Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
obyknven

Bloody dictatorship in Turkey

Recommended Posts

 

US military sources are always rather blinkered.

 

Losing Aleppo city would only be a symptom, losing the rural areas around it is the real blow and that's been happening slowly and steadily since October, with that article impying it isn't significant. Aleppo city has never been pro rebel to any significant extent, the rebels there are primarily rural people from rif (provincial) Aleppo, not natives of the city. Which is why there are so many refugees moving at the moment, they just aren't coming from Aleppo city as tends to be implied but rif Aleppo especially the area around Azaz where the rebels have managed to systematically antagonise the ISIS, the government and even the Kurds and are unlikely to be looked at kindly by any of those three groups- the rebel held areas of Aleppo city are massively underpopulated already and only have a single road out a narrow gap between the (albeit neutral) Kurdish enclave and gov lines which leads to the 'wrong' border crossing, not the one that is getting the refugees. Aleppo city is important to the rebels because of their ability to deny it to the government and because it is fundamentally defensible, to most of the rebel fighters their homes in those little towns and villages of a few thousand or a few hundred are more important. If Aleppo city's rebel areas fall quickly it will be because its defenders have packed up and gone to defend their homes and there aren't enough foreign jihadis there.

 

The government nearly recaptured Aleppo city in 2014, ironically for all the talk of the government not fighting ISIS it was withdrawal of troops to fight them that may well have saved the rebels there two years ago.

 

One thing is for sure, we haven't heard anything about the Russian intervention being 'ineffective' or 'another Afghanistan' for months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

One thing is for sure, we haven't heard anything about the Russian intervention being 'ineffective' or 'another Afghanistan' for months.

 

You right Zora..the great Russian bear has indeed been strategic, brave  and its intervention in Syria has irrefutably proved to the world how difficult it is to indiscriminately use air power to  bomb groups of people on the ground  who have been involved in a 5 year conflict back to the stone age. Russia is indeed formidable  :biggrin:

 

At least once Assad "wins "  Russia can help restore the Syrian economy as its own economy is really strong...oh wait .... :teehee:


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dark you think this article is credible? Check below 

 

"Russians understand war. Americans understand managing conflicts to get unsatisfactory results,” one official familiar with the U.S. military campaign told The Daily Beast.  The approach of both nations “tells the region who the players are. America is feckless and Russia and Iran are reliable allies.”

 

 

Well when it comes to understanding warfare... what is better from the strategical point of view. gaining advantage at a cost of some civilian casualties or limited presence due to failures of previous campaigns and bad PR?

 

You can;t deny that Russians are effective at supporting Assad with Aleppo most likely soon to be a crown jewel of their approach. Whereas US did what? They can;t even recognize who has islamic terrorist ties and who does not, so their hands are tied. Last thing they want to do is to copy mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

This also shows the msg that indeed Russians can be an effective support in the region while US so far had failed campaigns with exception of desert storm in 90s... Whatever they did after, always backfired and only complicated things. How are Iraq and Afghanistan better economically after the US interventions? What is the scope of the help there?

 

They probably understand it, hence are slowly withdrawing and giving space to local players like Iran. Predictable dictatorship is much better than unpredictable mess that they caused.

 

The only big question mark in the whole region is the Turkey and how far they are able to gamble away their position and test NATO ties. If they will invade Syria that will be an act of war against Syrian gov and its Russian ally... from there it is an easy route for a global disaster...

Edited by Darkpriest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dark you think this article is credible? Check below 

 

"Russians understand war. Americans understand managing conflicts to get unsatisfactory results,” one official familiar with the U.S. military campaign told The Daily Beast.  The approach of both nations “tells the region who the players are. America is feckless and Russia and Iran are reliable allies.”

 

 

Well when it comes to understanding warfare... what is better from the strategical point of view. gaining advantage at a cost of some civilian casualties or limited presence due to failures of previous campaigns and bad PR?

 

You can;t deny that Russians are effective at supporting Assad with Aleppo most likely soon to be a crown jewel of their approach. Whereas US did what? They can;t even recognize who has islamic terrorist ties and who does not, so their hands are tied. Last thing they want to do is to copy mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

This also shows the msg that indeed Russians can be an effective support in the region while US so far had failed campaigns with exception of desert storm in 90s... Whatever they did after, always backfired and only complicated things. How are Iraq and Afghanistan better economically after the US interventions? What is the scope of the help there?

 

They probably understand it, hence are slowly withdrawing and giving space to local players like Iran. Predictable dictatorship is much better than unpredictable mess that they caused.

 

The only big question mark in the whole region is the Turkey and how far they are able to gamble away their position and test NATO ties. If they will invade Syria that will be an act of war against Syrian gov and its Russian ally... from there it is an easy route for a global disaster...

 

Do you think the Russian intervention in Syria is an example of difficult military campaign....see my post above :)


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a country that does it for the first time in quite some time, i am fairly sure that they are learning a lot from this experience... and they are also using out the old stocks.

 

They still are not carpet bombing. There are some civilian casualties, but it is hardly the WWII level of indiscriminate bombing raids. it is less precise than US strikes, but precise enough to push advantage for Syrian ground army backed by its allies from Iran etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a country that does it for the first time in quite some time, i am fairly sure that they are learning a lot from this experience... and they are also using out the old stocks.

 

They still are not carpet bombing. There are some civilian casualties, but it is hardly the WWII level of indiscriminate bombing raids. it is less precise than US strikes, but precise enough to push advantage for Syrian ground army backed by its allies from Iran etc.

Another question, what do you think is the Russian endgame ?

 

Lets say  both the Syrian rebels " aligned " to the West and  ISIS are defeated and Assad stays in the power..who is going to rebuild the Syrian economy?

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

Syrian Oil production had already dropped to ~ 380,000 bbl/day by 2009  (from a peak of ~580,000 bbl/day in1996)  and continued to decline to ~280,000 bbls/day (at the time the conflict started). Proven reserves are 2.5 billion barrels.  Syria ranks 32nd in production and reserves.     There are far larger and more reliable sources of oil than Syria.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

Syrian Oil production had already dropped to ~ 380,000 bbl/day by 2009  (from a peak of ~580,000 bbl/day in1996)  and continued to decline to ~280,000 bbls/day (at the time the conflict started). Proven reserves are 2.5 billion barrels.  Syria ranks 32nd in production and reserves.     There are far larger and more reliable sources of oil than Syria.   

 

 

So you think that there was no business in the supporting of the civil war in that area?

 

Like there was no additional business from France in moving to Libya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

btw interesting interview if real http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-arab-investors-in-davos-2016-1

The West understandably considers Assad a vile, appalling, intransigent and brutal dictator

 

It will take a massive amount of work to get the Syrian economy functional...I doubt the West will be prepared to commit these  type of resources  to help them..I know I wouldn't. It may just be easier to try to absorb the refugees 


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

Syrian Oil production had already dropped to ~ 380,000 bbl/day by 2009  (from a peak of ~580,000 bbl/day in1996)  and continued to decline to ~280,000 bbls/day (at the time the conflict started). Proven reserves are 2.5 billion barrels.  Syria ranks 32nd in production and reserves.     There are far larger and more reliable sources of oil than Syria.   

 

 

So you think that there was no business in the supporting of the civil war in that area?

 

Like there was no additional business from France in moving to Libya?

 

 

You're shifting the goal posts.  First it was oil, now it's business in general?   I simply replied to your comment about oil being a motivation.  Syria's production is simply not that significant.   

Edited by kgambit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

Syrian Oil production had already dropped to ~ 380,000 bbl/day by 2009  (from a peak of ~580,000 bbl/day in1996)  and continued to decline to ~280,000 bbls/day (at the time the conflict started). Proven reserves are 2.5 billion barrels.  Syria ranks 32nd in production and reserves.     There are far larger and more reliable sources of oil than Syria.   

 

 

So you think that there was no business in the supporting of the civil war in that area?

 

Like there was no additional business from France in moving to Libya?

 

 

You're shifting the goal posts.  First it was oil, now it's business in general?   I simply replied to your comment about oil being a motivation.  Syria's production is simply not that significant.   

 

 

ok, so what other than oil could drive them to Syria? It was the goal of French in Libya, so what would be other interests in Syria?

 

What would removing Syrian pres. give?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

Syrian Oil production had already dropped to ~ 380,000 bbl/day by 2009  (from a peak of ~580,000 bbl/day in1996)  and continued to decline to ~280,000 bbls/day (at the time the conflict started). Proven reserves are 2.5 billion barrels.  Syria ranks 32nd in production and reserves.     There are far larger and more reliable sources of oil than Syria.   

 

 

So you think that there was no business in the supporting of the civil war in that area?

 

Like there was no additional business from France in moving to Libya?

 

 

You're shifting the goal posts.  First it was oil, now it's business in general?   I simply replied to your comment about oil being a motivation.  Syria's production is simply not that significant.   

 

 

ok, so what other than oil could drive them to Syria? It was the goal of French in Libya, so what would be other interests in Syria?

 

What would removing Syrian pres. give?

 

Dark despite what you think if the West can assist with preventing a protracted civil war and maybe encourage our type of government and democracy  why wouldn't they help? But they won't go against the UNSC veto 

 

And at the time removing Assad would have weakened Iran who was still the enemy back in 2011


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

EU and USA. because they will want to get rid of immigrants and they will want oil

 

Syrian Oil production had already dropped to ~ 380,000 bbl/day by 2009  (from a peak of ~580,000 bbl/day in1996)  and continued to decline to ~280,000 bbls/day (at the time the conflict started). Proven reserves are 2.5 billion barrels.  Syria ranks 32nd in production and reserves.     There are far larger and more reliable sources of oil than Syria.   

 

 

So you think that there was no business in the supporting of the civil war in that area?

 

Like there was no additional business from France in moving to Libya?

 

 

You're shifting the goal posts.  First it was oil, now it's business in general?   I simply replied to your comment about oil being a motivation.  Syria's production is simply not that significant.   

 

 

ok, so what other than oil could drive them to Syria? It was the goal of French in Libya, so what would be other interests in Syria?

 

What would removing Syrian pres. give?

 

 

You tell me.  You raised the issue; I just debunked oil as a motivator.   As for the US, Obama claimed that Assad doesn't deserve to remain in power.  You remember his "red line" and this (in 2011):

 

The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.

 

 

and that has suddenly morphed into this from Kerry .......

 

It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad.

 

 

So I'm not sure if Obama has a long term goal in Syria or not.  I'm just glad that we'll be done with him in a year (so the next idiot can take his place)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, so what other than oil could drive them to Syria? It was the goal of French in Libya, so what would be other interests in Syria?

 

What would removing Syrian pres. give?

 

It's definitely not oil, as kgambit says there simply isn't enough of it. The question of why would take literally pages of analysis. Though it might have something to do with the putative blocked gas pipeline from the gulf to Turkey via Syria even that is distinctly questionable as a major factor. From the west's perspective the three major factors were probably

 

1) Arab Spring made it doable and the narrative from it was... unfortunate, since the casualties were distinctly pro western dictators like Ben Ali (and Mubarak). Idea was to co opt it to get rid of leaders they disliked

2) The west's messiah complex, and the damage Iraq did to it

3) Their Gulf allies so very, very desperately wanted Assad gone and have lots of money

 

(3) would be the biggest one by far, owing to the obsession KSA has with Iran and its shia crescent of influence, radicalising sunnis and (at best) marginalising those they don't see as proper muslims with Qatar and Bahrain not far behind there. Compared to the west they've expended vast amounts of money and political capital supporting the rebels, the west has largely just given lip service with no practical help. That's also why you have the west consistently describing Al Qaeda allied militia- literally the exact same relationship as the Taleban in Afghanistan has to Al Qaeda- as being 'moderate rebels'; those groups are the ones their allies primarily support.

 

Now you can add a fourth reason too, butthurt that the Russian intervention is working, though again that is entirely lip service/ hand waving with no practical support and is more about PR than anything else.

 

At this point they'll probably try for a 'sunnistan' solution of breaking up Iraq and Syria along- coincidentally, I'm sure- pretty much the exact boundaries of the current ISIS 'state'. Hence the talk of KSA contributing soldiers to an 'anti ISIS' ground force.

 

At least once Assad "wins "  Russia can help restore the Syrian economy as its own economy is really strong...oh wait .... teehee.gif

 

They almost literally could not make a worse job of it than the west has made with their pet projects in Iraq and Libya unless they did so deliberately, Bruciekins.

Edited by Zoraptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ok, so what other than oil could drive them to Syria? It was the goal of French in Libya, so what would be other interests in Syria?

 

What would removing Syrian pres. give?

 

It's definitely not oil, as kgambit says there simply isn't enough of it. The question of why would take literally pages of analysis. Though it might have something to do with the putative blocked gas pipeline from the gulf to Turkey via Syria even that is distinctly questionable as a major factor. From the west's perspective the three major factors were probably

 

1) Arab Spring made it doable and the narrative from it was... unfortunate, since the casualties were distinctly pro western dictators like Ben Ali (and Mubarak). Idea was to co opt it to get rid of leaders they disliked

2) The west's messiah complex, and the damage Iraq did to it

3) Their Gulf allies so very, very desperately wanted Assad gone and have lots of money

 

(3) would be the biggest one by far, owing to the obsession KSA has with Iran and its shia crescent of influence, radicalising sunnis and (at best) marginalising those they don't see as proper muslims with Qatar and Bahrain not far behind there. Compared to the west they've expended vast amounts of money and political capital supporting the rebels, the west has largely just given lip service with no practical help. That's also why you have the west consistently describing Al Qaeda allied militia- literally the exact same relationship as the Taleban in Afghanistan has to Al Qaeda- as being 'moderate rebels'; those groups are the ones their allies primarily support.

 

Now you can add a fourth reason too, butthurt that the Russian intervention is working, though again that is entirely lip service/ hand waving with no practical support and is more about PR than anything else.

 

At this point they'll probably try for a 'sunnistan' solution of breaking up Iraq and Syria along- coincidentally, I'm sure- pretty much the exact boundaries of the current ISIS 'state'. Hence the talk of KSA contributing soldiers to an 'anti ISIS' ground force.

 

At least once Assad "wins "  Russia can help restore the Syrian economy as its own economy is really strong...oh wait .... teehee.gif

 

They almost literally could not make a worse job of it than the west has made with their pet projects in Iraq and Libya unless they did so deliberately, Bruciekins.

 

Zora you have raised some interesting points, I disagree with several of them and would like to debate with you but I don't want to spend time typing if you will just ignore me. So will you engage?

 

Before you comment dont think you doing this for me, this is about giving people like Dark  a  balanced view of the situation 


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western paid troll trying shift discussion to another themes.  We just ignore his silly attempt and continue talk about  Turkey and their Western supporters.

Cah6WhPWwAABKy1.jpg

 

1454832097_diyarbakir-anti-terrorist-ope

 

6fab48d14d20ffd1e8409e0f45de9ae0__660x.j

 

4a35cbfcee0dbc6fdd42053240b66942__660x.j

 

CaDhD_jWQAAIWzT.jpg

 

CZ-vKMpXEAA0Fo8.jpg

 

http://youtu.be/UQjdoeT6Pok

 

http://youtu.be/Qf89cnL-DpA

 

http://ekurd.net/canadian-warrior-syrian-kurds-arrested-2016-02-04

 

Canadian warrior fighting with Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan arrested in Australia

Edited by obyknven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's begins. Turkey shell positions of Syrian army. 

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/886

 

Lol. Tyrants, tyrants never changed.

http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/politics-and-society/vyacheslav-plehve/

 

Plehve’s foreign policies backed aggressive ventures that helped provoke the Russian-Japanese War of 1904 - 1905.This conflict grew out of the rival imperialist ambitions of the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan over Manchuria and Korea. In January 1904, Russian General Alexey Kuropatkin reproached Plehve for instigating the Russian-Japanese war and cooperating with political crooks. Plehve responded: “Alexey Nikolaevich, you don’t know Russia’s internal situation. To avert a revolution, we need a small victorious war.” His quote is often cited as an ironical commentary about the governmental policy of trying to distract people’s attention from the failure of internal politics through an external war.

Looks like dissolving of Turkey is soon enough.

http://youtu.be/xZbQRxT0-OM

 

http://youtu.be/WvFO9dJxT5w

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oby it seems like you want Turkey to go to war with Assad ....now Russia may get involved. Are you sure Russia should be doing this considering the mess the Russian economy is in?


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oby it seems like you want Turkey to go to war with Assad ....now Russia may get involved. Are you sure Russia should be doing this considering the mess the Russian economy is in?

This is most silly  justification of Turkish war-crimes. Forever :facepalm:

 

Your post so laughable really. You worried about economical issues when Turkish-Russian war can easily cause nuclear WW and total extermination of Humanity.

 

You don't known Russians also. You think economical problems can force them to surrender. Same story with Kurds.

12934880.jpg

 

In result - simpleminded neocon banker worshiper detected.   But just for sec - imagine what if Obama have similar thinking patterns as BruceVC. Such limited non-professional people in power structures just very dangerous for own citizens and for entire world. 

 

P.S. Why Western "democratic" "free" media and whole "world community" kept silence  about barbaric civil war in Turkey? Western "democracy" and "free speech" are so ****ty really?  

Edited by obyknven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Murica. Cool story from former deputy spokesman of the State Department about how Evil Russia and Armenia threatened peaceful Turkey.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/24/putins-newest-satellite-state/#6971012f3549
 

It was the most tangible sign yet that Putin is creating a new satellite state on NATO’s border and threatening an indispensable U.S. ally.
 
A similar Russian deployment on the borders of any other NATO member state would produce an outcry of outrage. Why are we staying silent in the face of this thinly veiled aggression against Turkey? And why are we not speaking up against Armenia for rolling out the red carpet for Putin’s shock troops?

Turkey, after all, is a critical ally in the global fight against ISIS and is among the only members of the U.S.-led coalition with bases near strategic ISIS strongholds.

Make no mistake: The Russian military presence in Armenia represents a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO as the Armenia-Russian alliance strengthens.

lol, 5000 Russians and 50 000 Armenian troops ( Armenian population ~ 3 000 000 ) threatened by invasion  600 000 strong Turkish military forces  (Turkish population ~ 80 000 000).

 

Just interesting - mental illness is necessary trait for work in State Department? Though their best friends from Turkey looks the same.

http://youtu.be/Q6XVARDFemk

Kurdish-Isis-Russian alliance against Turkey lol.

 

Syrian ceasefire must exclude  Kurds of course - Turkish president do want continue bomb  them.

http://ekurd.net/turkey-syrian-kurds-excluded-ceasefire-2016-02-24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some western people do want Kick Erdogan's Turkey Out of NATO...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-weiss/its-time-to-kick-erdogans_b_9300670.html?

 

 

It's a reflection of how difficult it was to imagine that any member of the organization would betray the rest of the alliance that to this day, NATO has no formal mechanism to remove a member in bad standing or to even define what would constitute "bad standing." Yet, nearly three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO members still make the same solemn vow to one another, known asArticle 5, that they made in 1949: that an attack against any member state will be considered an attack against all member states, and will draw an immediate and mutual response. For nearly seven decades, this combination of factors has been the potential Achilles heel of NATO: that one day, its members would be called to defend the actions of a rogue member who no longer shares the values of the alliance but whose behavior puts its "allies" in danger while creating a nightmare scenario for the global order.

After 67 years, that day has arrived: Turkey, which for half a century was a stalwart ally in the Middle East while proving that a Muslim-majority nation could be both secular and democratic, has moved so far away from its NATO allies that it is widely acknowledged to be defiantly supporting the Islamic State in Syria in its war against the West. Since Islamist strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power in 2003, Turkey has taken a harshly authoritarian turn, embracing Islamic terrorists of every stripe while picking fights it can't finish across the region - including an escalating war with 25 million ISIS-battling Kurds and a cold war turning hot with Russia, whose plane it rashly shot down in November. With those fights coming home to roost - as bombs explode in its cities and with enemies at its borders - Turkish leaders are now demanding unconditional NATO support, with Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu declaring on Saturday that he expects "our U.S. ally to support Turkey with no ifs or buts."

 

but  Western governments continue suck Turkish **** as usual.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/the-armenian-genocide-german-government-in-distress/

 

German gov dropping the report on Armenian Genocide to apease the Turks.

 

55-5510-AGIWG00Z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...