RugbyRebels

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?

OptimisticJock wrote:

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: 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 apart from you on and display it 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?

FFS, it's because the killers are not British, obvs, so they aren't doing anything wrong, or at least if they are its pretty insignificant next to the genuine evil committed daily by the UK and everyone in it.

Its all very clear to me, altho I have had many conversations with rowan to lead me to this point.

The fact you think the Russians have killed far more people than NATO, Saudi and their proxies is precisely what I'm referring to. All you can do in your far off little island is regurgitate what you see in your notoriously biased media, and somewhat ironically you are convinced this provides you with a superior view. The fact you seem to actually believe in 'ISIS' as some rampaging, Islamic monster capable of striking anywhere in the world and determined to destroy Western civilization as we know it is indicative of a childlike naivety - reminiscent of those who believed Bush Jrs WOMD claims, Bush Srs claims of Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators, claims that America fought to defend Vietnam from the Commies, claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to bring a quick end to the war, and claims that the native Americans really were marauding savages bent on killing all the noble white men.

In reality, 'ISIS' is another invention of the American media to justify their involvement in Syria, and after all that has gone before you would have to be really, really gullible to believe it. Their vehicles and weapons were supplied by America, their video clips look like they were filmed in Hollywood studios, and their uniforms belong in a Kung Fu movie. But as a direct result of this propaganda the US and its NATO allies have able to get involved in Syria directly in support of the proxies they sent in to destabilize the country in the first place. Ideally they would like to force another regime change and bring Syria into their growing sphere of influence in the region. But failing that they would be quite content just to destroy the nation, no matter how many millions they have to kill, cripple, traumatize, displace and disenfranchise along the way.

The US is estimated to have killed over 10 million Muslims during the past 25 years, and more than 20 million civilians in total since WWII with approaching 100 foreign interventions, including direct invasion. & all the Americans and British can do is point the finger at the Russians, who they have been brainwashed to hate (as a diversion from their own nations' horrific list of war-crimes), and say 'What about them?' Well, guess what, they were actually invited by the recognized government of Syria to help defend the country from the terrorists the US and its allies sent in. Did you think that was going to involve skipping around and throwing flowers in the air?

SEE?

You appear to be forgetting the cultural standards which you were raised with.

As for the irony statement you appear to be lacking in self awareness.

Turkey's invasion is just another move on the Syrian chess board, and Erdogan has America's undivided support all the way, regardless what you might read in the press. He has done so since 2003, in fact. That was the year the army refused to play ball on the invasion of Iraq, so their NATO masters in Washington came to the conclusion that if they could not control a democracy they would turn it into a dictatorship. Terrorist attacks targetting mostly Kurds have been attributed to the American proxy dubbed 'ISIS,' while a pathetic excuse for an attempted coup has been attributed to the Gulenists, former partners of the CIA in Africa and the Middle East. It's all been much too convenient, and many people here know it.

rowan wrote: The US is estimated to have killed over 10 million Muslims during the past 25 years, and more than 20 million civilians in total since WWII with approaching 100 foreign interventions, including direct invasion. & all the Americans and British can do is point the finger at the Russians

That number seems oddly high, is that taking pretty much all combat deaths and saying the US killed them by dint of direct and indirect actions? Also when you arrive at a figure like that and blame the USA and say all others can do is claim Russia isn't responsible would you per chance be including deaths in Afghanistan and putting all those on the USA and none on Russia? If so it's a barking mad thing to lay indirect deaths only at one door.