turkey strikes syria

[.2D]

I don't usually follow things like this, but I took some pretty basic interest in this and followed bits and pieces. But I'm having trouble understanding the actual situation. I'd imagine that they're officially at war, considering that Turkey has given them one hell of an retaliation by the sounds of it, however the initial attack from Syria was supposed an accident for which they've apologised for. Maybe I'm just not reading in between the lines as much as I should be, but from what I understand, neither really want a full blown war with each other, but Turkey are basically on standby and have full permission to jump in and retaliate within the next year if any other incidents occur. How right, or wrong, would I be for thinking this? I'd just like some enlightenment from those of you out there that really follow this stuff and get right into it.

[Majestic81]

I don't usually follow things like this, but I took some pretty basic interest in this and followed bits and pieces. But I'm having trouble understanding the actual situation. I'd imagine that they're officially at war, considering that Turkey has given them one hell of an retaliation by the sounds of it, however the initial attack from Syria was supposed an accident for which they've apologised for. Maybe I'm just not reading in between the lines as much as I should be, but from what I understand, neither really want a full blown war with each other, but Turkey are basically on standby and have full permission to jump in and retaliate within the next year if any other incidents occur. How right, or wrong, would I be for thinking this? I'd just like some enlightenment from those of you out there that really follow this stuff and get right into it.

Exactly, neither sides are ready for war... especially Syria, PrivateFirstClass is just making things look bigger... WW3 my ass.

[sivispacem]

I'd imagine that they're officially at war

They aren't- an official declaration of war is very different to a decision to legitimise combat operations.

[Captain VXR]

Stop posting sh*t about WW3. It makes you look retarded. It's just another conflict with another Middle eastern country.

Anyone with a list of conspiracy theories including holocaust denial in their signature is either retarded or trolling.

Those millions of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, LGBT people, disabled people, socialists, trade unionists, communists and so on didn't just vanish into thin air.

How do I know? My Polish grandmother survived a concentration camp.

 

The sooner Assad is killed/jailed the better.

[Oakshaft]

This may not make sense but if it does, let me know:

 

This situation with Syria is like lighting a fire with an old Zippo lighter, the first few flicks are sparks but then you get the flame, then you can use the flame to light a candle or light a bonfire.

 

The sparks are like these mortar strikes, and we are only a few flicks away from a flame, then when we get a flame, we have to wait and see whether or not the flame is used to burn a candle (small war between Syria and NATO) or if it is used to light a bonfire (full out World War 3)

[Mike Tequeli]

This may not make sense but if it does, let me know:

 

This situation with Syria is like lighting a fire with an old Zippo lighter, the first few flicks are sparks but then you get the flame, then you can use the flame to light a candle or light a bonfire.

 

The sparks are like these mortar strikes, and we are only a few flicks away from a flame, then when we get a flame, we have to wait and see whether or not the flame is used to burn a candle (small war between Syria and NATO) or if it is used to light a bonfire (full out World War 3)

Every time any International incident happens someone tries to make a flimsy connection to WW3. It isn't going to happen.

[Dingdongs]

I'd imagine that they're officially at war

They aren't- an official declaration of war is very different to a decision to legitimise combat operations.

If you want to politically legitimize it a declaration is going to have to happen. Turkey would like nothing more than to dominate Syria... After studying them for a while their interest in imperialism amazes me.

[Oakshaft]

This may not make sense but if it does, let me know:

 

This situation with Syria is like lighting a fire with an old Zippo lighter, the first few flicks are sparks but then you get the flame, then you can use the flame to light a candle or light a bonfire.

 

The sparks are like these mortar strikes, and we are only a few flicks away from a flame, then when we get a flame, we have to wait and see whether or not the flame is used to burn a candle (small war between Syria and NATO) or if it is used to light a bonfire (full out World War 3)

Every time any International incident happens someone tries to make a flimsy connection to WW3. It isn't going to happen.

I never said that it was the start of WWIII, your supposed to interporate it the way you see it. And most people see it as WWIII

[The-King]

This may not make sense but if it does, let me know:

 

This situation with Syria is like lighting a fire with an old Zippo lighter, the first few flicks are sparks but then you get the flame, then you can use the flame to light a candle or light a bonfire.

 

The sparks are like these mortar strikes, and we are only a few flicks away from a flame, then when we get a flame, we have to wait and see whether or not the flame is used to burn a candle (small war between Syria and NATO) or if it is used to light a bonfire (full out World War 3)

Every time any International incident happens someone tries to make a flimsy connection to WW3. It isn't going to happen.

I never said that it was the start of WWIII, your supposed to interporate it the way you see it. And most people see it as WWIII

No, no they don't. I question anyone bar a few mis-educated people, conspiracy slinging f*ckwits and military hyped teenagers thinking it's in any way related to WWIII. The assumption is completely illogical.

[Dingdongs]

This may not make sense but if it does, let me know:

 

This situation with Syria is like lighting a fire with an old Zippo lighter, the first few flicks are sparks but then you get the flame, then you can use the flame to light a candle or light a bonfire.

 

The sparks are like these mortar strikes, and we are only a few flicks away from a flame, then when we get a flame, we have to wait and see whether or not the flame is used to burn a candle (small war between Syria and NATO) or if it is used to light a bonfire (full out World War 3)

Every time any International incident happens someone tries to make a flimsy connection to WW3. It isn't going to happen.

I never said that it was the start of WWIII, your supposed to interporate it the way you see it. And most people see it as WWIII

Most people are also completely stupid and uneducated when it comes to political/international/economic matters.

[Mr Rabbit]

I think WW3 will be coming in a few weeks or so.

 

 

I actually don't think we will have a proper war that can be called world war 3 in our lifetimes, or at the very least before the majority of us turn gray-haired and do't have a clue what is going on when the time comes because, nor our grandchildrens' names, but you never know what the future holds, just thought I should say this for all the people out there who may take the above too literally, in particular PFC himself

Edited October 5, 2012 by NateShaw92

[John The Grudge]

As I understood it, mortars fired by Syria hit Turkey and Turkey hit back. They said they don't want a war but will defend themselves as they see fit.

Edited October 5, 2012 by John The Grudge

[Dragonjack]

The media is complete bullsh*t with the so call "Wars" and other such nonsense But that is just my opinion. But if it does happen? I think we would expect some more wars surrounding the middle east and may trigger WW3 indeed.

[sivispacem]

To all the World War 3 proponents in this thread- do you really think Russia would risk engaging a NATO power- with which they already have a strong relationship- in a conflict over something as petty as Syria? Even if Turkey were to engage in full-blown unilateral military action, Russia wouldn't respond other than diplomatically.

[.2D]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19849748

 

Seems interesting. It would seem that it could turn into some sort of stalemate of back and forth over god knows how long, but I really don't think that Turkey would put up with much more of this, especially now that they have permission to operate in Syria.

[K^2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19849748

 

Seems interesting. It would seem that it could turn into some sort of stalemate of back and forth over god knows how long, but I really don't think that Turkey would put up with much more of this, especially now that they have permission to operate in Syria.

What the hell is wrong with Syria? They are like an annoying kid at the theater who throw popcorn at people. You either start a proper war with somebody, or you pretend to be a civilized nation.

 

 

Do you really think Russia would risk engaging a NATO power in a conflict over something as petty as Syria?

Conditional isn't necessary. Russia won't risk a direct war with NATO either way.

[EgyptianStar]

The Free Syrian Army ( Al Qaeda) is committing Terrorism across Syria they have been killing, executing, bombing, terrorizing the nation since last year. Just two days ago Three Suicide bombers kill 48. Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia have been supplying these so called "Rebels" quiet openly. Turkey has allowed the Free Syrian Army to set up bases near the border. They get all their weapons from turkey, all the fighters cross in from turkey. Syria has the right to respond to any violence against its people. Even if it means shelling a neighbor harboring Terrorist. Of course accidents will happen. NATO ( North American Terrorist Organization) can't impose the no fly zone thanks to Russia and China Vetoes. NATO and the Zionist regime want to destroy Iran's main ally in a domino effect before attacking Tehran but they will fail. As all aggressive terrorist nations have fallen before.

 

 

 

 

 

Free Syrian Army to Kill Captives

 

 

USA, NATO, Accused of State Terrorism

 

 

BBC Exposes Fighters

 

 

 

This fits the CIA narrative of Al Qaeda. A Shadow group that can be put into any nation, start a guerrilla war. And Terrorize a population into submission

Edited October 6, 2012 by EgyptianStar

[EscoLehGo]

I don't want to call the rebels illegitimate or terrorists but this kind of thing has happened before (Soviet-Afghan war) so who knows. I'd like to believe their cause is genuine though because this Al Assad guy does seem like a bona fide douche.

[Acehilm]

 

You are an imbecile who understands nothing of the world my friend.

 

Who's your friend GTA_Stu?

[Gtaghost22]

 

The Free Syrian Army ( Al Qaeda) is committing Terrorism across Syria they have been killing, executing, bombing, terrorizing the nation since last year. Just two days ago Three Suicide bombers kill 48. Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia have been supplying these so called "Rebels" quiet openly. Turkey has allowed the Free Syrian Army to set up bases near the border. They get all their weapons from turkey, all the fighters cross in from turkey. Syria has the right to respond to any violence against its people. Even if it means shelling a neighbor harboring Terrorist. Of course accidents will happen. NATO ( North American Terrorist Organization) can't impose the no fly zone thanks to Russia and China Vetoes. NATO and the Zionist regime want to destroy Iran's main ally in a domino effect before attacking Tehran but they will fail. As all aggressive terrorist nations have fallen before.    

 

I don't normally flame people even if they get on my nerves, i haven't done that in about 5 months i think, but please, just f*ck off.

F*ck Al Assad and f*ck whoever sides with that asshole against the rebels.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Gtaghost22

[EgyptianStar]

The Free Syrian Army ( Al Qaeda) is committing Terrorism across Syria they have been killing, executing, bombing, terrorizing the nation since last year. Just two days ago Three Suicide bombers kill 48. Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia have been supplying these so called "Rebels" quiet openly. Turkey has allowed the Free Syrian Army to set up bases near the border. They get all their weapons from turkey, all the fighters cross in from turkey. Syria has the right to respond to any violence against its people. Even if it means shelling a neighbor harboring Terrorist. Of course accidents will happen. NATO ( North American Terrorist Organization) can't impose the no fly zone thanks to Russia and China Vetoes. NATO and the Zionist regime want to destroy Iran's main ally in a domino effect before attacking Tehran but they will fail. As all aggressive terrorist nations have fallen before.    

 

I don't normally flame people even if they get on my nerves, i haven't done that in about 5 months i think, but please, just f*ck off.

F*ck Al Assad and f*ck whoever sides with that asshole against the rebels.

I did NOT say I support Assad. I support the Syrian people. I'm opposed to all kinds of violence and Terrorism from both sides. I do NOT support "Rebels" who blow up villages and bring down an entire city with scare tactics. I do Not support Suicide bombings no matter who they are directed against. Maybe you have no trouble supporting Al Qaeda today. History will judge those who arm the violence and fuel the killings the people of Syria deserve better then Assad and the Rebels.

[anus]

I saw you guys talking about Russia and China and thought I'd ask this here.

 

What's wrong with their governments? I mean it seems like they try their utmost to do/say the EXACT opposite of what the US and the rest of the non-warmongering countries do/say.

 

Is there any reason why Russia and China are in the UN anyway? I mean they vote against anything that is progressive anyway.

[K^2]

What's wrong with their governments?

Don't know much about China, but I would guess at least some of this applies. Russian government is... Corrupt isn't even the word. That would imply that there is somebody in whose pocket government sits. They are the pocket. They are the mafia and police force are their enforcers. That might not sound like a complete explanation, but consider this. If you have a government that is in no way interested in well-being of its people, all sorts of sh*t will be going on in the country. If said government also has full control of the media, that sh*t needs to be blamed on somebody else. People in power are not very creative people. I mean, they couldn't come up with a Russian anthem, so they just replaced a few words in the Soviet one. So it's little surprise that they decided that US and UN are perfect for blaming sh*t on. So they do. All of it. You might think I'm exaggerating this last bit, but I really am not. They blamed engine failure of their latest Mars mission on US. What they said in the news wasn't even physically possible. Never mind all of the social and economic problems. That the West is fully responsible for these is a well established "fact". And, of course, once West is firmly established as source of all that is bad, Russian Government must be seen fighting and opposing it in every possible way.

[Rown]

 

I saw you guys talking about Russia and China and thought I'd ask this here.

 

What's wrong with their governments? I mean it seems like they try their utmost to do/say the EXACT opposite of what the US and the rest of the non-warmongering countries do/say.

 

Is there any reason why Russia and China are in the UN anyway? I mean they vote against anything that is progressive anyway.

Layman's Take: China and Russia don't like interventions. If they agreed to one on any grounds it would create a precedent that could come back to haunt them in the constant tinderboxes of the Caucasus , Tibet, and Taiwan. Their interpretation of self-determination is "let countries solve their own internal problems".

 

They're part of the UN because the structure of the UN supports them. They're veto-wielding members of the Security Council. Why would they leave? If they did the West could come after them for their internal problems.

 

On WW3, does anyone remember the talk of it after Russia intervened in Georgia (a seeming contradiction to "internal solutions")? Because the U.S. trained Georgian troops and we were an ally we were going to rush over and save the day. Except that Russia held the line at Ossetia and the U.S. wasn't going to go to war for Georgian territorial integrity.

 

Similarly, even if Turkey called Article 5 and NATO came in... do you really think Russia would rush in to "save the day"? I mean as long as the successor keeps the agreement for Tartus they probably won't care.

 

Rown

 

P.S.

Most of that was drawn from memory and admittedly not reevaluated with a fact check.

 

P.P.S.

Forum links for 2008 Caucasus stuff:

 

Gen Chat

D&D

 

Edited October 6, 2012 by Rown

[PrivateFirstClass]

 

The Free Syrian Army ( Al Qaeda) is committing Terrorism across Syria they have been killing, executing, bombing, terrorizing the nation since last year. Just two days ago Three Suicide bombers kill 48. Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia have been supplying these so called "Rebels" quiet openly. Turkey has allowed the Free Syrian Army to set up bases near the border. They get all their weapons from turkey, all the fighters cross in from turkey. Syria has the right to respond to any violence against its people. Even if it means shelling a neighbor harboring Terrorist. Of course accidents will happen. NATO ( North American Terrorist Organization) can't impose the no fly zone thanks to Russia and China Vetoes. NATO and the Zionist regime want to destroy Iran's main ally in a domino effect before attacking Tehran but they will fail. As all aggressive terrorist nations have fallen before.

agreed, except that NATO isn´t called north american terrorist organisation, its called north atlantic terrorist organisation.

 

about the china/russia government : they are corrupted zionist regimes like the western zionist regimes, look what the U.S dictatorial zionist regime have done world wide, look what china zionist regime have done in tibet, look what zionist regime in russia have done to georgia & chechnya. look what the zionist soviet regime have done in afghanistan.

 

also, watch tjis to know what the zionist russian government have done :

 

moscow metro blasts false flag op

moscow airport blasts false flag FSB

 

dude f*ck them all.

Edited October 6, 2012 by PrivateFirstClass

[DEALUX]

agreed, except that NATO isn´t called north american terrorist organisation, its called north atlantic terrorist organisation.

Treaty. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

[PrivateFirstClass]

 

agreed, except that NATO isn´t called north american terrorist organisation, its called north atlantic terrorist organisation.

Treaty. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Terror. North Atlantic Terror Organization.

Edited October 6, 2012 by PrivateFirstClass

[Captain VXR]

Assad's regime has helped prop up Hamas in the past, and still helps Hezbollah.

Al Qaeda will naturally try to aid the rebellion, mainly as a publicity stunt because they can say 'look the west isn't doing anything to help you free yourselves from your oppressors, but we are'. Yes, Al Qaeda members fought in Libya and the Balkans, however the best way to minimise their influence in the conflict in my opinion is to stage a similar intervention with the aid of other Middle Eastern/Islamic countries such as Turkey.

We basically have a choice of definite terrorism and oppression vs possible terrorism, and possible eventual democracy. I'll go with the latter.

The Syrian rebels are far from perfect, but infinitely preferable to Assad.

[sivispacem]

If I may contribute:

 

 

The Free Syrian Army ( Al Qaeda)

The Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda do not correspond directly as you insinuate. It's hard to debate that there are some Islamist fighters there who sympathise with al-Qaeda (though it's worth noting that al-Qaeda themselves now have their primary bases of operations in Mali and Yemen, quite some distance from Syria, and they may not be directly contributing in any meaningful way) but that's hardly a reflection of the entire force. To use the analogy with Afghanistan that you presented, the vast majority of Mujahideen fighters- both foreign and domestic- did not sympathise with, or become part of, the later Taliban government or later/concurrent terrorist organisations. The aim of the conflict was to remove the Soviet occupiers; it was the later civil war in which the radicals were victorious that Afghanistan became the state it was until 2001- and we're not talking a small time later, we're talking a transition that only really finalised in 1996/7 so almost a decade after the end of the Soviet occupation. Compare and contrast with violent non-state actors in Chechnya and the rest of the North Caucus, who are not only actively repelling a perceived Russian occupation but also seeking to install an Islamic-Political government. The main political forces in Syria are the moderates and conservatives, with a sizeable number of secularists. In terms of political representation and military planning, the rebels are primarily moderate or secular. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

 

Turkey has allowed the Free Syrian Army to set up bases near the border.

Why wouldn't they? Relations between Turkey and Syria were frosty at best when Assad was fully in power, and Turkey seeks to extend its influence in the region. The revolution in Syria is an effective tool for them to do so. Think of it this way- Turkey is an Islamic-majority country, but is political secular and not plagued by anywhere near the same kind of religious conflict that other nations are. It's also democratic, safe, stable and economically prosperous in comparison to most other nations in the region. The close links between Turkey and the Syrian opposition movement exited before the Arab Spring, and through this Turkey probably has a better strategic understanding of the popular forces at work in Syria than any other nation. So let me ask you this- if the FSA and AQ are one and the same, as you suggest, why would Turkey- who would obviously know this as the possessor of the best intelligence on Syria in the region, if not the world- actively seek to destabilise itself by promoting violent Islamic extremists in Syria? It completely contradicts all rhyme and reason, unless you are by association insinuating that Turkey is secretly a hard-line Islamic state with a vested interest in invoking regional instability to produce an extremist, Islamo-Political movement inside turkey?

 

 

Syria has the right to respond to any violence against its people.

Yes it does- the Syrian government possesses the mandate on the use of violence inside their borders. But that only applies to the political body which possesses the most popular support inside the nation. If the majority of citizens resist the actions of the state, then sovereignty is called into question and therefore so is the mandate for the lawful use of force. This is what happened in Libya.

 

 

Even if it means shelling a neighbor harboring Terrorist.

Very arguable. Legally speaking, Syria would have to have a very strong case essentially proving that their chosen targets in Turkey were of material military significance in their attempts to combat a violent insurrection inside their national borders. The fact that indiscriminate shelling was used rather than a targeted surgical strike, and the only victims were clearly civilians- mostly children, in fact- indicates that if not a direct act of war against Turkey, it's a flagrant violation of Turkey's right to internal security that in the context of events cannot be justified as defensive, pre-emptive or otherwise.

 

 

NATO ( North American Terrorist Organization) can't impose the no fly zone thanks to Russia and China Vetoes.

Actually, they can. NATO has militarily involved itself in conflicts on several occasions without a UNSC resolution. Bosnia and Kosovo are two examples that spring to mind. The legal justification for those two interventions- the latter in particular, as the former was essentially authorised by UNFOR if not the Security Council proper- could be perceived as weaker than the justification for a Turkish led retaliation against Syria. After all, Syria has engaged in an act of war against Turkey, and under the provisions of the NATO agreement any attack on a member constitutes an attack on all members, permitting a sanctioned and perfectly legal military response that overrides any attempts by Russia or China to block a UNSC resolution on the issue. The question would essentially be "can Turkey justify legitimising a military response against Syria"- well, the Turkish parliament already have.

 

When you started going off on the thinly-veiled-anti-Semitic Zionist conspiracy theories, you basically ruined your credibility- just so you know. And posting from sources that feature utterly unsubstantiated bilge like this doesn't help.

 

Oh, and PrivateFirstClass, put a sock in it. If Russia is corrupted by "Zionism", the why is it probably the most anti-Semitic nation on earth? Your arguments are utterly illogical and completely contradictory. I see you haven't responded to my posts elsewhere on the forum. What happened? Got backed into a corner?

Edited October 6, 2012 by sivispacem

[anus]

Thanks for clearing that up, K^2 and Rown.

 

I can understand what it must be like in Russia, the same sh*t goes on over here (incidentally, our president and Putin are butt buddies).