RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

What's the motive?

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

Funded and trained by american neo-cons tho, yeah?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

What's the motive?

Good question. It was only a few days ago that the sultan delivered his grovelling apology to the Tsar, thus mending relations between Turkey and Russia, so I don't think a terrorist attack in response could have arrived so quickly. Most people seem to think these guys were connected to ISIS and it's blow-back for Turkey's bombing of the terrorist group in Syria. But I'm very skeptical about that, as Turkey seems to be devoting most of its attention in Syria to the Kurds, who just happen to be arch enemies of ISIS. So who knows? What were the motives behind the Paris and Brussels attacks? Just radicalized lunatics who managed to get their hands on some heavy duty weapons.

Funded and trained by american neo-cons tho, yeah?

ISIS - yes, to remove Assad, just like the Taliban was funded and trained to overthrow the progressive socialist government of Afghanistan.

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

What's the motive?

Good question. It was only a few days ago that the sultan delivered his grovelling apology to the Tsar, thus mending relations between Turkey and Russia, so I don't think a terrorist attack in response could have arrived so quickly. Most people seem to think these guys were connected to ISIS and it's blow-back for Turkey's bombing of the terrorist group in Syria. But I'm very skeptical about that, as Turkey seems to be devoting most of its attention in Syria to the Kurds, who just happen to be arch enemies of ISIS. So who knows? What were the motives behind the Paris and Brussels attacks? Just radicalized lunatics who managed to get their hands on some heavy duty weapons.

Funded and trained by american neo-cons tho, yeah?

ISIS - yes, to remove Assad, just like the Taliban was funded and trained to overthrow the progressive socialist government of Afghanistan.

The US funded the Taleban? Are you thinking of the Mujaheddin by any chance?

From which the Taliban evolved, yes. Just as ISIS evolved from the 'freedom fighters' the US sent into Syria to instigate this proxy war.

Meanwhile ISIS is alleged to have already claimed responsibility for the ongoing saga in Dhaka, but still hasn't claimed responsibility for the Istanbul airport attack 3 days ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure ISIS hasn't been alleged to have officially claimed any of the numerous terrorist attacks on Turkish soil over the past 2 years...

rowan wrote:From which the Taliban evolved, yes. Just as ISIS evolved from the 'freedom fighters' the US sent into Syria to instigate this proxy war.

That's a stretch. Even claiming that the Taleban evolved from the Mujaheddin is pushing it given the sheer number of militia groups in Afghanistan.

Not sure what your point is, but it's indisputable that the Taliban (meaning scholars) evolved out of the US-backed Mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

rowan wrote:Not sure what your point is, but it's indisputable that the Taliban (meaning scholars) evolved out of the US-backed Mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

It means students in fact. They were a different faction to the Northern Alliance and came to be their enemies but they were funded, armed and educated by the CIA and its proxies.

The CIA even supplied the text books to the madrasses that the Taliban came from.

That's pretty much my take on it. After overthrowing a progressive social government (which had given women equal rights), and defeating the Soviets with American support, the Mujahideen descended into infighting from which emerged the Taliban, formed initially by a splinter group.

rowan wrote:That's pretty much my take on it. After overthrowing a progressive social government (which had given women equal rights), and defeating the Soviets with American support, the Mujahideen descended into infighting from which emerged the Taliban, formed initially by a splinter group.

It's not quite right to say they were a splinter group of the Mujahideen. There was always a separation in geography, tribe, language and control and they weren't around as a force in the Soviet times.

When the NA descended into infighting after the Soviets left the Taliban effectively invaded. But they didn't quite understand their role as US puppets.

Wow, the Russians who attacked Turkey last week were funded and armed by the american neo-cons 33 years ago? Wholly shit, that's a lotta lotta secret keeping.

Do I have the ability to censor the posts of others? I really should recognize my own abilities sometimes, I really don't give myself enough credit.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Wow, the Russians who attacked Turkey last week were funded and armed by the american neo-cons 33 years ago? Wholly shit, that's a lotta lotta secret keeping.

Do I have the ability to censor the posts of others? I really should recognize my own abilities sometimes, I really don't give myself enough credit.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Moronic even by your low standards.

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Wow, the Russians who attacked Turkey last week were funded and armed by the american neo-cons 33 years ago? Wholly shit, that's a lotta lotta secret keeping.

Do I have the ability to censor the posts of others? I really should recognize my own abilities sometimes, I really don't give myself enough credit.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Moronic even by your low standards.

Cheered myself up tho.

Censor posts? Literally no idea what you're on about.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Wow, the Russians who attacked Turkey last week were funded and armed by the american neo-cons 33 years ago? Wholly shit, that's a lotta lotta secret keeping.

Do I have the ability to censor the posts of others? I really should recognize my own abilities sometimes, I really don't give myself enough credit.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Moronic even by your low standards.

Cheered myself up tho.

Censor posts? Literally no idea what you're on about.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

The thought that you are loose with school age children worries me.

Loose with them? I would say I'm quite tight with them, standards wise.

Are you accusing me of complaining about your posts? Because I didn't.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Loose with them? I would say I'm quite tight with them, standards wise.

Are you accusing me of complaining about your posts? Because I didn't.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Wow, the Russians who attacked Turkey last week were funded and armed by the american neo-cons 33 years ago? Wholly shit, that's a lotta lotta secret keeping.

The CIA has been funding covert ops since WWII, over 70 of them (see video below). So it's certainly within the realms of plausibility that they are funding ISIS, given how convenient that organization has been to them. I'm still trying to get a handle on what happened at the airport, but today Trump was on TV over here urging the Turkish people to fight back and destroy ISIS completely. To achieve that, Turkey - a NATO member- would obviously have to make a fulls-scale invasion of Syria, where they are not welcome, btw. So a NATO member gets into Syria via the back door and "destroys ISIS." What's the next step? Oh, now were here, we might as well get rid of Assad, because he's been using barrel bombs and killing civilians. Of course, the only reason Assad has been killing anyone is because NATO members and their Saudi allies sent in the terrorists/freedom fighters to start a proxy war in the first place, and now those terrorists/freedom fighters are holed up in civilian areas. In other words, simply by starting a war and forcing the government to fight back, as it is obliged to do, the NATO-Saudi alliance has been able to turn Assad into its Hitler-of-the-month. This is only slightly more subtle than WOMDs.

rowan wrote:Wow, the Russians who attacked Turkey last week were funded and armed by the american neo-cons 33 years ago? Wholly shit, that's a lotta lotta secret keeping.

The CIA has been funding covert ops since WWII, over 70 of them (see video below). So it's certainly within the realms of plausibility that they are funding ISIS, given how convenient that organization has been to them. I'm still trying to get a handle on what happened at the airport, but today Trump was on TV over here urging the Turkish people to fight back and destroy ISIS completely. To achieve that, Turkey - a NATO member- would obviously have to make a fulls-scale invasion of Syria, where they are not welcome, btw. So a NATO member gets into Syria via the back door and "destroys ISIS." What's the next step? Oh, now were here, we might as well get rid of Assad, because he's been using barrel bombs and killing civilians. Of course, the only reason Assad has been killing anyone is because NATO members and their Saudi allies sent in the terrorists/freedom fighters to start a proxy war in the first place, and now those terrorists/freedom fighters are holed up in civilian areas. In other words, simply by starting a war and forcing the government to fight back, as it is obliged to do, the NATO-Saudi alliance has been able to turn Assad into its Hitler-of-the-month. This is only slightly more subtle than WOMDs.

I thought that your position was that they couldn't be Isis? You're all over the place.

Well, whether it was ISIS or not, I'm still not sure. They haven't claimed it and the perpetrators apparently came from Russia. Seems to me if it were direct blowback for Turkey bombing ISIS in Syria, the attackers would more likely have come from south of the border. According to the media, ISIS had claimed last nights attack in Bangladesh even before it was over. One thing is for certain, if Istanbul was a revenge attack for Turkey bombing in Syria, ISIS must be really, really dumb not to predict the next move - a full-scale Turkish invasion of Syria. Cui bono? Those who want NATO troops in Syria, those who want to destroy the nation completely, and those who want to remove Assad and take control of the country.

Meanwhile, not connected at all, but today they commemorated an horrific massacre of Alevi artists and intellectuals in Turkey 23 years ago: http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2016/0 ... imak-hotel

rowan wrote:Well, whether it was ISIS or not, I'm still not sure. They haven't claimed it and the perpetrators apparently came from Russia. Seems to me if it were direct blowback for Turkey bombing ISIS in Syria, the attackers would more likely have come from south of the border. According to the media, ISIS had claimed last nights attack in Bangladesh even before it was over. One thing is for certain, if Istanbul was a revenge attack for Turkey bombing in Syria, ISIS must be really, really dumb not to predict the next move - a full-scale Turkish invasion of Syria. Cui bono? Those who want NATO troops in Syria, those who want to destroy the nation completely, and those who want to remove Assad and take control of the country.

Meanwhile, not connected at all, but today they commemorated an horrific massacre of Alevi artists and intellectuals in Turkey 23 years ago: http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2016/0 ... imak-hotel

But Turkey are claiming it was ISIS, are they not? So by your logic, Turkey is now planning a full scale invasion of Syria. Unlikely, don't you think, unless they are prepared for an open war against Russia?
You're still all over the place.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Well, whether it was ISIS or not, I'm still not sure. They haven't claimed it and the perpetrators apparently came from Russia. Seems to me if it were direct blowback for Turkey bombing ISIS in Syria, the attackers would more likely have come from south of the border. According to the media, ISIS had claimed last nights attack in Bangladesh even before it was over. One thing is for certain, if Istanbul was a revenge attack for Turkey bombing in Syria, ISIS must be really, really dumb not to predict the next move - a full-scale Turkish invasion of Syria. Cui bono? Those who want NATO troops in Syria, those who want to destroy the nation completely, and those who want to remove Assad and take control of the country.

Meanwhile, not connected at all, but today they commemorated an horrific massacre of Alevi artists and intellectuals in Turkey 23 years ago: http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2016/0 ... imak-hotel

But Turkey are claiming it was ISIS, are they not? So by your logic, Turkey is now planning a full scale invasion of Syria. Unlikely, don't you think, unless they are prepared for an open war against Russia?
You're still all over the place.

To be honest, I think it's your line of questioning which is all over the place. I'm just speculating on the situation as it develops. Yes, Turkey has claimed it was ISIS and arrested a bunch of people who they say are members of ISIS. However, ISIS has not claimed responsibility, even though - according to Western media - it had claimed responsibility for the Bangladesh attack even before it was over. In fact, to my knowledge ISIS has not claimed any of the recent spate of terrorist attacks on Turkish soil, even though - according to Western media - they have immediately claimed responsbility for attacks in Western Europe, Iraq and elsewhere. Further clouding assertions they were responsible for the airport attack in Istanbul is the revelation the three main culprits were of Russian nationality, hailing from former Soviet republics.

My view on this is that the Western media narrative blaming ISIS for attacks all over the world is entirely implausible. A decade ago it was Al Qaeda, but that one wore thin and, indeed, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed it as a charade (just before his death). So Al Qaeda has been rebranded as "ISIS." What does that mean? A blanket term to cover both the Jihadists fighting in the Middle East and radicalized groups and individuals who commit terrorist attacks in the name of Jihad abroad. The objective is to conjure up an image of a highly organized Islamic army in the Middle East which presents a direct threat to the West, and thereby justifying an ongoing American presence in the region and the astronomical budget this entails.

So what's the endgame? In the short term the objective seems to be to control the oil industry in the region, break up the Shia Crescent and isolate Iran. This can only be achieved by removing Assad, one way or another. But after the shambles of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the US has shied off a full-scale invasion thus far, instigating a proxy war by supporting rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters. In this manner they have forced the Assad government to fight back and thus been able to label him a war criminal amid a conflict which has descended into increasing brutality by both sides. Only slightly more subtle than WOMDs. But they have yet to achieve their aim, and in fact it's really not going too well for them. As it stands, the government troops are well on top.

What's the next step? A full-scale invasion of Syria, perhaps? But as we can all see, and you yourself have shrewdly pointed out, Russia will not allow this. But what if a pretext were to be provided for another NATO member to invade? Let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if that's what these terrorist attacks are all about. What is certain is that the US has already succeeded in instigating ongoing warfare right across the region - Afghanistan 15 years, Iraq 13 years, Libya 5 years, Syria 5 years. This not only provides the pretext for ongoing American military presence but keeps the highly lucrative weapons industry ticking over very nicely as well. I guess that's the nature of modern imperialism.

Saudi Arabia just been hit. Wonder if it's connected to Yemen, where they've been gleefully bombing weddings, schools and hospitals with US support: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/s ... 07140.html

Update: Latest report suggests it was a relatively minor attack, bomber killing only himself plus 4 people, including security guards.

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Well, whether it was ISIS or not, I'm still not sure. They haven't claimed it and the perpetrators apparently came from Russia. Seems to me if it were direct blowback for Turkey bombing ISIS in Syria, the attackers would more likely have come from south of the border. According to the media, ISIS had claimed last nights attack in Bangladesh even before it was over. One thing is for certain, if Istanbul was a revenge attack for Turkey bombing in Syria, ISIS must be really, really dumb not to predict the next move - a full-scale Turkish invasion of Syria. Cui bono? Those who want NATO troops in Syria, those who want to destroy the nation completely, and those who want to remove Assad and take control of the country.

Meanwhile, not connected at all, but today they commemorated an horrific massacre of Alevi artists and intellectuals in Turkey 23 years ago: http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2016/0 ... imak-hotel

But Turkey are claiming it was ISIS, are they not? So by your logic, Turkey is now planning a full scale invasion of Syria. Unlikely, don't you think, unless they are prepared for an open war against Russia?
You're still all over the place.

To be honest, I think it's your line of questioning which is all over the place. I'm just speculating on the situation as it develops. Yes, Turkey has claimed it was ISIS and arrested a bunch of people who they say are members of ISIS. However, ISIS has not claimed responsibility, even though - according to Western media - it had claimed responsibility for the Bangladesh attack even before it was over. In fact, to my knowledge ISIS has not claimed any of the recent spate of terrorist attacks on Turkish soil, even though - according to Western media - they have immediately claimed responsbility for attacks in Western Europe, Iraq and elsewhere. Further clouding assertions they were responsible for the airport attack in Istanbul is the revelation the three main culprits were of Russian nationality, hailing from former Soviet republics.

My view on this is that the Western media narrative blaming ISIS for attacks all over the world is entirely implausible. A decade ago it was Al Qaeda, but that one wore thin and, indeed, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed it as a charade (just before his death). So Al Qaeda has been rebranded as "ISIS." What does that mean? A blanket term to cover both the Jihadists fighting in the Middle East and radicalized groups and individuals who commit terrorist attacks in the name of Jihad abroad. The objective is to conjure up an image of a highly organized Islamic army in the Middle East which presents a direct threat to the West, and thereby justifying an ongoing American presence in the region and the astronomical budget this entails.

So what's the endgame? In the short term the objective seems to be to control the oil industry in the region, break up the Shia Crescent and isolate Iran. This can only be achieved by removing Assad, one way or another. But after the shambles of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the US has shied off a full-scale invasion thus far, instigating a proxy war by supporting rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters. In this manner they have forced the Assad government to fight back and thus been able to label him a war criminal amid a conflict which has descended into increasing brutality by both sides. Only slightly more subtle than WOMDs. But they have yet to achieve their aim, and in fact it's really not going too well for them. As it stands, the government troops are well on top.

What's the next step? A full-scale invasion of Syria, perhaps? But as we can all see, and you yourself have shrewdly pointed out, Russia will not allow this. But what if a pretext were to be provided for another NATO member to invade? Let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if that's what these terrorist attacks are all about. What is certain is that the US has already succeeded in instigating ongoing warfare right across the region - Afghanistan 15 years, Iraq 13 years, Libya 5 years, Syria 5 years. This not only provides the pretext for ongoing American military presence but keeps the highly lucrative weapons industry ticking over very nicely as well. I guess that's the nature of modern imperialism.

All you've done there is say the same thing using many more words. Let's look at the facts.
1. The Ataturk Airport attack was carried out by nationals from former Soviet Republics that have a largely muslim character.
2. Turkey, not the Western media, blamed ISIS. The Western media merely (perhaps enthusiastically, but that is a different argument) repeat this claim.
3. You stated that it would be foolish for ISIS to attack Turkey as it would prompt a full-scale invasion of Syria
4. Despite Turkey maintaining that ISIS is responsible, no such invasion has happened nor appears in preparation unless you know differently.
5. You seem to suggest that is all a pretext for a full scale invasion by the USA. Again, please show any evidence of preparations for this. Do you really think that a lame duck presidency is the right time?

But of course, it was the Americans, stupid.

1. The Ataturk Airport attack was carried out by nationals from former Soviet Republics that have a largely muslim character.
2. Turkey, not the Western media, blamed ISIS. The Western media merely (perhaps enthusiastically, but that is a different argument) repeat this claim.
3. You stated that it would be foolish for ISIS to attack Turkey as it would prompt a full-scale invasion of Syria
4. Despite Turkey maintaining that ISIS is responsible, no such invasion has happened nor appears in preparation unless you know differently.
5. You seem to suggest that is all a pretext for a full scale invasion by the USA. Again, please show any evidence of preparations for this. Do you really think that a lame duck presidency is the right time?

1 - Yes, that's what I wrote. What's your point?
2 - Yes, that's what I wrote. What's your point?
3 - Yes, that's what I wrote. What's your point?
4 - Turkey is currently operating inside the Syrian border, ostensibly to fight ISIS but evidently far more interested in bombing the Kurds who are fighting ISIS. Turkey has also pledged to bring down Assad, many times. Turkey is now ramping up the rhetoric on wiping out ISIS, in response to the attacks it has attributed to ISIS, which means a more extensive campaign in Syria. You don't need a degree in applied mathematics to work out where this is heading.
5 - Yes, that's what I wrote. Former US general Wesley Clark included Syria on a list of nations America intended to take out soon after 9/11. Iraq and Libya were also on that list. It is no secret the US has been arming and training anti-government "rebels" in Syria, and that many of them have turned to terrorism. Meanwhile America and its allies have become actively involved within Syria (uninvited), also on the pretext of fighting ISIS. But the world's major super power hasn't been able to get the job done; just as it hasn't been able to wipe out the Taliban after 15 years. So the only question in my mind is whether the US/NATO does actually intend to carry out a full-scale invasion one way or the other, or whether they are content to sit back and fan the flames of yet another interminable conflict. Meanwhile, blaming everything everywhere on ISIS is utter folly and clearly designed as a smokescreen.