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.

 

‘Incursion’: Baghdad demands Turkey withdraw ‘training’ troops from northern Iraq

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge


ISIS is the Muslim Brotherhood gone mad, mad because Turkey needs Syria to submit so they can start the final push for their great Islamic i mean Turkish empire!

Rothschilds are bigger. But thanks for the reminder about IS-- Tur--- I mean, NATO.




posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut


I am guilty of having used seemingly technical terms improperly, but can we agree that acting outside of mutual agreement's frameworks is bad regardless if it's Russia or Turkey doing it? And is it implicit that when the government of a country denounces illegal presence in its territory has the right to still call it "its territory" unless officially unrecognized? If this wasn't implicit wouldn't you think it's extremely dangerous and immoral?


Acting outside of an agreement can lead to war, but that is sometimes to the advantage of one of the parties. Unfortunately, international relations have always been governed by realpolitik. Personally, I would prefer that everyone, including nations, get what they need or want through negotiation or compromise. Unfortunately, Russia's leader believes that things are best achieved through cunning and force, and Turkey's leader holds a similar philosophy. As for which nation holds which territory: that has always been fluid. At best, all one can do is identify which side is attempting to change the de jure status quo and call them "the aggressor."



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Rothschilds are bigger. But thanks for the reminder about IS-- Tur--- I mean, NATO.


So... ISIS is fronting for Turkey, which is fronting for NATO which is controlled by the Jews? Got it.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: 23432
- Barzani is oil smuggler and Pesmerhga will fight Turks once IS is dealt with .


Yes for Barzani and can't say for sure on Peshmerga.


Barzani is the head of Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan and his oil dealings are no more or no less illegal then anyone else around him . ...
Once ISIS is over , Kurds will hold a referendum and vote whether to split from Iraq and Join Turks or not . Northern Iraq is stable because Turks support Barzani in the area.


Willing or not Barzani is selling ISIS-controlled territory oil without Baghdad approval, once ISIS is over there will be an Iraqi civil war which is more or less what the west is trying to bring there since ten years, but what will happen outside of the formation of a kurdish state is very dependent on the outcome of the war in Syria. If Iraqi kurdistan gets too much approval it won't be at all good for Turkey, so I have no doubt that's not going to be a friendly relationship once they get other trading partners and a lot more "land-thirst" à-la Israel.


Kurds in Northern Iraq prefer to side with Turks ; there are many historical reasons for their stand .
As for who is buying this ISIS oil issue ; satellite & drone footage should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that indeed there is an ongoing oil smuggling operation via trucks . We are still waiting for that irrefutable evidence .
You may laugh at USA treasury report and choose to believe kremlin instead , I say that is a mistake on your part .


Kurds in north Iraq may prefer to side with kurds in Turkey once things are settled. We don't want to forget that Barzani condemned turkish intervention just few months ago and wasn't until the oil deal that things changed. Why the population should be particularly happy with Turkey's governemnt (not turkish people, remember)? The evidence is that oil traffic goes to Turkey. Oil is not cigarettes, some high rank in Turkey decided it's not a problem to deal with ISIS oil. I do partly believe the kremlin and many other jornalists on the web.


I am not really a Turkish Nationalist
....
I try to defend my house , while you are accusing me of being a Turkish nationalist .
Btw , why should a Turkish Nationalist be any more dangerous then any other countries nationalist ?


I'm sorry if it sounded that turkish nationalism is particularly worse, it wasn't my intention. You are a dangerous nationalist because you want to enforce the same "imperialism" that you accuse russian of doing to you. You support a fascist government which is in Turkey so I meant that and I thought I was clear in saying what I think of your gov.


You suggest that Turks should drop Nato and USA as allies because in your opinion it is bad for Turks to be allies with West . You also think that Turks support ISIS , which is a very bold claim but nevertheless a claim you are comfortable making anyway .


NATO is a relic of the past and ISIS is a scam. Turkey is acting as NATO, it's clear that they took the responsibility in doing the dirty job with some promise. This isn't a favour to anyone in Europe, in Russia, in the balcans or in the middle east and the only country that has a say is the US in the interests of Uk, France, Israel and the GCC firstly, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and the MENAs secondly.
The idea is that Saudi are the leading country in the middle east, not Turkey, so unless saudi collapse you are the underdog, plain and simple, and this isn't to say that your country hasn't a key role, which it has, but that's not in the interests of the people in Turkey to get bad relations with nearby countries and be closely tied to a country seen as a mass murder.


Maybe you don't get it but your efforts are all aimed towards painting Turks as pawns which had no business in larger scheme of things , like having an opinion and a side in this Syrian conflict .


I have no agenda, I only think you have a president that sold your country to the interests of some transnational lobby.


According to you Turks don't defend europe but blackmail them.
Well , that is your opinon . Turks have been defending Europe for 60 years or so .


The massive migration was the blackmail, and 3$b was the ransom. There was no need to defend anyone in Europe but from ourselves in the last 70 years.


Russia & USA already made the deal way back in Yeltsin Clinton times .
....
The big bill you worried about is not going to happen because like any western diplomat would tell you " You can't trust the Russians "


You watch too many movies. There is no deal with current Russia, Russia is a concern to the US hegemony anytime is able to do anything. You can't trust any diplomat of any country, if anything the biggest liars in the last half century has been the USA, and you don't need documents to prove it, you just need to see who replaced who.

continued (can't cut anymore)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr


Rothschilds are bigger. But thanks for the reminder about IS-- Tur--- I mean, NATO.


So... ISIS is fronting for Turkey, which is fronting for NATO which is controlled by the Jews? Got it.

Follow the money.

Edit: Couldn't have said it better myself. ISIS is the terror for public consumption, Turkey is the cover, the launch point for the military arm of NATO that is running covert ops in Syria, has been destroying Nation after Nation in the Middle East for Israel.

The Chosen ones, the Holy land…

hows that peace process working out for ya?
edit on 6-12-2015 by intrptr because: edit:



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

USA & Russia agreement to make deal with Kurds at the expense of Turks ? Do use some logic ; you seem to bought into this " Kurds are our people " , " Kurds are the only ones worth supporting " narrative .


That's not what I said. Kurds are now the mutual interest of both Russia and the USA. As long as Russia had a relation with Turkey, it wasn't. On the other side Turkey has no power to contest US interests (like any other NATO country), so now they'll have to face a vast kurdish representation in both Iraq and Syria, and guess what? Some of those new cool self-determined nationalists may want more land north. And maybe they get funded because a civil war in the middle east is always big money.
Diplomatically, by shutting down the su24 you lost power in terms of liberty in foreign policy. And the "Kurds are the only ones worth supporting " narrative is not something I support, it's something that is being fed over and over now on both side of the propaganda.


When Turks entered Anatolia , they had 20.000 Kurdish Warriors with them , fighting against Byzantine forces .
This is in Kurdish cultural DNA as much as a Turkish one .
Who do you think Salahaddin was ?
You are basing all your opinion of Kurds on the small segment of Kurdish population who by and large are pseudo Kurds i.e hidden Armenians.
Reality is that the Kurds are far more pious and fundamentalist muslims then Turks will ever be .


You seem to think I support Kurds in a particular way. I don't, they are the "tool" after the end of the war, and you make a big mistake not considering what this will bring. You seem to think it's about the people. Wake up, it's not, people get betrayed every day, Kurds already have a mafia that will take care of the new deals, Turkey has everything to lose. I respect the cultural heritage, but there is no more ottoman empire and there is no free indipendent turkish foreign policy. So you have a big role, as an actor with a script. You either don't decide, or do suicidal mistakes for no apparent benefit.


You think Turks aren't back on the scene on International Politics & War , fine , I'll let you think that .


You think Turkey has enough political weight? Latest events showed to me the don't. What did you gain?


You are scared of war so you want Turks to say nothing about the sh1te hand they are dealt by the dealer .


So you are speaking for all the turks in saying that Erdogan is a great leader etc. I'm not even sure what you mean here.


It is not my dream to have Ottoman empire . My dream would be to have a Digitism as a Socio-political governing method .
It is however the dream of many inside and outside Turkey to have unification of 1.5 billion muslims and Turks are experienced at this type of thing already .


This is your opinion and you need another 1.450 billion muslim approval, and you also need to convince them you won't rebuild the empire. Also, how about you might not be allowed to expand by the same allies that asked you to get angry with russians?


I see nothing wrong with Caliphate for 1.5 billion muslims .
You probably are imagining a muslim world which is perpetually fragmented and fighting one another at every opportunity .
I am imagining a Muslim world who is at peace with Christians & Jews .
You accuse west of supporting terrorism while east does the same .

You are taking this issue rather personally .

I try to provide the audience with facts from the Turks side .


Facts are substantiated by articles or links, which you never ever or even refused to post.


I don't know what is is that you are asking for ?

Should I be scared or something ?

Russian naval vessels sail less then a mile away from my house while I have a nice lunch on my balcony . I get to see thru my binoculars , a Russian soldier with shoulder to air missile , mock targeting my house .


So you are just a russophobe like some others on this site. Maybe you should leave the 19th century and look what we have now.


This doesn't spoil my coffee at all , so please don't think for a second that you offer anything of substance in this discussion .

Russian are the aggressors and violaters . No amount of vitriol is going to change that little fact .

What are you worried about ww3 ?

Stop being childish.




And this completes it I guess.. I'm seeing some turkish shills for the first time in the last weeks (especially on reddit), I didn't know they exist, but seems they got you.
Now Turkey invades Iraq, as said by Iraqi pm and the aggressors are the russians. Pathetic at best.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Acting outside of an agreement can lead to war, but that is sometimes to the advantage of one of the parties. Unfortunately, international relations have always been governed by realpolitik. Personally, I would prefer that everyone, including nations, get what they need or want through negotiation or compromise. Unfortunately, Russia's leader believes that things are best achieved through cunning and force, and Turkey's leader holds a similar philosophy. As for which nation holds which territory: that has always been fluid. At best, all one can do is identify which side is attempting to change the de jure status quo and call them "the aggressor."


But also americans, europeans and chinese leaders do use force, they are no different, but trying to picture it like there was a moral standing behind western values. Reality is western values are consumism and that's all these days. The values we think are western are more or less the same everywhere, it's interests that change the narrative, and as I said I remain of the opinion that this status quo is something really blurry where every propaganda tries to draw its lines.
And I also think that every side at every time is the aggressor, it's probably just a matter of magnitude.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: benwyatt

Isn't ISIS in northern Iraq? Apparently the Iraqi government has no problem with ISIS being there? I understand the concept of sovereignty, but this may be a case in which you allow foreign troops.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So what's clearly a multi-way civil war between various Muslim #heads---it's all the Jooz fault? Preposterous.

If there is one problem in Mideast which Israel totally stays out of this is it! They don't like Hezbollah and they sure don't like a radical fanatic Jihadist organization run by Saddam Hussein's vileist men! That would be a worse replacement for Assad for sure.

Israel got involved in Syria to the extent that it affected them---weapons going to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ohtherwise, have you heard them taking a position on Syria in public, and doing something about it? Big nope. There's nothing in it for them. They may be the smartest ones.
edit on 6-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
The Turks are training Sunni militias and former Iraqi security forces from Mosul for the retaking of Mosul.


Don't put so many words up to cover up the truth of it ...

They're training ISIS, but to play around without their ski masks and black clothing.

You can stop pretending.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Although consumerism tends to follow American influence, there are distinctive characteristics of Euro-American civilization that are not universal, but which would genuinely improve the lives of peoples who adopt them. Freedom of expression, representative government, respect for the Westphalian tradition, secularism in government to name just a few. Unfortunately, these values cannot be taught from the muzzle of a gun, the West's most futile delusion. Although I do not deny that Western actions are often prompted by the thought of immediate gain, the process by which the actions must be set in motion serves as a brake on the more extreme and futile plans. The absolutism that Russia has achieved and towards which Turkey is moving has no system of checks and balances. The United States made its disastrous move against Iraq because a committee of well intending fool deluded themselves into thinking it was a good idea, and then convince the naïve to accept their opinion. Putin and Erdogan can make rash, impulsive decision without consultation, which means that a moment of anger or insecurity can place their country on an irrevocable course without opposition. This is what we see happening now.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




If there is one problem in Mideast which Israel totally stays out of this is it!


I doubt it. After all, wouldn't it be in Israel's interest to play one Arab nation off another? Creating dissent among the Arab leaders weakens them collectively.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: truthseeker1110
a reply to: mbkennel




If there is one problem in Mideast which Israel totally stays out of this is it!


I doubt it. After all, wouldn't it be in Israel's interest to play one Arab nation off another? Creating dissent among the Arab leaders weakens them collectively.


Israel doesn't need to play them off one another; they have an 800 year old quarrel amongst themselves.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut

Stop shouting, please. You are trying to argue legalism. Since IS is not a recognized state, any declaration of war against them is purely rhetorical. A nation's sovereignty only extends to territory it can control. Turkey exerted its ability to control its airspace, Iraq cannot control its territory in Mosul.


Are you seriously trusting Turkey to run amok in Iraq? Come on man, let it go. NATO have screwed up and it's only getting worse.

Turkey have no right to be in Iraq. Just like the US have been told to stay out.

Russia have weighed in with serious action and the Iraqi government is impressed.

Sorry if that hurts your Americano Ego but the US flip flopped for too long. The Iraqi government clearly has more faith in Russia than it does the US/West.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes


Are you seriously trusting Turkey to run amok in Iraq? Come on man, let it go. NATO have screwed up and it's only getting worse.


I have no say in what Turkey does in Iraq, and even the United States has a limited amount of influence on them. So far, no-one has invoked NATO into the situation. On the other hand, by taking sides in a sectarian civil war, Putin is earning enmity for Russia among a fifth of the world's population.
edit on 6-12-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That may be so - but it certainly would not be beneficial to Israel to have the Arabs actually going around agreeing on something.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: truthseeker1110
a reply to: DJW001

That may be so - but it certainly would not be beneficial to Israel to have the Arabs actually going around agreeing on something.


Not necessarily, if they could get them to agree that Israel is not the cause of all their problems and has a right to exist.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Ha! I see you are an optimist.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: truthseeker1110
a reply to: DJW001

That may be so - but it certainly would not be beneficial to Israel to have the Arabs actually going around agreeing on something.


Not necessarily, if they could get them to agree that Israel is not the cause of all their problems and has a right to exist.


So basically, as long as the elites are in agreement then everything is OK?



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I can hardly disagree with you on this.







 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join