "the terror will not be over... unless we co-operate for a ground operation", although he gave no further details.

Last week, Turkey pledged to prevent Kobane from falling to IS and its parliament authorised military operations against militants in Iraq and Syria.

But Kurds have accused Turkey of simply standing by as IS advanced on the Syrian Kurds defending Kobane.

Link

So, it would appear that rather than being a Western plot to overthrow Assad - the State Department has maintained the line they're only targeting IS positions and the UK point blank refuses to bomb anything in Syria - it is actually a plot by the regional powers, namely Turkey but including others such as Saudi and Qatar who have been very active in funding the rebels and are indirectly responsible for the rise of IS.

I know there will be those who won't believe it - everything must be an evil Western plot - but I wanted to post this thread to show that the problem in the ME is not a 2 dimensional, black and white situation.

a reply to: stumason

the modern 'western world' was born in/around afghanistan @300 AD
sleeping giants eventually rumble again,
..not unlike some volcano or lofty mountain, nyuk nyuk