Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

Turkey threatens Russia over ISIS

126 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77

No, the U.S. doesn't support terrorists. We're quite capable of inflicting all the terror we want ourselves, up close and personal. No need to farm it out to amateurs. When it comes to Ukraine and Syria, one country's terrorists are the other country's rebels.

So we arm and train people to terrorize a society and yet you refuse to call them terrorists? This is why America is doomed, absolute no sense of intellectual honestly. Do some reading , this....is...happening , no amount of willful ignorance changes that fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deleted

Yes well Good Luck with that Turkey

They don`t want the Kurds to win, cause Tukrey is on the brink of civil war thanks to Erdogan's facist poltics and if ISIS is gone the Kurds will fill part of the power vaccuum, if that happens the Kurdish minority in Turkey will have a strong ally and Erdogan wants to stop this from happening.

Edited by hellwyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

The locals may not feel like that after a few months of Russian bombing.

My friend i am sure we would not like to hear what do locals think of bombings in general. US or Russian bombs are not made of candies and with every single bomb which strikes any part of land - at least one of innocent locals get dead or injured, infrastructure gets destroyed and future of those locals is made worse with every new bomb which detonates above their heads or, on their heads.

It's just a waste of resources and waste of innocent lives. Few years of bombing didn't really help anyone and i am sure it's bombings without land offensive which makes even more terrorists.

Imagine a guy who loose his family to Russian or US bombs. On whom will he address his pain? Not on isis, for them, that grieving individual is perfect target to recruit.

It seems that status quo is very much acceptable by both US and Russians, it is only bad for locals..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

My friend i am sure we would not like to hear what do locals think of bombings in general. US or Russian bombs are not made of candies and with every single bomb which strikes any part of land - at least one of innocent locals get dead or injured, infrastructure gets destroyed and future of those locals is made worse with every new bomb which detonates above their heads or, on their heads.

It's just a waste of resources and waste of innocent lives. Few years of bombing didn't really help anyone and i am sure it's bombings without land offensive which makes even more terrorists.

Imagine a guy who loose his family to Russian or US bombs. On whom will he address his pain? Not on isis, for them, that grieving individual is perfect target to recruit.

It seems that status quo is very much acceptable by both US and Russians, it is only bad for locals..

It would only be natural for them to hate the ones doing the bombing. OTOH it is not true to say the bombing is completely useless. Those bombs do kill fighters, not just civilians. This is a war and while it's different from others we are familiar with we have a couple of choices it seems. We can surrender to groups that are willing to hide among civilians or we can destroy them, among those civilians. Gaza is a perfect example. Killing women, children and old people is a horror but allowing those who hide among them to kill your own women and children is worse. It all gets down to which group is the initiator of the conflict and even that is muddied in the minds of all. Like the man said, war is hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

So we arm and train people to terrorize a society and yet you refuse to call them terrorists? This is why America is doomed, absolute no sense of intellectual honestly. Do some reading , this....is...happening , no amount of willful ignorance changes that fact.

Cry me a river. If you're afraid of America, good. We want all our enemies to be afraid.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deleted

Cry me a river. If you're afraid of America, good. We want all our enemies to be afraid.

that includes your own people? Some would call that fascism :)

Edited by hellwyr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

that includes your own people? Some would call that fascism :)

Not if they're considered traitorous ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

that includes your own people? Some would call that fascism :)

Yeah. Our enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

Which snake would that be?

According to rt.com, US, Saudis and Qatar

Of course biased site, but still.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Cry me a river. If you're afraid of America, good. We want all our enemies to be afraid.

Therein lies the problem, Syrians weren't our enemies until we started a terrorist campaign to depose their leader. Again, the displays of willful ignorance are abhorrent . The things im saying arent opinion they are fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

The Pentagon knew exactly what they were getting into by arming rebels. Documents show they expected in 2012 the creation of a 'Salafist Principality' in Syria.

''A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

http://www.theguardi...isis-syria-iraq

I am afraid this is compelling evidence that the U.S. supported, directly or indirectly, the rise of 'ISIL'.

*Bolds are mine

Ummm... and the very next paragraph warns that this 'Principality' scenario works against US interests. This document is a combination of a national intelligence estimate, and a hypothetical extrapolation into possible outcomes. It is NOT a policy document. And even if it WAS (which it isn't), it ultimately warns AGAINST allowing ISIS to form a Principality/Caliphate.

I'm sorry Sam, but this doesn't seem like an indication of a US policy of deliberately creating/supporting ISIS. Indeed, it reads more like a warning NOT to do so.

Bear in mind that the Pentagon commissions all sorts of plans and possibilities. It probably has a plan and NIE's for the invasion of the Federated States of Micronesia. That doesn't mean that they intend to do it, nor approve of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Therein lies the problem, Syrians weren't our enemies until we started a terrorist campaign to depose their leader. Again, the displays of willful ignorance are abhorrent . The things im saying arent opinion they are fact.

Ummm... I think the civilian anti-Assad protestors did that, didn't they ? Their protests where met with gunfire from the State Security services, and it escalated from there.

It seems a curiously paternalistic - almost racist - belief that Arab/Muslim nations are not capable of doing things themselves, but must always be motivated/controlled by Western or Russian influences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyades

Ummm... I think the civilian anti-Assad protestors did that, didn't they ? Their protests where met with gunfire from the State Security services, and it escalated from there.

It seems a curiously paternalistic - almost racist - belief that Arab/Muslim nations are not capable of doing things themselves, but must always be motivated/controlled by Western or Russian influences.

Anti-Assad protesters, who were they?, US sponsored protestors!, I don't think that it was verified somehow? If it was (US backed), then, it's a different ball game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Ummm... I think the civilian anti-Assad protestors did that, didn't they ? Their protests where met with gunfire from the State Security services, and it escalated from there.

It seems a curiously paternalistic - almost racist - belief that Arab/Muslim nations are not capable of doing things themselves, but must always be motivated/controlled by Western or Russian influences.

Its simply about understanding our nation's history. I have a hard time believing the protesters started without CIA help ala the "arab spring" events elsewhere around the globe. Regardless the humanitarian crisis we are facing would have never escalated had we not materially supported terrorists in that nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Ummm... and the very next paragraph warns that this 'Principality' scenario works against US interests. This document is a combination of a national intelligence estimate, and a hypothetical extrapolation into possible outcomes. It is NOT a policy document. And even if it WAS (which it isn't), it ultimately warns AGAINST allowing ISIS to form a Principality/Caliphate.

I'm sorry Sam, but this doesn't seem like an indication of a US policy of deliberately creating/supporting ISIS. Indeed, it reads more like a warning NOT to do so.

Bear in mind that the Pentagon commissions all sorts of plans and possibilities. It probably has a plan and NIE's for the invasion of the Federated States of Micronesia. That doesn't mean that they intend to do it, nor approve of it.

From the link:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/ex-intel-officials-pentagon-report-proves-us-complicity-in-isis-fabef96e20da#.stm3bd4tj

The August 2012 ‘Information Intelligence Report’ (IIR) reveals that the overwhelming core of the Syrian insurgency at that time was dominated by a range of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It warned that the “supporting powers” to the insurgency — identified in the document as the West, Gulf states, and Turkey — wanted to see the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria to “isolate” the Assad regime.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

From the link:

https://medium.com/i...20da#.stm3bd4tj

The August 2012 ‘Information Intelligence Report’ (IIR) reveals that the overwhelming core of the Syrian insurgency at that time was dominated by a range of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It warned that the “supporting powers” to the insurgency — identified in the document as the West, Gulf states, and Turkey — wanted to see the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria to “isolate” the Assad regime.

That was in 2012 yet we have been arming them ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

From the link:

https://medium.com/i...20da#.stm3bd4tj

The August 2012 ‘Information Intelligence Report’ (IIR) reveals that the overwhelming core of the Syrian insurgency at that time was dominated by a range of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It warned that the “supporting powers” to the insurgency — identified in the document as the West, Gulf states, and Turkey — wanted to see the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria to “isolate” the Assad regime.

(sigh)

Firstly, this is from section 7: "The future assumptions of the chrisis".

It was discussing a possibility, not a policy.

As I have already pointed out, Section 8 expands on the specific impact of these 'assumptionis' (e.g. forecasts) and warns of the impact on Iraq, pointing out that the outcome of a Caliphate (they call it a 'principality') would have severely adverse impacts on US interests.

I can only repeat: this is an Intelligence Estimate, and NOT a policy document. It does not demonstrate ANYTHING about US policy, or Pentagon prefferences. It most certainly does NOT suggest that the US was backing ISIS.

It is also three years out of date.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

(sigh)

Firstly, this is from section 7: "The future assumptions of the chrisis".

It was discussing a possibility, not a policy.

As I have already pointed out, Section 8 expands on the specific impact of these 'assumptionis' (e.g. forecasts) and warns of the impact on Iraq, pointing out that the outcome of a Caliphate (they call it a 'principality') would have severely adverse impacts on US interests.

I can only repeat: this is an Intelligence Estimate, and NOT a policy document. It does not demonstrate ANYTHING about US policy, or Pentagon prefferences. It most certainly does NOT suggest that the US was backing ISIS.

It is also three years out of date.

It absolutely does! Three years out of date? WTF? It absolutely demonstrates that the US A. Wanted an islamic state to form in Syria. It also demonstrates that the USA KNEW what their actions in Syria would lead to.

Your 3 years out of date comment is absurd, three years ago is when all this went into motion.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

While you two live in your fantasy land, I'll enjoy my stay in reality.

Have a nice day!

So facts don`t mean much to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Therein lies the problem, Syrians weren't our enemies until we started a terrorist campaign to depose their leader. Again, the displays of willful ignorance are abhorrent . The things im saying arent opinion they are fact.

One man's "facts" are another man's BS. The only terrorist campaign was when Assad tried to terrorize his opposition into submission, a tactic that worked quite well for his father. It may be the touchy-feely Obama State Department expressed too much sympathy and emboldened their resistance. After that, events spiraled out of control with much of the West jumping on the "Oust Assad" bandwagon. I do agree that America's foreign policy is just about as screwed up now, as it was during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EEHC

One man's "facts" are another man's BS.

Only if there were no evidence. Here we have a declassifed intelligence report (gleefully ignored on this thread) that states quite clearly the U.S. expected back in 2012 the creation of 'Salafist principality' in Syria. It's written black on white. So why supporting rebels when you know the revolution is driven by extremists?

Edited by Sam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The labeling of the opposition to Assad by Assad and by the Russians as "terrorists" is certainly a clever bit of disinformation. I would think people would see through it, but there are always those eager to think the worst of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

One man's "facts" are another man's BS. The only terrorist campaign was when Assad tried to terrorize his opposition into submission, a tactic that worked quite well for his father. It may be the touchy-feely Obama State Department expressed too much sympathy and emboldened their resistance. After that, events spiraled out of control with much of the West jumping on the "Oust Assad" bandwagon. I do agree that America's foreign policy is just about as screwed up now, as it was during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations.

It's a complicated world and sometimes one must cozy up to smelly types. Stalin comes to mind. There are always those who want the country to be pure, but most can see that this is either foolishness or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Turkish F16s shoot down warplane near Syrian border: military official

Turkish fighter jets shot down a warplane near the Syrian border after it violated Turkey's airspace on Tuesday, a Turkish military official said, but the nationality of the downed aircraft was not immediately clear.

Turkish F16s warned the jet over the airspace violations before shooting it down, the military official told Reuters.

Read more at Reuters

If that was Russian aircraft... Interesting days will come...

Edit to add: Russian MoD confirmed it was their Su-24.

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.