It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ISawItFirst
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr
Well they didn't hitch a ride through Syria with Isis, did they?
Did they?
Did you know Turkey shares a border with Iraq? Mosul is just across that border. Basically, Turkey is helping Sunni Iraqis and Kurds retake Mosul from ISIS by flanking them from the Turkish side. Do you have a problem with Turkey taking down an ISIS stronghold?
Turkey training Kurds? Maybe im missing something. Turkey hates the kurds.
Turkey training isis against the kurds, that makes sense. The other way, not so much. I have yet to find anything official from Turkey showing amything but disdain for the kurds.
I mean, the words kurd, kurdish, and kurdistan were banned in Turkey. There have been multiple attempts at genocide. This doesnt add up at all.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
Take a look at that wiki. Anyone else ever talking about systematic or instituional racism in the US, can look at Turkey and the Kurds and see what those things actually look like.
originally posted by: Mastronaut
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut
International law in war? Neither Iraq nor Syria is a functioning state, so their status is no different than IS's.
Exactly where is the war? The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason. Turkey can enter Iraq only with Iraq permission. It isn't difficult to understand so I have to think you are ok with breaking the laws in an undeclared war (so in peacetime).
Regardless of your opinion even war has laws. Those states aren't functioning cause you side with terrorism since 30 years. IS cannot be fought without the sovereign country they are in gives permission, and no NATO country has it in Syria nor Turkey has in Iraq.
Apart being disgustingly biased, your opinion is also wrong in every possible framework (legal, political, social, military, economically, whatever) you put it in. It's a fascist narrative to justify it "because we don't care of the rules".
originally posted by: MrSpad
originally posted by: ISawItFirst
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr
Well they didn't hitch a ride through Syria with Isis, did they?
Did they?
Did you know Turkey shares a border with Iraq? Mosul is just across that border. Basically, Turkey is helping Sunni Iraqis and Kurds retake Mosul from ISIS by flanking them from the Turkish side. Do you have a problem with Turkey taking down an ISIS stronghold?
Turkey training Kurds? Maybe im missing something. Turkey hates the kurds.
Turkey training isis against the kurds, that makes sense. The other way, not so much. I have yet to find anything official from Turkey showing amything but disdain for the kurds.
I mean, the words kurd, kurdish, and kurdistan were banned in Turkey. There have been multiple attempts at genocide. This doesnt add up at all.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
Take a look at that wiki. Anyone else ever talking about systematic or instituional racism in the US, can look at Turkey and the Kurds and see what those things actually look like.
The Kurds are not single group. They are many groups and have long been rivals fighting each other. So you had Turkey who was enemies with its own Kurds who would operate in mountain areas between Iraq and Turkey where nobody has ever had any control but, at the same allied with the Kurds of Iraq whom they would arm to resist Saddam and who in return would help the Turks fight their Kurdish enemies. You also had Iraq who hated its Kurds supporting the Kurds in Iran. And in Syria you would find the Turks fighting some Kurds allied to the Turkish Kurds and while Turkey and Israel also supported other Kurdish groups.
This all goes on because Iraq and Syria have never really controlled the northern parts of their countries to any real degree so it has always been the wild wild west there.
The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut
The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason.
I guess Syria is at peace then.
originally posted by: Mastronaut
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut
The reality is there is no war unless somebody declares it for a reason.
I guess Syria is at peace then.
I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.
However in this case there seems to be a previous deal with Barzani, tho I can't find any statement from him after this incident that iraqi seemed to imply wasn't legal. If the dissent between Iraqi kurdistan and Baghdad becomes evident I'm pretty sure Russia will pressure hard with new evidence for ISIS oil deals.
originally posted by: 23432
originally posted by: Mastronaut
10.000 barrell a day is being alleged .
Thats 3 km long convoy of oil tankers , going to and coming from Turkey to Syria everyday .
Not easy to fake but very easy to record with drones by multiple countries .
If the evidence was there , Russia would have published it .
originally posted by: Mastronaut
originally posted by: 23432
originally posted by: Mastronaut
10.000 barrell a day is being alleged .
Thats 3 km long convoy of oil tankers , going to and coming from Turkey to Syria everyday .
Not easy to fake but very easy to record with drones by multiple countries .
If the evidence was there , Russia would have published it .
Not until they realize they can't bribe Barzani. Or blackmail him, whatever. ISIS oil in Kurdistan uses pipelines, not trucks, and we already know its ISIS oil because they said it was in compensation for not receiving their part of shares from Baghdad.
Turkey is just playing the Us-coalition dog, when things are over either we will be all burnt from nuclear missiles, or there will be a scapegoat that pays the whole game, like in WWII.
originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Turkey training Kurds? Maybe im missing something. Turkey hates the kurds.
originally posted by: intrptr
According to a Reuters source, the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition was aware of the Turkey's move.
I'll bet. US probably flew them in there.
Well they didn't hitch a ride through Syria with Isis, did they?
Did they?
I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut
I'm pretty sure you can't invade a country with a civil war for no reasons.
"Guess" is the correct word. You have been making wild guesses about the nature of "international law."
Are you serious? You have it backwards. Where the hell did you get brainwashed?
Invading a neighbor is BY DEFINITION illegal, otherwise it's called help or invite.
Nation's sovereignity BY DEFINITION is inside a nation's border.
While you wait you can go reread the United Nations Charter and maybe check what happened to invading countries in the last 200 years.
originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: 23432
Barzani is smuggling ISIS oil, he admitted it and you have a very peculiar position on what iraq kurds think about Turkey. They idolize nothing, they are just doing their business, and the funding of Peshmerga. What do you think those peshmerga will be fighting for, once this IS hoax will end?
Turkey is the only option for Kurdistani oil, saying that syrian businessmen and russian are the only buyers because Washington "says so" is laughable. We basically know who's buying this oil since a year thanks to western, eastern and middle eastern sources, so it wasn't even in debate before Putin used it as a propaganda tool.
You are a dangerous turkish nationalist, you don't see how slave of a bigger interest you are and you are one of those who would sign for the demise of your country to please a wanna-be caliph and a raping ally like the USA. However I guess you never checked what other western countries think of Turkey (which is what your government has been able to communicate outside): Turkey is an ISIS supporting imperialistic country like Saudi.
But the reality is: a rabid dog for the USA dealing with heroin traffic and western terrorism support. This oil smuggling thing is just a drop in an ocean of dirty jobs that MIT does (like every other secret service).
You don't defend Europe, you blackmail them. So pray that you keep an edge on this war because if the USA and Russia find a way to solve this conflict through kurds, you will get a big invoice and a civil war.
You aren't "back", this isn't a game, your country will be the reason for a major conflict in the middle east, a conflict that in your interests shouldn't happen, but in the interests of a crazy bunch of mafia guys who runs yours and other countries in NATO. Stop dreaming about the ottoman empire, it just makes your arguments pathetic.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut
So you couldn't find anything could you? I challenged you to support your claims because I knew you couldn't. "International Law" is made up by a combination of tradition and treaties. Turkey and Syria's borders were determined by the French and British after the First World War. They were imposed by force. Poland and Germany's borders were drawn by the Russians after the Second. Obviously, this violates the principle of "self determination."
The United Nations Charter is full of "encouraging this" and "discouraging that," but it doesn't really have any enforceable laws by design. The idea is to create a space that, at best, encourages conflict resolution through negotiation but, usually simply provides a theater for political kabuki. When was the last time the UN ever actually settled an international dispute? When was the last time a UN resolution caused a nation to change its behavior?
The whole concept of national sovereignty, with each nation responsible for its own domestic policy but respecting the domestic policies of its neighbors comes from the Treaty of Westphalia, which for some reason, neither the Russian nor Ottoman Empire attended.
Simple common sense makes it clear that a nation's territory extends only so far as it can impose its laws and government. Russia took advantage of this when it annexed Crimea. On the one hand, because Crimea was nominally part of Ukraine, it was a violation of the Treaty of Westphalia, which Ukraine did not sign either. On the other hand, any territory that a nation can control becomes that nation's territory, which Russia formalized with its dubious plebiscite. This election was illegal under Ukrainian law, but perfectly above board under Russia's de facto rule.
Does it matter whether heroin comes from Afghanistan or Iran? Does it matter whether oil comes from Syria or Iraq?
As for the declaration of war, that is a custom that was formalized at the Hague Convention of 1907, which somehow Russia & Ottoman Turkey missed out on again.
Now, to address the point that you seem to be trying to make head on: Is Turkey trying to reclaim Ottoman territory lost in 1918? That is certainly possible, and, if so, it is a grave mistake. Turkey cannot be both a functioning modern nation state and an "oriental" empire. That is why the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the first place. By seizing Crimea, Putin demonstrated that he was trying to rebuild the Russian Empire. Obviously, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire would have to come to blows. The United States will need to keep out of this. Turkey can withstand Russia's military without NATO's aid, and a failure to destroy Turkey would end Putin's career.
If history is any guide, the current situation will be resolved through secret negotiations that will redraw the map of the region. Syria will lose a bit of ground to Turkey here, Turkey will lose a bit of ground to Iraq there, Syria and Iraq will both lose a bit of ground which will become Kurdistan, Europe gets its pipelines, and Russia gets to keep its bases and get paid to rebuild all the infrastructure it destroyed.
I'm looking forward to your reaction when Moscow announces that the Sykes-Picot borders have been "corrected."