RugbyRebels

rowan wrote: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.

The point is you wibble on about the Turks blaming ISIS for the attacks and claim that it wasn't ISIS. Then in the next breath you wobble on about ISIS being a client organisation of the USA, and the conclusion you draw is that the attacks were made as an excuse for the USA to invade Syria.
If you cannot see the very clear and obvious disconnects in your logic, then there is little point in discussing anything with you, and I suggest you go back to fantasising about the future world domination of Georgian Rugby.

Stones of granite wrote: I suggest you go back to fantasising about the future world domination of Georgian Rugby.

Would that be the same Georgian Rugby who derive much of their success from being funded as a play thing by a billionaire?

According to Reuters, the Turks have jailed 17 accomplices of the attack who were originally from areas like Dagestan but we're now part of ISIS. Presumably background checks have been made to verify this.

Given the number of foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria, it's perfectly plausible. Unless there was a reason for a Russianterrorist group to attack Turkey.

The point is you wibble on about the Turks blaming ISIS for the attacks and claim that it wasn't ISIS. Then in the next breath you wobble on about ISIS being a client organisation of the USA, and the conclusion you draw is that the attacks were made as an excuse for the USA to invade Syria.

Yes, the Turks blamed ISIS. I'm not convinced it was ISIS, as they haven't claimed it. The US media blamed ISIS for Orlando. It definitely was not ISIS. It's widely believed that ISIS was created by the US, inadvertently or otherwise, and known that they've been collaborating with at least one other NATO member since. Whether they are actually under the direct control of the US to any degree is something we'll probably never know for sure, or at least not until the conflict has been consigned to the history books. The reason for the attacks on Ataturk Airport are still unclear. I am not saying they were carried out to provide a pretext for a full-scale invasion of Syria, but that by blaming ISIS for them (and every other attack in the world lately) NATO may simply be appropriating them with that end in mind. I'm not quite sure why you find that so difficult to understand, nor why you seem so reluctant to accept the possibility, given the evidence you requested of American designs on taking out Syria has been posted in the form of a video above.


Given the number of foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria, it's perfectly plausible. Unless there was a reason for a Russianterrorist group to attack Turkey.

It's certainly plausible. But still the question remains - why hasn't ISIS claimed responsibility? & are they really so dumb that they cannot think two moves ahead. As mentioned, Turkey is now upping the ante and talking about intensifying its hitherto lacklustre campaign against ISIS - which entails further involvement within Syria's borders. Ever heard of the Trojan War?

In fact, it has recently come to light that the suspected mastermind of the airport attack, Ahmet Chatayev, formerly served as an agent for the Georgian secret services under ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili. The plot thickens...

rowan wrote:The point is you wibble on about the Turks blaming ISIS for the attacks and claim that it wasn't ISIS. Then in the next breath you wobble on about ISIS being a client organisation of the USA, and the conclusion you draw is that the attacks were made as an excuse for the USA to invade Syria.

Yes, the Turks blamed ISIS. I'm not convinced it was ISIS, as they haven't claimed it. The US media blamed ISIS for Orlando. It definitely was not ISIS. It's widely believed that ISIS was created by the US, inadvertently or otherwise, and known that they've been collaborating with at least one other NATO member since. Whether they are actually under the direct control of the US to any degree is something we'll probably never know for sure, or at least not until the conflict has been consigned to the history books. The reason for the attacks on Ataturk Airport are still unclear. I am not saying they were carried out to provide a pretext for a full-scale invasion of Syria, but that by blaming ISIS for them (and every other attack in the world lately) NATO may simply be appropriating them with that end in mind. I'm not quite sure why you find that so difficult to understand, nor why you seem so reluctant to accept the possibility, given the evidence you requested of American designs on taking out Syria has been posted in the form of a video above.


Given the number of foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria, it's perfectly plausible. Unless there was a reason for a Russianterrorist group to attack Turkey.

It's certainly plausible. But still the question remains - why hasn't ISIS claimed responsibility? & are they really so dumb that they cannot think two moves ahead. As mentioned, Turkey is now upping the ante and talking about intensifying its hitherto lacklustre campaign against ISIS - which entails further involvement within Syria's borders. Ever heard of the Trojan War?

Yes and I see your accusation against Turkey clearly enough. The lack of attribution us odd, unless this wasn't so much formally sanctioned as inspired. If this were a false flag op then it's a bit surprising that any if the attackers are still alive.

rowan wrote:The point is you wibble on about the Turks blaming ISIS for the attacks and claim that it wasn't ISIS. Then in the next breath you wobble on about ISIS being a client organisation of the USA, and the conclusion you draw is that the attacks were made as an excuse for the USA to invade Syria.

Yes, the Turks blamed ISIS. I'm not convinced it was ISIS, as they haven't claimed it. The US media blamed ISIS for Orlando. It definitely was not ISIS. It's widely believed that ISIS was created by the US, inadvertently or otherwise, and known that they've been collaborating with at least one other NATO member since. Whether they are actually under the direct control of the US to any degree is something we'll probably never know for sure, or at least not until the conflict has been consigned to the history books. The reason for the attacks on Ataturk Airport are still unclear. I am not saying they were carried out to provide a pretext for a full-scale invasion of Syria, but that by blaming ISIS for them (and every other attack in the world lately) NATO may simply be appropriating them with that end in mind. I'm not quite sure why you find that so difficult to understand, nor why you seem so reluctant to accept the possibility, given the evidence you requested of American designs on taking out Syria has been posted in the form of a video above.


Given the number of foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria, it's perfectly plausible. Unless there was a reason for a Russianterrorist group to attack Turkey.

It's certainly plausible. But still the question remains - why hasn't ISIS claimed responsibility? & are they really so dumb that they cannot think two moves ahead. As mentioned, Turkey is now upping the ante and talking about intensifying its hitherto lacklustre campaign against ISIS - which entails further involvement within Syria's borders. Ever heard of the Trojan War?

Let me see, you're not sure why I find it difficult to understand why Turkey would risk open war with Russia with a full-scale invasion of Syria.

Hmmmmmmm........

After they already risked open warfare with Russia by shooting down one of their planes, you mean? We're not just talking about Turkey, of course. We're talking about NATO, and once NATO is firmly entrenched inside Syria - on the pretext of fighting ISIS - it's going to be very difficult for Russia to stop them at that point. I'm not certain that's the plan. As I've stated more than once, an alternative objective may be to just continuing fanning the flames of the conflict in Syria, the way they are in Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya, sit back and watch it destroy itself. Either way, they achieve their objective, and there's no doubt what that is - the total destruction of Syria as we know it.

rowan wrote:After they already risked open warfare with Russia by shooting down one of their planes, you mean? We're not just talking about Turkey, of course. We're talking about NATO, and once NATO is firmly entrenched inside Syria - on the pretext of fighting ISIS - it's going to be very difficult for Russia to stop them at that point. I'm not certain that's the plan. As I've stated more than once, an alternative objective may be to just continuing fanning the flames of the conflict in Syria, the way they are in Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya, sit back and watch it destroy itself. Either way, they achieve their objective, and there's no doubt what that is - the total destruction of Syria as we know it.

Oh, you think there is a comparison to be made between shooting down an aircraft encroaching Turkish airspace and a full-on invasion? Don't you think the Russian reaction to that shooting down might have been noted in Ankara? No, you seem to think that the Russian reaction was viewed as harmless and weak enough to prompt Turkey to launch a false-flag operation as a causus belli to invade Syria.

Nato isn't going to face down Russia in Syria either. It's a fantasy. Have you got a double layer tinfoil hat on today?

Your last point is more realistic, so tell me. How would a false claim of ISIS involvement in terrorist attacks inside Turkey fit into that scenario? Who gains from Turkey going down that path?

Regarding your first comment, you ignored the point I made about any full-scale invasion of Syria being about NATO - not just Turkey. Of course Ankara can't go it alone. Meanwhile, Russia's reaction to the shooting down of one of its planes was a lot more restrained that most of us would have predicted. In fact, it was quite admirable. Not a shot fired in anger. They simply starved the Turkish tourism industry until Ankara gave in and blubbered out an apology.

The alternative scenario I outlined may appear more realistic to you, but it's the former which I personally regard as more realistic - precisely because of the ongoing terrorist attacks on Turkey which are being attributed to ISIS (though not one of them actually claimed by ISIS, to my knowledge). Then you ask me how those terrorist attacks fit into the alternative scenario which you like better.

Doh!! Shouldn't you be telling me??

rowan wrote:Regarding your first comment, you ignored the point I made about any full-scale invasion of Syria being about NATO - not just Turkey. Of course Ankara can't go it alone. Meanwhile, Russia's reaction to the shooting down of one of its planes was a lot more restrained that most of us would have predicted. In fact, it was quite admirable. Not a shot fired in anger. They simply starved the Turkish tourism industry until Ankara gave in and blubbered out an apology.

The alternative scenario I outlined may appear more realistic to you, but it's the former which I personally regard as more realistic - precisely because of the ongoing terrorist attacks on Turkey which are being attributed to ISIS (though not one of them actually claimed by ISIS, to my knowledge). Then you ask me how those terrorist attacks fit into the alternative scenario which you like better.

Doh!! Shouldn't you be telling me??

No, because by describing at as MORE realistic than your favoured scenario doesn't mean that I actually consider it realistic at all. Hence my questions.

If you are so sure that NATO is positioning for a full-scale invasion of Syria, perhaps you will be able to point to some evidence of the military build up and preparations.

I wrote:

"I'm not certain that's the plan."

You wrote:

"If you are so sure that NATO is positioning for a full-scale invasion of Syria,"

This is the basis of our disagreement. You're not reading what I'm writing. You're reading what you've already decided in your own imagination I am thinking.

" perhaps you will be able to point to some evidence of the military build up and preparations."

As mentioned before, Ankara has already threatened to intensify its campaign against ISIS in response to the terrorist attacks which it blames on ISIS even though ISIS hasn't claimed them. ISIS is operating out of both Syria and Iraq. US troops are already operating inside Syria - uninvited - under the pretense of supporting the fight against ISIS, though it is known they have also been supporting other anti-regime rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters - who actually collaborate with ISIS. Just last month it came to light that France has been operating inside Syria on the same pretext. British troops have also been involved. That's 4 key NATO members right there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tu ... 27212.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-adm ... ia/5530141

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/15/ ... ives-isis/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-special ... ts/5437933

Meanwhile, British sappers caught crossdressing as ISIS terrorists as NATO continues its clandestine war on Assad: http://www.makewarshistory.co.uk/?p=2550

Operation Shader has noting to do with helping ISIS - that story is complete nonsense. A spin on what actual facts it presents.

Op Shader includes the RAF effort against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, so to claim its helming ISIS against Assad is utter rubbish. SAS men dressing as locals - do you expect them to be in uniform behind enemy line (such as they exist)? There are plenty of stories of SF personnel calling in airstrikes or taking out ISIS fighters if the author of that article wished to check.

Sure, fighting ISIS - I believe that. Assad has explicitly stated on countless occasions that he would just love for British and other NATO troops to enter his country and fight ISIS for him. & in disguise, of course. Whoever heard of legitimate soldiers fighting in uniform? Meanwhile, I posted links earlier suggesting soldiers from NATO countries are not so much fighting ISIS as supporting other rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters against Assad, even though these selfsame rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters have admitted to being aligned with ISIS in their struggle and have been passing on weapons to them. You don't need a degree in applied mathematics to figure out what's going on here. Indeed, you would have to be INCREDIBLY stupid not to figure it out. ISIS is NATO's Trojan horse into Syria, they have not been invited by Damascus and neither are they wanted, they are undeniably working primarily to bring about Assad's demise, and whether they have to destroy the entire country in the process is of no consequence to them because for sure it will end up destroyed anyway - just like Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya, et al. So even as everyone is talking about the damning Chilcot report and calling for Blair's head on a platter, Britain is carrying on EXACTLY the same way.

Oops! Missed again . . .

On Thursday, local sources and ISIS media accused US warplanes participating the global anti-ISIS coalition of striking YPG positions in the outskirts of Manbij. The attack occurred in the north-western countryside of Manbij where ISIS fighter are viciously attempting to break the siege of Manbij. The friendly fire targeted two YPG positions in two separate airstrikes. Such accidents are not completely unheard of in the war against ISIS. About a month ago, US airstrikes accidentally struck rebels battling against ISIS fighters attempting to break into the city of Mare’ which they successfully sieged for a limited time.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us ... ds-manbij/ | Al-Masdar News

rowan wrote:Oops! Missed again . . .

On Thursday, local sources and ISIS media accused US warplanes participating the global anti-ISIS coalition of striking YPG positions in the outskirts of Manbij. The attack occurred in the north-western countryside of Manbij where ISIS fighter are viciously attempting to break the siege of Manbij. The friendly fire targeted two YPG positions in two separate airstrikes. Such accidents are not completely unheard of in the war against ISIS. About a month ago, US airstrikes accidentally struck rebels battling against ISIS fighters attempting to break into the city of Mare’ which they successfully sieged for a limited time.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us ... ds-manbij/ | Al-Masdar News

So called friendly fire can happen when you have professional militaries supported by aircraft, with coordination in place. Do you think that with the number of sorties carried out and the lack of professional coordination on the ground, that accidents won't happen. Air-ground liaison is notoriously difficult to coordinate without hours of training, and even then it can go wrong. To suggest that this is evidence of a pro-ISIS action is twisting facts.

rowan wrote:Sure, fighting ISIS - I believe that. Assad has explicitly stated on countless occasions that he would just love for British and other NATO troops to enter his country and fight ISIS for him. & in disguise, of course. Whoever heard of legitimate soldiers fighting in uniform? Meanwhile, I posted links earlier suggesting soldiers from NATO countries are not so much fighting ISIS as supporting other rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters against Assad, even though these selfsame rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters have admitted to being aligned with ISIS in their struggle and have been passing on weapons to them. You don't need a degree in applied mathematics to figure out what's going on here. Indeed, you would have to be INCREDIBLY stupid not to figure it out. ISIS is NATO's Trojan horse into Syria, they have not been invited by Damascus and neither are they wanted, they are undeniably working primarily to bring about Assad's demise, and whether they have to destroy the entire country in the process is of no consequence to them because for sure it will end up destroyed anyway - just like Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya, et al. So even as everyone is talking about the damning Chilcot report and calling for Blair's head on a platter, Britain is carrying on EXACTLY the same way.

ISIS is not a NATO proxy. ISI may also want to undermine Assad, not to mention other governments, but that doesn't mean that they are controlled by NATO. This is 2+2=5 logic.

You still haven't addressed the fundamental issue of so many troops from NATO member nations being active inside Syria, uninvited, and undeniably supporting anti-Assad rebels, some of which have admitted to being aligned with ISIS and to having supplied them with weapons (received from NATO member nations). This is only slightly more subtle than WOMD's. Meanwhile, we're all hearing about the Chilcott report. Probably we'll have to wait until long after Assad has been deposed - and presumably lynched - before what is occurring in Syria right now receives its own report. & then everyone will say 'told you so!' when they didn't tell us so at the time at all - quite the reverse, in fact.

Assad is a massive cunt, though. Let's not forget that.

So here we go again, another Hitler of the Month! It's the same old game, over and over, and people get sucked in every single time - only to claim they were deadset against it afterward, when the ugly truth comes out - as it just did on Iraq with the Chilcot report. I wonder how many hindsight experts here were actually for that war at the start, in spite of what they are saying now . . .

Assad was sipping tea with the Queen of England in Buckingham Palace not so long ago. He was also hanging out with the Pope. Yes, he's done bad things, but I wonder if you actually understand the context of those things; that many of the actions concerned were actually carried out against the Muslim Brotherhood - which much of the world regards as a terrorist organization (though I personally disagree with that); & that his father came to power in the shambles which followed liberation from France, a CIA-backed coup, the loss of the Golan Heights to Israel (though the UN has adjudged the Israeli occupation illegal) and the radical military regime of Salah Jadid (which the elder Assad removed).

Assad is small-fry in comparison to the Saudis, the Qatari Emirs, Netanyahu, Poroshenko and others, and certainly no worse than the likes of el-Sisi in Egypt (and Mubarak before him) Idriss Debi in Chad (and Hissene Habre before him), Hernandez in the Honduras - who Hillary Clinton helped bring to power. & let's not even get started with the crimes of the US, UK, France and other NATO members.

So what was the clever tactic? Instigate a civil war by sending in rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters, let them commit war crimes such as the chemical attack in Damascus, blame those on Assad, and then accuse Assad of other war crimes (rightly or wrongly) where he sends the army out to fight back and defend the country, as he is obliged to do, and try to root out the rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters even while NATO members are in there - uninvited - supporting them. If you don't see through that, I guarantee you didn't see through the WOMDs lies when they were first told either.

I actually think the pope belongs in the list in the third paragraph, not alongside the Queen in your second. How far off biological warfare is it to believe that condoms are more evil than AIDS?

Lizard wrote:I actually think the pope belongs in the list in the third paragraph, not alongside the Queen in your second. How far off biological warfare is it to believe that condoms are more evil than AIDS?

Indeed, though perhaps the Queen should be in there too, quite possibily part of the international billionaires club which is pulling the strings in Washington & London and elsewhere...

So what have the rebels NATO members are supporting been up to today, while everyone's feigning horror over the Chilcot report?

Rebel shelling into government-held parts of Syria's second city Aleppo killed at least 38 civilians on Saturday, a war monitor said, as Syrian government forces continued their offensive to completely encircle rebel-held parts of the city.

Those killed included 14 children and 13 women, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights conflict monitor said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... SKCN0ZP0FP

Lizard wrote:Assad is a massive cunt, though. Let's not forget that.

With the overwhelming support of the Syrian people.

I suspect their judgement is somewhat more educated than yours.