RugbyRebels

Interesting indeed. We're seeing almost a century of civilization & democracy being unravelled here. I'm not saying it's all bad, but most of it is. When I arrived they had a 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy in place and had barely been involved in any wars at all since WWI - with the notable exception of Korea to fulfill their requirement as a proud NATO member. They were also making progress with the Kurds. But all that went flying out the window when the incumbent government failed to win a majority in the last elections, largely due to the inroads made by the Kurdish party - who gained the required 10% threshold for representation in government. There were plenty of signs before this, of course, but the past year has been stupefying.

rowan wrote:Interesting indeed. We're seeing almost a century of civilization & democracy being unravelled here. I'm not saying it's all bad, but most of it is. When I arrived they had a 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy in place and had barely been involved in any wars at all since WWI - with the notable exception of Korea to fulfill their requirement as a proud NATO member. They were also making progress with the Kurds. But all that went flying out the window when the incumbent government failed to win a majority in the last elections, largely due to the inroads made by the Kurdish party - who gained the required 10% threshold for representation in government. There were plenty of signs before this, of course, but the past year has been stupefying.

Apart from highlighted bit agrees 100%. Korea wasn't a NATO action it was a UN action as shown bt the fact that counties such as
India, Thailand, Philipines, Colombia & S.Africa plus others were invloved

Thanks for the clarification.

belgarion wrote:

rowan wrote:Interesting indeed. We're seeing almost a century of civilization & democracy being unravelled here. I'm not saying it's all bad, but most of it is. When I arrived they had a 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy in place and had barely been involved in any wars at all since WWI - with the notable exception of Korea to fulfill their requirement as a proud NATO member. They were also making progress with the Kurds. But all that went flying out the window when the incumbent government failed to win a majority in the last elections, largely due to the inroads made by the Kurdish party - who gained the required 10% threshold for representation in government. There were plenty of signs before this, of course, but the past year has been stupefying.

Apart from highlighted bit agrees 100%. Korea wasn't a NATO action it was a UN action as shown bt the fact that counties such as
India, Thailand, Philipines, Colombia & S.Africa plus others were invloved

Not only that, but Turkey wasn't even a member of NATO when it sent the Turkish Brigade to Korea. The Turkish Government responded to UN Resolution 83 on June 29th 1950, and joined NATO on February 18th 1952.

So, Rowan, where was the Turkish 'Zero Problems with Neighbours' policy when Turkey invaded Cyprus?

Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to protect ethnic Turks being persecuted by the Greek military junta during the Metapolitefsi, yes. That action was supported by the US at the time. Why the island hasn't been reunited again is a different matter. I've been down there, btw, and the northern part is distinctly Turkish - albeit it of the more liberal 'Aegean' variety. The 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy is a much more recent phenomenon. It was in fact the political philosophy of the AKP under Erdogan - until very recently. And now suddenly they're at odds with practically all of their neighbors! That's got nothing to do with the military history of the Turkish Republic, but until the past few years the vast majority of their operations were against the Kurds, and for this purpose they have retained mandatory conscription & one of the world's biggest armies. About 40 K people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict with the PKK alone, and we can safely assume the vast majority of them will have been Kurds. What are they doing in Syria now? Attacking "ISIS?" Hmmm

rowan wrote:Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to protect ethnic Turks being persecuted by the Greek military junta during the Metapolitefsi, yes. That action was supported by the US at the time. Why the island hasn't been reunited again is a different matter. I've been down there, btw, and the northern part is distinctly Turkish - albeit it of the more liberal 'Aegean' variety. The 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy is a much more recent phenomenon. It was in fact the political philosophy of the AKP under Erdogan - until very recently. And now suddenly they're at odds with practically all of their neighbors! That's got nothing to do with the military history of the Turkish Republic, but until the past few years the vast majority of their operations were against the Kurds, and for this purpose they have retained mandatory conscription & one of the world's biggest armies. About 40 K people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict with the PKK alone, and we can safely assume the vast majority of them will have been Kurds. What are they doing in Syria now? Attacking "ISIS?" Hmmm

I don't think anyone believes they're only attacking ISIS. It has been fairly widely reported here who the real target is.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to protect ethnic Turks being persecuted by the Greek military junta during the Metapolitefsi, yes. That action was supported by the US at the time. Why the island hasn't been reunited again is a different matter. I've been down there, btw, and the northern part is distinctly Turkish - albeit it of the more liberal 'Aegean' variety. The 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy is a much more recent phenomenon. It was in fact the political philosophy of the AKP under Erdogan - until very recently. And now suddenly they're at odds with practically all of their neighbors! That's got nothing to do with the military history of the Turkish Republic, but until the past few years the vast majority of their operations were against the Kurds, and for this purpose they have retained mandatory conscription & one of the world's biggest armies. About 40 K people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict with the PKK alone, and we can safely assume the vast majority of them will have been Kurds. What are they doing in Syria now? Attacking "ISIS?" Hmmm

I don't think anyone believes they're only attacking ISIS. It has been fairly widely reported here who the real target is.

Really? Where is 'here' and who is being reported as the 'real target?' We're still under a State of Emergency' here, you understand, and while I generally read a few stories from both the American and British press every day, we can be pretty sure a lot of stuff is getting filtered out at the moment.

Meanwhile, in breaking news the leader of the opposition has just been fired upon in the north of the country, but survived without injury. Never a dull moment . . .

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to protect ethnic Turks being persecuted by the Greek military junta during the Metapolitefsi, yes. That action was supported by the US at the time. Why the island hasn't been reunited again is a different matter. I've been down there, btw, and the northern part is distinctly Turkish - albeit it of the more liberal 'Aegean' variety. The 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy is a much more recent phenomenon. It was in fact the political philosophy of the AKP under Erdogan - until very recently. And now suddenly they're at odds with practically all of their neighbors! That's got nothing to do with the military history of the Turkish Republic, but until the past few years the vast majority of their operations were against the Kurds, and for this purpose they have retained mandatory conscription & one of the world's biggest armies. About 40 K people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict with the PKK alone, and we can safely assume the vast majority of them will have been Kurds. What are they doing in Syria now? Attacking "ISIS?" Hmmm

I don't think anyone believes they're only attacking ISIS. It has been fairly widely reported here who the real target is.

Really? Where is 'here' and who is being reported as the 'real target?' We're still under a State of Emergency' here, you understand, and while I generally read a few stories from both the American and British press every day, we can be pretty sure a lot of stuff is getting filtered out at the moment.

Meanwhile, in breaking news the leader of the opposition has just been fired upon in the north of the country, but survived without injury. Never a dull moment . . .

UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... order-town

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to protect ethnic Turks being persecuted by the Greek military junta during the Metapolitefsi, yes. That action was supported by the US at the time. Why the island hasn't been reunited again is a different matter. I've been down there, btw, and the northern part is distinctly Turkish - albeit it of the more liberal 'Aegean' variety. The 'Zero Problems with Neighbors' policy is a much more recent phenomenon. It was in fact the political philosophy of the AKP under Erdogan - until very recently. And now suddenly they're at odds with practically all of their neighbors! That's got nothing to do with the military history of the Turkish Republic, but until the past few years the vast majority of their operations were against the Kurds, and for this purpose they have retained mandatory conscription & one of the world's biggest armies. About 40 K people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict with the PKK alone, and we can safely assume the vast majority of them will have been Kurds. What are they doing in Syria now? Attacking "ISIS?" Hmmm

I don't think anyone believes they're only attacking ISIS. It has been fairly widely reported here who the real target is.

Really? Where is 'here' and who is being reported as the 'real target?' We're still under a State of Emergency' here, you understand, and while I generally read a few stories from both the American and British press every day, we can be pretty sure a lot of stuff is getting filtered out at the moment.

Meanwhile, in breaking news the leader of the opposition has just been fired upon in the north of the country, but survived without injury. Never a dull moment . . .

The times had a piece on how the Kurds were more of a concern than Isis. Which would explain the timing given the recent Kurdish advances.

To be fair, if something positive is to come of this total cluster it's he Kurds getting a recognised homeland of their own. Even if Iran and turkey don't cede territory, and I can't imagine that they will, could land in Iraq and Syria be sufficient to make a viable nation? The biggest issue would be their landlocked constriction but their autonomous government in northern Iraq has come across as being one of the more reasonable on the region.

Yes, the only good thing to come out of the Iraq fiasco, and which by no means condoned it, was the emergence of an autonomous region for the Kurds in the north. America may have supported this partly to spite the Turks for not helping out, though undoubtedly their primary motive had more to do with control of the oil industry. A similar autonomous region in the north of Syria would require the removal of the Alawite regime in Damascus and break-up of the country itself. It would also outrage the Turks. So I'm not sure that's on the agenda.

The Kurds, of course, are indigenous to northern Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey. They speak a language closely related to Farsi and number close to 30 million in total, making them the largest ethnic group in the world without a homeland. The majority are Sunni Muslim, though around a quarter are Alevi (Turkish version of Alawite basically). The Kurds fought alongside the Turks in WWI as the Sykes-Picot plot would have left them scattered among various European colonies had it succeeded. Their pleas for a homeland at the Treaty of Luasanne fell on deaf ears. They were subsequently forced to assimilate with the Turks in the newly formed republic, up to 200,000 were forcibly relocated, and resistance resulted in some terrible massacres - such as Dersim in 1935, where up to 40 K were estimated to have been killed.

Kurdish hopes for a homeland after the independence of Iraq, meanwhile, were scuppered by the British and Americans, and when they attempted to resist in Sulaymaniya province Churchill duly bombed them. They suffered similarly in Iran, and when Iraq invaded that country in 1980 (egged on by the US to avenge the '79 Revolution), the Kurds were caught in the middle and suffered terribly. At one point Saddam executed 8000 young men of the Barzani tribe simply on the suspicion they might join the enemy. After the Kuwait war George Bush Sr urged the Kurds to rebel, then stood back and did nothing as Saddam attacked them with chemical weapons the US itself had helped to provide!

The PKK in Turkey turned to terrorism in the 1980s, although their leader Abdullah Ocalan was captured in Africa (with CIA help) in 1997. He was fortunate to escape the death penalty, which Turkey outlawed under immense international pressure, and continues to rot in jail two decades later. The PKK struggle is estimated to cost Turkey approximately US$10 billion a year.

The times had a piece on how the Kurds were more of a concern than Isis. Which would explain the timing given the recent Kurdish advances.

Looks like an open secret now:

The Turkish military, which has entered Syrian town of Jarablus as part of the Euphrates Shield operation to back Syrian rebels sweep Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants off the border, hit late on Aug. 25 the Syrian Kurdish militants by artillery fire.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syrian ... sCatID=510

'ISIS' doesn't even exist

So "ISIS" has clearly become a free pass to invade other sovereign nations. Perhaps it should rather be called "ISISn't."

This is tragic:

On Sunday, Turkey intensified its "Euphrates Shield" military offensive in northern Syria, with Turkish warplanes and artillery pounding areas held by pro-Kurdish forces close to Jarablus, the town taken from ISIL by Ankara-backed Syrian rebels earlier this week.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 40 civilians were killed in separate Turkish strikes near the village of al-Amarneh and in Jeb al-Kussa, outside Jarablus - the first reports of significant civilian casualties since the start of Turkey's operation on Wednesday.

The group, which monitors Syria's war, also said at least four Kurdish fighters had been killed and 15 wounded in the bombardments south of Jarablus.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/e ... 05139.html

Surprised it took so long.

And while Turkey has been concentrating on attackiing the Kurdish SDF, the (non-existent) ISIS have taken advantage of the Turkish operation and have re-captured Tal-Hudhan from the SDF, south of Manbij

It is surely an act of war

Zhivago wrote:It is surely an act of war

Really?

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:It is surely an act of war

Really?

Yes, how is invading a neighbouring country with tanks etc not an act of war?

What's really disturbing is that most of the major terrorist attacks in Turkey over the past few years have actually targetted the Kurds (the exceptions being those which have killed mostly foreigners), and now this is being used as a pretext for Turkey to invade another country and attack, er, the Kurds. Adding an even further twist to that, is that the Kurds are the main ones actually fighting the US-backed rebels-cum-terrorists in the region, who the Western media refers to as "ISIS,' and who Turkey (like everyone else involved in destroying Syria) claimed to be going after...

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:It is surely an act of war

Really?

Yes, how is invading a neighbouring country with tanks etc not an act of war?

You don't really do sarcasm, do you?

rowan wrote:What's really disturbing is that most of the major terrorist attacks in Turkey over the past few years have actually targetted the Kurds (the exceptions being those which have killed mostly foreigners), and now this is being used as a pretext for Turkey to invade another country and attack, er, the Kurds. Adding an even further twist to that, is that the Kurds are the main ones actually fighting the US-backed rebels-cum-terrorists in the region, who the Western media refers to as "ISIS,' and who Turkey (like everyone else involved in destroying Syria) claimed to be going after...

Who is backing the SDF?

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:It is surely an act of war

Really?

Yes, how is invading a neighbouring country with tanks etc not an act of war?

For some truly odd folk it's when Russia sends tanks into Ukraine

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:What's really disturbing is that most of the major terrorist attacks in Turkey over the past few years have actually targetted the Kurds (the exceptions being those which have killed mostly foreigners), and now this is being used as a pretext for Turkey to invade another country and attack, er, the Kurds. Adding an even further twist to that, is that the Kurds are the main ones actually fighting the US-backed rebels-cum-terrorists in the region, who the Western media refers to as "ISIS,' and who Turkey (like everyone else involved in destroying Syria) claimed to be going after...

Who is backing the SDF?

Look it up and educate yourself for a change. I'm not your Google search engine.

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:What's really disturbing is that most of the major terrorist attacks in Turkey over the past few years have actually targetted the Kurds (the exceptions being those which have killed mostly foreigners), and now this is being used as a pretext for Turkey to invade another country and attack, er, the Kurds. Adding an even further twist to that, is that the Kurds are the main ones actually fighting the US-backed rebels-cum-terrorists in the region, who the Western media refers to as "ISIS,' and who Turkey (like everyone else involved in destroying Syria) claimed to be going after...

Who is backing the SDF?

Look it up and educate yourself for a change. I'm not your Google search engine.

It's a very long way of saying you don't know. I know fine, I just think that for all your bluster you've barely a baldy notion of what's going on in Syria, but the left wing narrative of "America bad" is a seductive one, and easy to parrot on social media.

The behaviour of Turkey in this action appears to be getting worse, and they appear to be acting in cooperation with (non-existent) ISIS to cut off the two bridges over the Euphrates that the SDF use as supply routes for their forces centered around Manbij.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Who is backing the SDF?

Look it up and educate yourself for a change. I'm not your Google search engine.

It's a very long way of saying you don't know. I know fine, I just think that for all your bluster you've barely a baldy notion of what's going on in Syria, but the left wing narrative of "America bad" is a seductive one, and easy to parrot on social media.

The behaviour of Turkey in this action appears to be getting worse, and they appear to be acting in cooperation with (non-existent) ISIS to cut off the two bridges over the Euphrates that the SDF use as supply routes for their forces centered around Manbij.

You begin your second sentence by agreeing with the sentiment of the paragraph I wrote which you initially disagreed with, after having the audacity to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well, I have lived in Turkey for the past dozen years, and have written for both the local and international press on this issue. You, meanwhile, are located where - Britain, I believe ??

I can only deduce from this that you somehow imagine being British means that you have a superior grasp of all matters in the world. But your history of warfare, colonization, murder, brutality, bloodshed, rape and torture does not make you superior in any manner or form. Conversely, it makes you inferior in terms of moral judgement - essential to balanced understanding.

So spare the arrogance and pig-headed comments. You have clearly been confused out of your wits by the propaganda which accompanies all such operations - because you are easily misled when it suits your ego - and have no idea what is going on at all.

Fancy someome sitting on his arse in Britain telling someone in Turkey he doesn't know what the Turks are doing in Syria. That would be like me telling you you have no understanding of Brexit. But I wasn't raised in a culture which encourages such arrogant behavior - Mashallah.

'ISIS' is simply a Western apellation (nominally associated with a religion it actually has nothing to do with) for those factions of the US/Saudi-backed rebels who have run amok and turned to terrorism. This was no accident. It has since become a free pass for the involvement in Syria of various NATO members, including the US itself, along with France and Britain - and now Turkey. But not one of them was invited, which makes their presence illegal under international law - and every innocent person they have killed (and there have been many) was a victim of their state terrorism.

So while NATO and Saudi and their proxies are systematically destroying Syria, as they'd been planning to do for decades, and confusing people like you, you want to speak in the very abbreviations and acronyms their own propagandists invented as cover and pretend that you actually have some clue as to what's going on. Clearly you don't.

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:
Look it up and educate yourself for a change. I'm not your Google search engine.

It's a very long way of saying you don't know. I know fine, I just think that for all your bluster you've barely a baldy notion of what's going on in Syria, but the left wing narrative of "America bad" is a seductive one, and easy to parrot on social media.

The behaviour of Turkey in this action appears to be getting worse, and they appear to be acting in cooperation with (non-existent) ISIS to cut off the two bridges over the Euphrates that the SDF use as supply routes for their forces centered around Manbij.

You begin your second sentence by agreeing with the sentiment of the paragraph I wrote which you initially disagreed with, after having the audacity to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well, I have lived in Turkey for the past dozen years, and have written for both the local and international press on this issue. You, meanwhile, are located where - Britain, I believe ??

I can only deduce from this that you somehow imagine being British means that you have a superior grasp of all matters in the world. But your history of warfare, colonization, murder, brutality, bloodshed, rape and torture does not make you superior in any manner or form. Conversely, it makes you inferior in terms of moral judgement - essential to balanced understanding.

He's been a busy lad.

rowan wrote: So spare the arrogance and pig-headed comments. You have clearly been confused out of your wits by the propaganda which accompanies all such operations - because you are easily misled when it suits your ego - and have no idea what is going on at all.

Fancy someome sitting on his arse in Britain telling someone in Turkey he doesn't know what the Turks are doing in Syria. That would be like me telling you you have no understanding of Brexit. But I wasn't raised in a culture which encourages such arrogant behavior - Mashallah.

Well it's on display pretty much everywhere in your post.

rowan wrote: 'ISIS' is simply a Western apellation (nominally associated with a religion it actually has nothing to do with) for those factions of the US/Saudi-backed rebels who have run amok and turned to terrorism. This was no accident. It has since become a free pass for the involvement in Syria of various NATO members, including the US itself, along with France and Britain - and now Turkey. But not one of them was invited, which makes their presence illegal under international law - and every innocent person they have killed (and there have been many) was a victim of their state terrorism.

So while NATO and Saudi and their proxies are systematically destroying Syria, as they'd been planning to do for decades, and confusing people like you, you want to speak in the very abbreviations and acronyms their own propagandists invented as cover and pretend that you actually have some clue as to what's going on. Clearly you don't.

Why no mention of the many many more innocent people killed by the regime, the Russians, the non existent isis?