Syria says repulses Israeli jets
- Thread starter XaNDeR
- Start date
- Status
Well, I never been to Turkey itself, but over 20 years ago did visit some areas formerly under the Ottoman control- including, but not limited to Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia. The last 2 are both Christian, but aligned differently, as is explained in the link I posted. More often than not, religious affiliation alone can't be used to group state actors together.
I agree that it's a very compex region (I will open a new tread devoted to Caucasus issues soon), but my main premise is that Turkey is an aspiring regional power and will be looking after her own interests 1st and foremost- witness their pursuit of the PKK in N.Iraq and elsewhere- and, no matter what side (if any) they are on at any given time, they will play others against each other to gain something in return. Indeed, that's why Turkey is a member of NATO- despite her tense relations with Greece and warming relations with Russia. BTW, I have been pondering for some time now: aren't the other NATO members, as per charter they all signed, besides the US, suppose to help Turkey fight the PKK? OTH, the Kurds were promised a state of their own after WWI, but they never got it, as others used them for their own interests.
I agree that it's a very compex region (I will open a new tread devoted to Caucasus issues soon), but my main premise is that Turkey is an aspiring regional power and will be looking after her own interests 1st and foremost- witness their pursuit of the PKK in N.Iraq and elsewhere- and, no matter what side (if any) they are on at any given time, they will play others against each other to gain something in return. Indeed, that's why Turkey is a member of NATO- despite her tense relations with Greece and warming relations with Russia. BTW, I have been pondering for some time now: aren't the other NATO members, as per charter they all signed, besides the US, suppose to help Turkey fight the PKK? OTH, the Kurds were promised a state of their own after WWI, but they never got it, as others used them for their own interests.
Of course religious affiliation alone can't be used to group states. I said that, but it seems you didn't notice. But Irans current government defines itself largely in religious terms, Muslim & Shia, & that must be taken into account as a major factor when considering its policy. You completely ignored it.
Agreed that Turkey will look to her own interests first, as she always has done, but despite recent disenchantment with the EU, & disagreements with the USA, I can't imagine Turkey turning her back on either to align with what most Turks see as a bunch of losers. They look down on their neighbours to the east. They used to be frightened of Russia, but that fear has largely gone now, & with it respect. Russians are now seen by most ordinary Turks as suppliers of raw materials, purchasers of Turkish manufactured goods, & prostitutes.
NATO countries are required to come to the aid of any NATO member subjected to an armed attack within the NATO area (so not the Falklands), but although it is not explicitly stated in the treaty, it has been accepted for many years that civil disorder & internal rebellion do not necessarily constitute such an armed attack. Citizens rebelling against their own government are generally seen as a local problem. You may have noticed a rather equivocal US response to IRA actions in Northern Ireland, for example. Attacks by foreign citizens, e.g. the destruction of the WTC, qualify - and NATO members offered aid to the USA immediately. BTW, NATO members may not make any agreement in conflict with the treaty.
Everybody and his dog was promised a state of their own during WW1. The Middle Eastern promises contradicted each other (as did some of the European ones), & what attempts there were to fulfil them collapsed under the forces of self-interest, the contradictions of the promises, war-weariness & economic constraints at home making the use of force to enforce them politically near-impossible, & the Turkish refusal to be divvied out between a bunch of other states, a refusal which was more successfully pursued than the attempts of others to establish their own states.
Well, I just affirmed the issue of religion as being not that influential in politics- we agree on that. But, as for NATO helping its members, in the case of Kurds, they did/may plan attacks in Central/W.Europe as well!
Not really. It is irrelevant in some cases, but crucially important in others.
I gave one example. A few more:-
Serbs, Bosniaks & Croats, for example, are people who speak the same language, & where they live in the same places, speak the same local dialect of that language. None of the three groups is definable by ethnicity or by ancestry. They define their nationality by religion.
Greek identity has long been defined partly by religion, & that means membership of the Greek Orthodox church. Greek foreign policy has been influenced by religion, with an almost instinctive favouritism towards Orthodox nationalities.
Religion is still central to to politics in Northern Ireland. 88% of votes in the last local elections went to religious-based (Catholic or Protestant) parties.
One can't deny the central importance of religion to Israeli politics. It's enshrined in the constitution & laws.
I could go on, but I think that's enough, & this digression from the topic of the thread is already too long. Time to call an end to it.
And they carried them out? With the aid of which states? BTW, a political murder or attempt by a Turkish citizen on a Turkish official in (e.g.) Germany would count as an attack by what state? Turkey?
In practice, it's treated as a crime, to be dealt with by police.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suggest re-reading the blog you linked in your post somewhat more carefully. It is a blog entry which mentioned a Reuters report about possible terrorism from a group of Kurdish militants affiliated with al Qaeda. NATO member-states are already involved in operations against Ansar al Islam as a result of their link to al Qaeda and destabilization of Iraq. This is a separate group from the PKK, which has been involved in civil unrest/insurrections in Turkey while trying to establish a Kurdish state. If the PKK was operating throughout Europe (thus not a member-state's internal issue) then perhaps the NATO alliance might come into play. Then again, it might not since the area the PKK is based out of is (nominally at least) under the control of a member-state, and therefore an internal, not external threat.
If the arguement is instead that, due to the involvement of some members of an ethnic group in a terrorist organization, NATO should involve itself in the internal affairs of countries where members of that ethnic group lives, that fails to differentiate between the two, members of Ansar al Islam and Kurds in general.
Here is something more on the order of an observation. What does the PKK, or for that matter Europe have to do with Syrian claims of repelling Israeli jets? This discussion seems to have wandered rather far from the thread topic and perhaps one should get back to the topic on hand.
-Cheers
Last edited:
As indicated by the prev posters, it's time to get back on topic.
Any off topic responses will be deleted or modified by the Mod team.
Any off topic responses will be deleted or modified by the Mod team.
While being a non-expert, I'm confused as to the utility of having a nuclear reactor (assuming that it was indeed one), so close to the Turkish & Iraqi borders. Why didn't they pick another location? Or maybe they did it to lure the IAF to bomb it, for whatever reason?
Also, how authentic are those newly relased pictures?
Also, how authentic are those newly relased pictures?
Last edited:
Syria
Being a non-expert
The location being near Turkish & Iraqi borders would be close to being the furthest point from Israel, so that in a way makes sense. Maybe some sort of weapons might have been planned for the insurgents to be used in Iraq or against Israel. I guess in some way a very slim way Syria’s government may have not been told exactly what was going on. This is what’s troubling for me about Iran having anything nuclear uncontrolled groups or parties with there own plans and intension's. I think the last US Nuclear power plant to go active 1996 they can be nasty to take care of. The US had Three Mile Island and maybe others with problems and Russia had at least one bad one and also maybe others. It’s just not a safe as you would want “source of energy “as one may think. Just the fact that Syria’s government may have not had total knowledge of what may have been taking place inside there owns borders is very troubling. The fact that a group and not a government may have been planning something very bad is troubling. Groups that work outside governments are difficult to monitor and/or control. Some of these groups are allowed to operate on the edges of governments and Iran openly supports known terrorist groups thus the reason why I don’t want them controlling anything nuclear period. Iran having close ties with Syria and this situation is a bad mix. Even a horrible accident in Iran at there future nuclear site could be a very bad thing for the worlds oil hub. Russia and the US in the heat of the “Cold War” were smart enough to never use these horrible weapons; I don’t feel that way about Iran. From a nation’s leader saying in the press “here wipe another country off the map” isn’t some one I want to have a nuclear weapons or access to the means down the road to having one or many. I sure every country around Iran is nervous about them even having it and if there stupid enough to use it countries nearby may be to close if something bad were to happen. Innocent people one day who maybe killed by weapons from Iran aren’t going to care if Iran’s President makes an announcement after the fact saying “we had nothing to do it” nor did Iran support the attack. You know the insurgents types terrorist groups aren’t going to care if thousands of innocent Iranians are killed in the after attacks that will come. Could have been an Iranian operation from the beginning realizing they couldn’t do anything inside there own country in fear of bring the UN down on them. Who knows for sure it just shows that some group was playing with something bad. The same bad people blow woman and children up at markets in Iraq that one day well fill it in the blank
Being a non-expert
The location being near Turkish & Iraqi borders would be close to being the furthest point from Israel, so that in a way makes sense. Maybe some sort of weapons might have been planned for the insurgents to be used in Iraq or against Israel. I guess in some way a very slim way Syria’s government may have not been told exactly what was going on. This is what’s troubling for me about Iran having anything nuclear uncontrolled groups or parties with there own plans and intension's. I think the last US Nuclear power plant to go active 1996 they can be nasty to take care of. The US had Three Mile Island and maybe others with problems and Russia had at least one bad one and also maybe others. It’s just not a safe as you would want “source of energy “as one may think. Just the fact that Syria’s government may have not had total knowledge of what may have been taking place inside there owns borders is very troubling. The fact that a group and not a government may have been planning something very bad is troubling. Groups that work outside governments are difficult to monitor and/or control. Some of these groups are allowed to operate on the edges of governments and Iran openly supports known terrorist groups thus the reason why I don’t want them controlling anything nuclear period. Iran having close ties with Syria and this situation is a bad mix. Even a horrible accident in Iran at there future nuclear site could be a very bad thing for the worlds oil hub. Russia and the US in the heat of the “Cold War” were smart enough to never use these horrible weapons; I don’t feel that way about Iran. From a nation’s leader saying in the press “here wipe another country off the map” isn’t some one I want to have a nuclear weapons or access to the means down the road to having one or many. I sure every country around Iran is nervous about them even having it and if there stupid enough to use it countries nearby may be to close if something bad were to happen. Innocent people one day who maybe killed by weapons from Iran aren’t going to care if Iran’s President makes an announcement after the fact saying “we had nothing to do it” nor did Iran support the attack. You know the insurgents types terrorist groups aren’t going to care if thousands of innocent Iranians are killed in the after attacks that will come. Could have been an Iranian operation from the beginning realizing they couldn’t do anything inside there own country in fear of bring the UN down on them. Who knows for sure it just shows that some group was playing with something bad. The same bad people blow woman and children up at markets in Iraq that one day well fill it in the blank
Why would NKs get involved in assisting Syria in above-ground construction of an undeclared nuclear facility, and pose for pictures, when they want to improve their relations with the US? And why would Syria have it built with Israeli & US spy sats overhead? Either they have other secret underground sites or the whole thing is a setup, by whomever!
Admin Edit. text deleted How many times do you have to be told NOT to post large slabs of information from other sites?
Admin Edit. text deleted How many times do you have to be told NOT to post large slabs of information from other sites?
Last edited by a moderator:
setup
It does sound like a mess up based off a setup with a lot of other information left out.
The Sum of All Fears ! One of the few Clancy books I couldn't finished found it boring after the first few chapters and couldn't get into it. Tried reading it about three times to just didn't do anything for me. Mr. C is fiction I wonder if those Israeli groups are to? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
It does sound like a mess up based off a setup with a lot of other information left out.
The Sum of All Fears ! One of the few Clancy books I couldn't finished found it boring after the first few chapters and couldn't get into it. Tried reading it about three times to just didn't do anything for me. Mr. C is fiction I wonder if those Israeli groups are to? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
This post unfortunately has become farcical. It's closed for a few days.
I'm getting sick of seeing inane speculative commentary presented as logic.
Some of you need to seriously lift the quality of your input
I'm getting sick of seeing inane speculative commentary presented as logic.
Some of you need to seriously lift the quality of your input
- Status