German state TV reports: Syrian rebels claim responsibility for attack on Turkey

It's interesting to note that when the German media first reported the military actions between Turkey and Syria, it was the Syrian Rebels who were claiming responsibility for the attacks to begin with-

www.globalresearch.ca...

From it's first report-

“Rocket and mortar fire. Turkey takes revenge after an attack from the Syrian side. Yesterday afternoon Syrian rebels fired on a Turkish village close to the border. For weeks Ankara had warned against provoking Turkey. Meanwhile Syrian rebels officially claimed responsibility for the provocation.”

As the reports went on throughout the day, the reports changed to this-

“Rocket and mortar fire. Last night Turkey took revenge. Yesterday afternoon the Syrians fired on a Turkish village close to the border. The tensions between the neighbours had escalated – Ankara retaliated.”

“Houses shot to pieces and streets devoid of people. It is not even clear yet who really fired, the Syrian army or the rebels.”

Remember, 'The First Casualty Of War Is The Truth.'

This policy of creating cross border tensions as a pretext for military intervention is not a new one.

In fact, this strategy was considered by the British government back in the 1950's to instigate regime change in Syria-

www.guardian.co.uk...

Declassified documents show that in 1957, Britain and America considered setting up border incidents as a pretext to military intervention-

Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

The "preferred plan"adds: "Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension."

So, in many ways this 1957 policy is being used today as a blueprint. The 'rebels' have destabilised the country, cross border tensions are being carried out and this time, Syria's neighbours such as Turkey are more than willing to participate in a military intervention when the time comes.

which Syrian rebel army...

the Salafists being funded by the Saudis

or the Jihadists backed by the Muslim Brotherhood/Caliphate followers

or the Iranian 12'ers, who want the whole region to blow up

The present Syria is not acceptable to any faction, including the AQ backed by the CIA

It isn't surprising that the rag tag foreign Taliban, Al Qaeda and assorted European jihadists that make up much of the 'Free Syrian Army' would launch an attack on Turkey and then try to make it look like Syria had done so.

They are a bunch of violent radicals after all, so why would they care if they killed innocent Turkish civilians as long as it allowed them to instal a fundamentalist regime in Syria.

Allah moves in mysterious ways...

Let me get this correct...

When the media is reporting that Assad's government fired, ATS screams that it's propaganda, and that the media is being controlled.

But when it's reported that the FSA claimed responsibility for it, members here trust it and immediately ignore their suspicions of the media, suddenly the media is correct and telling the truth?

Just as I suspected, some here are very selective about their suspicions of the media and believe the reports when it fits with their existing opinion.

Even after Assad apologized, people choose to believe German media, ignoring their own statements about media control and manipulation. Even when every other news outlet on the planet is reporting one thing, and the regime admits it, people choose to believe what fits their existing belief.

Guys, you all have biased opinions. We could see film of Assad himself executing people and you'd still be claiming it was the CIA, then we'd see footage of Mossad/CIA agents doing it and you'd all be screaming "Proof!"

ATS is becoming ridiculous.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Let me get this correct...

When the media is reporting that Assad's government fired, ATS screams that it's propaganda, and that the media is being controlled.

But when it's reported that the FSA claimed responsibility for it, members here trust it and immediately ignore their suspicions of the media, suddenly the media is correct and telling the truth?

Just as I suspected, some here are very selective about their suspicions of the media and believe the reports when it fits with their existing opinion.

Even after Assad apologized, people choose to believe German media, ignoring their own statements about media control and manipulation. Even when every other news outlet on the planet is reporting one thing, and the regime admits it, people choose to believe what fits their existing belief.

Guys, you all have biased opinions. We could see film of Assad himself executing people and you'd still be claiming it was the CIA, then we'd see footage of Mossad/CIA agents doing it and you'd all be screaming "Proof!"

ATS is becoming ridiculous.

No, the German media intially stated it was the Syrian Rebels.

As the reports when on throughout the day, it changed it's reports to conclude Syrian forces fired the first shots.

So I'm not being selective, the German media for whatever reason changed it's stance.

I then linked to declassified info and plans by the British and American governments to use 'rebels' to destabilise Syria and create cross border incidents to justify military intervention.

One would not be too off the mark to claim this policy is being used today.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Did you actually see and hear Assad admit it was him or are you yourself being selective as to which media outlet you choose to believe.?l may have missed Assad telling the media he was responsible. if so please could you show me a link where he has stated this. l learned a long time ago unless you see and hear it from the horses mouth without a reporter talking over it. it is just the good old spin machine playing their games. peace starchild.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Let me get this correct...

When the media is reporting that Assad's government fired, ATS screams that it's propaganda, and that the media is being controlled.

But when it's reported that the FSA claimed responsibility for it, members here trust it and immediately ignore their suspicions of the media, suddenly the media is correct and telling the truth?

Just as I suspected, some here are very selective about their suspicions of the media and believe the reports when it fits with their existing opinion.

Even after Assad apologized, people choose to believe German media, ignoring their own statements about media control and manipulation. Even when every other news outlet on the planet is reporting one thing, and the regime admits it, people choose to believe what fits their existing belief.

Guys, you all have biased opinions. We could see film of Assad himself executing people and you'd still be claiming it was the CIA, then we'd see footage of Mossad/CIA agents doing it and you'd all be screaming "Proof!"

ATS is becoming ridiculous.

Why discredit the thread then not reply when I come back with a legitimate response to your criticism?

To put it another way, the media changed it's stance to fit the 'official version'.

Is it therefore coincidence that whenever the media shifts it's stance or retracts a statement it always happens to be a change in line with the official story?

What I'm saying is, had the intitial report been it was the Syrian army, you would never see the reports change through the day to say it was in fact the rebels.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Why didn't you respond after making this criticism?

Anyway, this news article provides further reason to believe the attacks were carried out by the rebels-

rt.com...

The bombs used were NATO design.

Surprise,surprise..surprise,makes sense though..bastards