Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
bouncer

Turkey Threatens To Invade Northern Syria

80 posts in this topic

He'd still be boned anyway. The Turkish are itching to get into Syria. Any further violence on their borders will most likely be interpereted as a threat and dealt with in the appropriate manner.

I just don't understand how you make that assumption, MW. Erdogan wants to be a player, sure. But do you think he would risk Assad possibly using WMD? As I said, Turkey has a professional, well supplied and armed force but that in itself could cause Assad to over react. Taking WMD off the table, it would be a slugfest for sure. I have no idea what Syria's conventional capabilities are, I haven't researched them. If Erdogan does make a play then he can call on NATO and the call would be answered. How badly does Russia want to keep the base at Tartus? And how froggy would they be in standing up to NATO in this instance? Who knows. But I'm sure Oby's brave band at State department are leaning on Erdogan pretty heavily not to cause trouble. JMO of course....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how you make that assumption, MW. Erdogan wants to be a player, sure. But do you think he would risk Assad possibly using WMD? As I said, Turkey has a professional, well supplied and armed force but that in itself could cause Assad to over react. Taking WMD off the table, it would be a slugfest for sure. I have no idea what Syria's conventional capabilities are, I haven't researched them. If Erdogan does make a play then he can call on NATO and the call would be answered. How badly does Russia want to keep the base at Tartus? And how froggy would they be in standing up to NATO in this instance? Who knows. But I'm sure Oby's brave band at State department are leaning on Erdogan pretty heavily not to cause trouble. JMO of course....

Erdogan knows that Assad won't use WMD's (btw, source? Syria has Scud missiles but is there any confirmation that they actually are armed with anything more than high explosives) because of the political ramifications. He's already pushing the limits of what Turkey considers acceptable. The use of WMD's would turn global opinions to turn wholy in favour of some form of intervention or retribution, aside from those who aren't human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'd still be boned anyway. The Turkish are itching to get into Syria. Any further violence on their borders will most likely be interpereted as a threat and dealt with in the appropriate manner.

Turkey has no interest whatsoever to invade Syria. Why would they want to get involved in a conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now it's only Turkey who seems to be seriously considering any military action. If Syria goes and using chemical and bio weapons not only would they lose any moral high ground, and thus any real support from Russia or China, but Turkey would then be justifed in bringing in NATO (though people around here would still howl about an American plot). Would likely also cause several members of the Arab League to jump in.

If Assad were to break out his big guns he'd be boned.

Yeah, funny analogy between Syria and Libia. Both run by oppressing murderous dictators, both times the locals asked for NATO intervention but here we are 1 year later, thousands of deaths and nothing. In Libia they were already bombing the presidential palace before the locals even uttered the word HELP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Erdogan knows that Assad won't use WMD's (btw, source? Syria has Scud missiles but is there any confirmation that they actually are armed with anything more than high explosives) because of the political ramifications. He's already pushing the limits of what Turkey considers acceptable. The use of WMD's would turn global opinions to turn wholy in favour of some form of intervention or retribution, aside from those who aren't human.

No, sorry, no specific source. I read news regularly though and it is mentioned with frequency that Syria is known to have stockpiles of sarin and vx scattered about the country in storage facilities. I've even read that they've shared some with Hizballah. That one I find a little hard to believe though. Considering the retaliation that would come their way if the hezzies used it on Israel. I will try to find some sources though.

I believe Assad's regime is pretty nervous after what happened to Moammar. If he sees the likelihood of losing due to Turkey providing a safe haven for the rebels he just might not care for what the international community would do....figuring he was screwed anyway... Anyone who will kill thousands of his own citizens and alienate the world community in the process isn't wrapped too tight to begin with, IMO

I saw several but the sources looked sketchy. Here's one that's pretty respected though.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/24/exclusive_state_department_quietly_warning_region_on_syrian_wmds

edited to include source

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sorry, no specific source. I read news regularly though and it is mentioned with frequency that Syria is known to have stockpiles of sarin and vx scattered about the country in storage facilities.

That's what they said about Iraq. Found nothing. But you never know with Syria.

I've even read that they've shared some with Hizballah. That one I find a little hard to believe though.

As do I. I wouldn't think that Assad would be that stupid.

I believe Assad's regime is pretty nervous after what happened to Moammar. If he sees the likelihood of losing due to Turkey providing a safe haven for the rebels he just might not care for what the international community would do....figuring he was screwed anyway... Anyone who will kill thousands of his own citizens and alienate the world community in the process isn't wrapped too tight to begin with, IMO

Meh. Here's hoping he suffers the same fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey has no interest whatsoever to invade Syria. Why would they want to get involved in a conflict?

If they didn't want to get involved, why is there a thread stating that Turkey does want to get involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they didn't want to get involved, why is there a thread stating that Turkey does want to get involved?

From the article:

But despite raising the prospect of a buffer zone within Syria in the past, Turkey would be reluctant to mount a military operation to enforce one without the backing or participation of the Arab League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

So Turkey being reluctant to being involved = totally opposing any involvement in Syria. Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Turkey being reluctant to being involved = totally opposing any involvement in Syria. Right.

I really think Erdogan would love to make his mark here and humble Assad. Frankly, I think Erdogan is dreaming of being a modern Caliph :wacko: But He wouldn't involve his country in a war with no help from NATO. Unless he was attacked first. He is just saber rattling to keep his name in the press and on the lips of good Muslims everywhere :lol:

MW you have several times mentioned your extensive knowledge of armaments and capabilities of different countries so how does Syria stack up against Turkey? I will accept your earlier premise that Syria has not been publicly proven to possess WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey has no interest whatsoever to invade Syria. Why would they want to get involved in a conflict?

I don't know if I'd be so sure of that. The Ottomans ruled Syria for 500 years until it was put under French jurisdiction and control as a part of the Treaty Of Versailles. Just sayin...

Syria hasn't seen any kind of real independence until rather recently in it's historical timeline. And upon examining Syria's timeline, I've concluded that the people there deserve better than what history (and up to the present) has handed them. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Turkey being reluctant to being involved = totally opposing any involvement in Syria. Right.

Being reluctant to be involved doesn't mean totally opposing to be involved but definitely goes completely against any rational logic of someone "itching" to be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'd be so sure of that. The Ottomans ruled Syria for 500 years until it was put under French jurisdiction and control as a part of the Treaty Of Versailles. Just sayin...

Ancient history. Turkey's biggest ambition is to become part of the EU. Invading and repossessing land goes against the basic principles of what the EU is all about.

Syria hasn't seen any kind of real independence until rather recently in it's historical timeline. And upon examining Syria's timeline, I've concluded that the people there deserve better than what history (and up to the present) has handed them. Just my opinion.

Couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient history. Turkey's biggest ambition is to become part of the EU. Invading and repossessing land goes against the basic principles of what the EU is all about.

Couldn't agree more.

I think the Turks are p***ed because the EU have rebuffed their membership for years and now Erdog is looking to the east in hopes of building Turkey into what resembles a new leading country in a Caliphate. Look at the way he went completely off the deep end over a few deaths of radicals on the Mavi Marmara. He is playing to the Islamic crowd in Turkey and abroad. But he also realizes that to attack Syria would be a huge mistake unless he's just a part of NATO.

I actually support his rhetoric about helping the innocents there. But I think it won't go much farther than rhetoric. I wonder if the refugees will start bombing and killing Turks in a few years for "stealing" Syrian land? :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the way he went completely off the deep end over a few deaths of radicals on the Mavi Marmara.

:blink: So, the US sends a flotilla of boats on a peacekeeping mission (none of the people on board were listed as being radical) to assist an oppressed population and their boats get raided and attacked in international waters by a special operations task force unit from the oppressors, armed to their teeth and you're expecting me to believe that Obama would take it on the chin and do nothing?

How it must hurt to be fair and objective, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink: So, the US sends a flotilla of boats on a peacekeeping mission (none of the people on board were listed as being radical) to assist an oppressed population and their boats get raided and attacked in international waters by a special operations task force unit from the oppressors, armed to their teeth and you're expecting me to believe that Obama would take it on the chin and do nothing?

How it must hurt to be fair and objective, huh?

If you were being objective I would discuss it with you but you obviously are comfortable with the mischaracterization pressed by the anti Israel crowd so there's no point.

The Marmara was on a mission to do exactly what it did. Dozens of activists were seen in the video engaging the Navy forces before they could even get on the deck. Similar intercepts that occurred without violence were insufficient to get world attention so they turned up the heat and got dead for their trouble.

And as to what Oby would or wouldn't do...just check the polls on any given day - that tool is apt to do ANYTHING.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were being objective I would discuss it with you but you obviously are comfortable with the mischaracterization pressed by the anti Israel crowd so there's no point.

The Marmara was on a mission to do exactly what it did. Dozens of activists were seen in the video engaging the Navy forces before they could even get on the deck. Similar intercepts that occurred without violence were insufficient to get world attention so they turned up the heat and got dead for their trouble.

And as to what Oby would or wouldn't do...just check the polls on any given day - that tool is apt to do ANYTHING.....

OK, show me a link where A Naval Task Force is allowed to board a private ship, in international waters, armed to their teeth and allowed to do so under International Law, Usually, naval vessels that carry out these type of attacks are called Pirates.

But then again, we know the Israeli's are allowed privileges that most other nations in the world aren't and we know they have simple minded americans like yourself hoodwinked, so, yeah I agree, talking objectiveness with you IS probably pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were being objective I would discuss it with you but you obviously are comfortable with the mischaracterization pressed by the anti Israel crowd so there's no point.

The Marmara was on a mission to do exactly what it did. Dozens of activists were seen in the video engaging the Navy forces before they could even get on the deck. Similar intercepts that occurred without violence were insufficient to get world attention so they turned up the heat and got dead for their trouble.

And as to what Oby would or wouldn't do...just check the polls on any given day - that tool is apt to do ANYTHING.....

The UN did condemn the Israeli's and it was against the UN law. But what the hell is this got to do with Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient history. Turkey's biggest ambition is to become part of the EU. Invading and repossessing land goes against the basic principles of what the EU is all about.

Old habits die hard. If things worsen and spiral out of control the EU just may give it's blessing for a limited engagement. Or if pushed enough, may go it alone. Although I find that unlikely, it's still a possibility given the regions history. No it's not ancient history silly, the Ottoman's ruled Syria from 1519 till 1920. Oh I know, it was probably just a figure of speech... :lol:

Couldn't agree more.

At long last, a point we agree on.... :lol: Hey, it's a good start!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OK, show me a link where A Naval Task Force is allowed to board a private ship, in international waters, armed to their teeth and allowed to do so under International Law, Usually, naval vessels that carry out these type of attacks are called Pirates.

But then again, we know the Israeli's are allowed privileges that most other nations in the world aren't and we know they have simple minded americans like yourself hoodwinked, so, yeah I agree, talking objectiveness with you IS probably pointless.

The blockade is legal since Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel and they actively fire rockets into Israel on a regular basis. The UN agrees with this.

It is legal to use force in boarding a vessel anywhere, if that vessel is headed to a port which would break the blockade.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/02/us-israel-flotilla-gaza-idUSTRE65133D20100602

If they did not blockade the Pali's then Hamas would acquire even more massive stockpiles of arms with which to attack Israel. Try not to confuse your deeply held bias against Israel with an actual knowledge of the law. The truth is that those who weep for the plight of the Arab stepchildren are just anti semites wrapping themselves in the noble cloth of human rights. Hamas never met a human right that it didn't abuse, mostly against it's own.

When Israel is pushed to the breaking point by useful idiots in the world community they are going to scorch the ground in the surrounding countries. And folks like you can scream about it until you turn blue but nothing is going to change the outcome. If the Arab stepchildren really wanted peace instead of the annihilation of Israel, they could have peace tomorrow. But there will never be negotiated peace because the hatred is too ingrained. Israel will have peace when her enemies are scattered and destroyed. And that day may not be so far away.

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The blockade is legal since Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel and they actively fire rockets into Israel on a regular basis.

Ha, the expected answer.

The UN agrees with this.

No it doesn't. Just because the Pick & Choose (Palmer) Report from an independent group of 4 individuals, with clear political motives, suggest the blockade is legal, doesn't necessarily mean this is Law and encrypted in stone. My link

Together with the UNHRC opinion in the link, you can add the UN Secretary General opinion My link & My link, every other Human Rights Groups opinion and most world leaders opinion and they all come up with the same conclusion, the blockade is inhumane and/or illegal. If you ever bothered to look up the information on one of the HR sites, before shooting off your Media brainwashed parrot repeating opinions, you'll also understand why.

Sticking to the Report. It also suggests that the Israeli's used excessive force, should compensate the nine victims and apologise to Turkey. Yet nothing!!?? Have you got an objective view on this or you're only interested in the part of the Report favorable to Isreali interests?

It is legal to use force in boarding a vessel anywhere, if that vessel is headed to a port which would break the blockade.

According to the San Remo Manual, Paragraph 67(a) only permits attacks on the merchant vessels of neutral countries where they "are believed on reasonable grounds" to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, which the Isreali's claim happened, BUT, Paragraph 102b of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade" which is what the UN, UNHRC and all HR groups acknowledge is happening. So, if the naval blockade is illegal on these grounds, the flotilla raid was illegal. FULLSTOP. But, I'm sure you'll never read this on your Christian/Zionist media channels.

Israel will have peace when her enemies are scattered and destroyed. And that day may not be so far away.

Go get em Rambo. :w00t:

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, apologies to the mods and Erix for taking the thread a bit off course. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, apologies to the mods and Erix for taking the thread a bit off course. :blush:

That's ok but when there is an Israel debate it goes on and on lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, the expected answer.

No it doesn't. Just because the Pick & Choose (Palmer) Report from an independent group of 4 individuals, with clear political motives, suggest the blockade is legal, doesn't necessarily mean this is Law and encrypted in stone. My link

Together with the UNHRC opinion in the link, you can add the UN Secretary General opinion My link & My link, every other Human Rights Groups opinion and most world leaders opinion and they all come up with the same conclusion, the blockade is inhumane and/or illegal. If you ever bothered to look up the information on one of the HR sites, before shooting off your Media brainwashed parrot repeating opinions, you'll also understand why.

Sticking to the Report. It also suggests that the Israeli's used excessive force, should compensate the nine victims and apologise to Turkey. Yet nothing!!?? Have you got an objective view on this or you're only interested in the part of the Report favorable to Isreali interests?

According to the San Remo Manual, Paragraph 67(a) only permits attacks on the merchant vessels of neutral countries where they "are believed on reasonable grounds" to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, which the Isreali's claim happened, BUT, Paragraph 102b of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade" which is what the UN, UNHRC and all HR groups acknowledge is happening. So, if the naval blockade is illegal on these grounds, the flotilla raid was illegal. FULLSTOP. But, I'm sure you'll never read this on your Christian/Zionist media channels.

Go get em Rambo. :w00t:

Cute and thanks, I've never been called Rambo before :w00t:

If the actions of Israel were/are so far out of line with international legal precedence then why are no further actions taken against them? The truth is that the blockade is completely legal and while I'm sure it causes problems for the Gazans, they bring it on themselves by consenting to terrorist activity being projected from their soil. Quoting propaganda from a UN organization that is negative toward Israel is silly. Everything from the UN is anti Israel - the UN is a farce in this respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever suits your argument....:rolleyes:

The UN agrees with this.

Everything from the UN is anti Israel - the UN is a farce in this respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.