What's new

Erdoğan asks: Why is Russia so interested in Syria?

Turkey shud stop supporting Nato and Support Muslims. Because even if assaad is culprit it is only benefiting west. I love turkey but they are in Nato Thats why I have always some doubts abt them.

This shouldn't be about West vs Non-West... it's ugly.

There is no doubt ‪I‎SIS‬ is brutal and evil b*st*rd but Assad crime should not be ignored as well..

Russia made things worse for Syrian people (especially Sunni Muslim) by supporting Assad.

I have a Syrian friend, she told me a lot about Assad regime even before ISIS become popular.
 

while suicide bombing is pointless in context of socialist revolutionary tactics, this is worth noting...
The terrorist organization said in the statement that the attack and an attack against Dolmabahçe Palace last Thursday was in retaliation to the death of Berkin Elvan, a Gezi Park rioter who died in March 2014 after he was injured during the riots in 2013.


also note that the your newspaper ( and site ) mentions the killed youth as "rioter" while "hurriyet daily" says in ( 15-year-old Gezi victim Berkin Elvan dies after 269 days in coma - LOCAL )...
Elvan has since become one of the prime symbols violence faced by protesters throughout the nationwide Gezi demonstrations.

different wording because, from ( Hürriyet Daily News - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )...
Hürriyet Daily News takes a secular and liberal or center-left position on most political issues, in contrast to its two main competitors, Today's Zaman and the Daily Sabah, which is closely aligned with the Justice and Development Party of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,


from your link...
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan condemned the attack in a speech yesterday. "I wonder how this woman was raised, how she came to adopt [this mindset] and what she thought she would gain by doing this," Erdoğan said

the irony of erdogan saying such words.

In 2013, a DHKP-C militant carried out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Embassy compound in the capital. The DHKP-C also claimed responsibility for non-lethal rocket attacks targeting Justice and Development Party (AK Party) headquarters

now that seems very progressive indeed. tup: :D:

The group, designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and European Union, advocates a far-left ideology

understandable, though the word to be used is "turkey government and establishment", because the group is itself turkish.



Two women from a banned Marxist group opened fire at the US consulate in Istanbul on Monday,

this again is very progressive for me. :agree:

The car bomb in the Sultanbeyli district police station injured three officers and seven civilians and caused a fire that caused part of the three-storey building to collapse. Unknown gunmen then fired on police inspecting the scene of the explosion, sparking a shootout. A member of the inspection team and two assailants died in the exchanges.

so what statement did dhkp-c give about this??

According to Seçkin, it is Turkey’s military intervention in Syria that is driving this latest round of turmoil across the country. He said the DHKP-C – mainly based in Istanbul and Ankara – had close unofficial ties with the Syrian regime in Damascus. The PKK has a similar Marxist ideology but is entirely separate from it, he said.

all that may be right but obviously, the revolutionary movement has a right to act against the government of turkey which the group feels is wrong for the turkish people and is involved with the criminals of the western governments.

Ankara has recently stepped up its campaign against Isis militants. The government also agreed to allow the US-led coalition targeting Isis in neighbouring Syria to use Turkish airbases. Over the weekend a detachment of six F-16 fighter jets arrived at Turkey’s southern Incirlik air base, the US military confirmed.

so "the guardian" just decided to put in a piece about isil in a article about dhkp-c??
 
Last edited:
while suicide bombing is pointless in context of socialist revolutionary tactics, this is worth noting...


also note that the your newspaper ( and site ) mentions the killed youth as "rioter" while from ( 15-year-old Gezi victim Berkin Elvan dies after 269 days in coma - LOCAL )...


because, from ( Hürriyet Daily News - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )...



from your link...


the irony of erdogan saying such words.



now that seems very progressive indeed. tup: :D:



understandable, though the word to be used is "turkey government and establishment", because the group is itself turkish.






this again is very progressive for me. :agree:



so what statement did dhkp-c give about this??



all that may be right but obviously, the revolutionary movement has a right to act against the government of turkey which the group feels is wrong for the turkish people and is involved with the criminals of the western governments.



so "the guardian" just decided to put in a piece about isil in a article about dhkp-c??
You gave a high efford to justify terrorism gotta give you that, you are no different than the islamist nutjobs apologizing isis, they defend islamist extremists and you defend extremist marxists...
 
No
This shouldn't be about West vs Non-West... it's ugly.

There is no doubt ‪I‎SIS‬ is brutal and evil b*st*rd but Assad crime should not be ignored as well..

Russia made things worse for Syrian people (especially Sunni Muslim) by supporting Assad.

I have a Syrian friend, she told me a lot about Assad regime even before ISIS become popular.
This is west vs non west. the syria is chosen battlefield. I support assad and I believe he is targetted as saddam and Qaddafi.
 
Russia 'Violated' Turkish Airspace Because Turkey 'Moved' Its Border
And as you might expect it was all cooked up by the US。

Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama

Russian planes in Syria “violated Turkish air space” the news agency currently tell us. But an earlier report shows that this claim may well be wrong and that the U.S. pushes Turkey to release such propaganda.

Reuters (Mon Oct 5, 2015 7:54am BST): Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace

A Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace near the Syrian border on Saturday, prompting the Air Force to scramble two F-16 jets to intercept it, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.
The Foreign Ministry summoned Moscow's ambassador to protest the violation, according to an e-mailed statement. Turkey urged Russia to avoid repeating such a violation, or it would be held “responsible for any undesired incident that may occur.”

AFP (10:20am · 5 Oct 2015): Turkey 'intercepts' Russian jet violating its air space

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.
Here now what McClatchy reported on these air space violations in a longer piece several hours before Reuters and AFP reported the Turkish claim:

ISTANBUL - A Russian warplane on a bombing run in Syria flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space, Turkish and U.S. officials said Sunday.

A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace.

But a U.S. military official suggested the incident had come close to sparking an armed confrontation. Reading from a report, he said the Russian aircraft had violated Turkish air space by five miles and that Turkish jets had scrambled, but that the Russian aircraft had returned to Syrian airspace before they could respond.

The Turkish security official said he could not confirm that account.

So it is the U.S., not Turkey, which was first pushing the claims of air space violation and of scrambling fighters. The Turkish source would not confirm that.

But how could it be a real air space violation when Russian planes “flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space”. The Russian planes were flying in Syrian airspace. They “may have crossed” is like saying that the earth “may be flat”. Well maybe it is, right?

Fact is the Russians fly ery near to the border and bomb position of some anti-Syrian fighters Turkey supports. They have good reasons to do so:

The town, in a mountainous region of northern Latakia province, has been a prime route for smuggling people and goods between Turkey and Syria and reportedly has functioned as a key entry for weapons shipped to Syrian rebels by the U.S.-led Friends of Syria group of Western and Middle Eastern countries.

One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above “violations” is because Turkey unilaterally “moved” the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:

Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

If Syrian rules of engagement would “move” its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the “new” Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one.

It would also be no good reason to start a NATO-Russia war just because such a plane might at times slightly intrude on the Turkish side due to an emergency or other accidental circumstances.

***

 
Nobody cares what a turkey says!

we are killing Uygur terros all over the world, be it in Afgan, Pakistan, Syria, etc...

more cash and weapons are going to Kurdish hands right now!
 
Can any turkish member explain that why is the animosity between Turkey & Syria ? As far as i remember don't remember both of them going to war or have some border dispute, so why this animosity.


And secondly, Turkey should learn from us, we supported a war in our neighbor, we gave shelter too, and look what happened to us.

With Libya & Iraq in ruins, thanks to the US democracy plan, i don't think Syria should share the same fate. If Assad is removed now, who region will be destabilized. A day will come when these same outfits the arabs & turkey are supporting will bite the same hand which is feeding them now. Plzzz learn from our mistakes.
 
Russians are aggravating and enraging the Turkish Islamist government.

In the meantime, let's note that, the Russians have already hit ISIS 6 times at Raqqa-Hama axis in the last 24 hours.

Number of US strikes so far there: Zero.
 
Russians are aggravating and enraging the Turkish Islamist government.

In the meantime, let's note that, the Russians have already hit ISIS 6 times at Raqqa-Hama axis in the last 24 hours.

Number of US strikes so far there: Zero.


I know that your job here is to lie non stop but you should be embarassed of selling BS.Raqqa was struck by the US

US-led coalition air strikes pound ISIL in Raqqa - Al Jazeera English

US-led warplanes pummeling ISIS' Raqqa capital - Business Insider
 
Today Russian Air Force hit the most untouched ISIS targets in east Hama and Al-Raqqa, which the US+Coalition have so far miraculously missed.

Capture2-702x336.png


***

In the meantime at the ranks of regime media:

The Washington Post Finally Finds a War It Won’t Cheer
It's Russia's war in Syria against the same kind of forces that staged 9/11.

Originally appeared in The Nation

Since Russia commenced its bombing campaign over Syria last Wednesday a number of reports have claimed, among other things, that Russia’s air strikes have solely focused on targeting the so-called Syrian “moderates” in lieu of targeting the territory held by the Islamic State.

Worse still, these stories claim, Russia’s involvement will only worsen the situation on the ground; and yet, paradoxically, Russia’s military doesn’t have the wherewithal to see their operation through.

Two stories that advance this confused narrative appeared in the news pages of The Washington Post on October 2 and 3, and not on its editorial pages, where one would normally expect to encounter such fare.

The first indication that readers were to be confronted with an anti-Russian spin is that both stories were co-authored by the Post’s young neoconservative fellow traveller Andrew Roth, who has lately churned out such hard-hitting reports as “Live from New York: It’s Putin Speech Bingo.”

Alongside both “news” stories, Roth and his editors feature maps provided from none other than the Institute for the Study of War. For those lucky enough to be unfamiliar with the work of this militaristic think tank, some background may be in order.

The Institute is run by arch-neoconservatives Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, and was instrumental in promoting the career of a serial fabricator by the name of Elizabeth O’Bagy who spent much of 2013—alongside the Russian oligarch–funded pundit Michael Weiss—clamoring for an American-led war against Assad.

Trafficking in little more than nonsense, they wrote in The Atlantic in June 2013 that “Eliminating the flow of men and materiel to Syria would not only hinder Assad’s chances for survival but also disrupt the Iranian mullahs’ takeover of the Levant.”

O’Bagy and Weiss will be granted no credit for prescience on that front. The real threat of a “takeover” of the Levant came—and continues to come—not from the Iranian “mullahs” but rather from the the sworn enemies of the Iranians, the Sunni Islamic State, which itself receives financial backing from the other Sunni Gulf state tyrannies: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain.

Iranian-backed Shia forces such as Hezbollah are fighting the very same enemies as the secular, Christian, and Alawite Assad forces. What Russia is now doing is flying air sorties in support of Assad’s army, which has had its back pushed up against the wall by ISIS for the past several months.

Russia has been rather upfront about what it is they are up to. In an interview which aired last Sunday on 60 Minutes, Charlie Rose told the Russian President that some “believe…that you are trying to save President al-Assad’s administration…and you are there to rescue them,” to which Putin replied, “That’s right, that’s how it is.”

This is not to say that The Washington Post has been alone in presenting a disingenuous picture of what is occurring on the ground in Syria. According to Yale’s David Bromwich, The New York Times, in a report published on October 2, castigated Russia for having the temerity to bomb US-backed “independent Islamists.”

Bromwich can hardly be the only one wondering: What exactly is an “independent Islamist?”

In any event, the Times and the Post aren’t alone among those pursing that particular narrative. On October 1, the UK’s Independent accused the Russians of unleashing bombing raids on what were said to be “terrorist targets but which, on early evidence, seemed to have included at least one CIA-backed rebel group.”

With due respect to the American Intelligence Community, are “CIA-backed rebel groups” and “terrorists” known to be—in all places and at all times—mutually exclusive designations? Even cursory knowledge of the history of America’s involvement in Latin America and Afghanistan in the 1980s, to take but two examples, would suggest not.

Which brings us back to The Washington Post report of October 2, the point of which was to inform readers that Putin, let off the leash by the international community, is breaking his word in focusing his wrath on the US-backed Syrian innocents who comprise the “moderate opposition.”

Roth and Post reporter Liz Sly report that the general impression that the US-backed rebels are far outnumbered and outgunned by both Assad and the IS Group is, in fact, all wrong, and that they had been making much (until now, it must be said, unheralded) progress in their fight against Assad.

Assad, it is worth repeating, is himself being targeted by the same forces that attacked Lower Manhattan on 9/11. That the enemies of Assad are—and will remain—our enemies too often gets lost in the reporting and analysis.

Yet, according to Roth and Sly, the CIA has launched a covert operation that has been “widely credited with having helped rebel advances over the past six months in the areas now being targeted by the Russians.” By whom this heretofore little-known CIA success story has been “widely credited” is left unmentioned by the authors.

Further, we are informed that “continued airstrikes Friday suggested that Russia’s main priority remains the anti-Assad rebellion in northern and western Syria, which poses a greater threat to the regime’s control over Damascus, the capital, than the forces of the Islamic State, concentrated in the far north and east of the country.”

This is a rather masterful insinuation of Russian malfeasance where none exists. The airstrikes don’t merely “suggest” that that is Russia’s “main priority”: saving Damascus and ensuring the survival of the Assad regime has been Russia’s stated goal from the start.

The problem with the Post’s report is that it is undergirded by an assumption that only exists in Roth and Sly’s imaginations: If Russia would focus its firepower solely on ISIS, then the US-backed moderates would be able to swoop in to Damascus, peacefully overthrow Assad, and all shall be well.

The problem with this fantasy is that the moderates themselves are not “moderates” in any meaningful sense of the word, and Russia is not going to let Assad fall to them, to ISIS, or to anyone else.

But for the reporters at the Post, hope for a Russian failure springs eternal, and so the following day, October 3, Roth returned with a new co-author, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, to tell us that the Russian bear, which had seemed to be doing so much harm to our “moderate” Syrian allies, is actually little more than a paper tiger.

What, they ask, “can a limited deployment of Russian air power actually accomplish?”

According to the analysts Roth and Gibbons-Neff claimed to have spoken to, “unless it is significantly strengthened, Moscow’s contribution is unlikely to be decisive in the war.” Which analysts? Nobody knows, as the reporters don’t say.

Roth and Gibbons-Neff continue: “Russia faces several limitations in what it can accomplish with its forces in Syria. One is the age of its equipment.” So, perhaps, just maybe the Russians will fail in its mission to save a largely secular, multi-sectarian—and, yes, brutal—government from the hands of radical religious fundamentalists, leaving in its wake what the US-backed Sunni tyrannies of the Persian Gulf have so-long desired: a Sunni-controlled Syria.

And it is then—when a radical Sunni fundamentalist state controls the entirety of Syria—that the real problems will begin.
 
No

This is west vs non west. the syria is chosen battlefield. I support assad and I believe he is targetted as saddam and Qaddafi.

There is no way Assad is the same level as Saddam and Qaddafi lol

Assad is millions time worse...
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom