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.

 

Turkey Coup: Was Major General Jeff Taliaferro the Liaising Officer?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Just pure speculation, does the possibilitie exist that coup was on HRC server and russian intel got it?




posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

AWACS has been there since before the Russian aircraft was shot down by Turkey. They've been US aircraft . . .


I can't find any reference to this, the presence of US AWACS aircraft in Turkey under any but NATO auspices. As of 2014 the Turkish air force had its own aerial surveillance aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...


The first Peace Eagle aircraft, named Kuzey (meaning North) was formally accepted into Turkish Air Force inventory on 21 February 2014.[24][25][26][27] The remaining three aircraft will be named Güney (South), Doğu (East) and Batı (West).[27]




. . . until earlier this year when NATO took on some of the mission. The US aircraft were needed elsewhere (such as in their heavy maintenance periods) so NATO stepped up.


This needs a citation. Frankly, it sounds bogus to me.


What Germany was upset about was that NATO told them they were deploying instead of having months of meetings prior, like they usually do.


No. They were deployed, over Germany. Then they were moved suddenly, out of the normal pattern, and it caught the attention of the German parliament.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomstick88
Just pure speculation, does the possibilitie exist that coup was on HRC server and russian intel got it?


I see what you are saying. It took me five minutes to figure out what HRC stood for. Good one.

The story is that it was direct intercepts of coded Turkish military messages. I think Hillary was out of the loop when this happened.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Incidentally, just as a light side note, right now Toronto is under a downpour that would have the rats in Bangkok swimming for their lives, and I have shirts on the balcony trying to dry.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

A shower or a down pour ? Should help cool the place down .



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

The US deployed an E-3G to the Middle East (they don't name bases when they deploy) November 18th of last year, to support missions against Isis. Which means they were flying the Turkey, Iraq, Syria region. It made news because it was the first combat mission of the G model upgrade.

www.flightglobal.com...

At the time they deployed only 9 of 24 aircraft had undergone upgrades to the G standard. That means several aircraft were undergoing upgrades and were unavailable, while others were undergoing scheduled maintenance. There aren't many E-3s in the US inventory to begin with.

Turkey has four E-7As in their inventory. If they want to cover more than a relatively small area, that means two in the east, two in the west. And assumes a 100% mission capable rate for 24 hour coverage.

No, they were based in Germany. Your own source said they took personnel based in Germany to support the mission.

From your OP:


including personnel based in Germany



The plan drew ire from German politicians who said Sunday that they were not consulted.


One of the NATO AWACS bases is Geilenkirchen in Germany.
edit on 7/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

One would hope. I was on the point of googling Noah. What would he do in this situation?

It seems to have stopped though.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I hear you but to my ears it is a little thin. For some reason parliamentarians in Germany were exercised about what was going on.

Your story is plausible and you are sticking to it. I have no problem with that, but I'm suspicious myself.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I'd be pretty incensed too if someone came in and said, "oh, by the way we're sending some of your troops to another country to fly support missions. Oh and their first active mission is in 6 days". There are supposed to be consultations to determine how many personnel and from where first.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Your link takes me sledgehammers on wikipedia.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

The sledgehammer trials. The follow up to the coup in 1980. Read the article.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

No, it was cut off so it's only a partial link. It's about actual sledgehammers.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The German parliamentarians wanted to know what this squadron would be up to. It wasn't just that they weren't consulted about the deployment. They weren't satisfied with the explanation that they were given about what data was being collected and who it was being given to. They smelled something funny.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This person doesn't know that when a link looks like that they have to click the "quote" button and then copy the entire link and paste it into their search engine. A newbie issue.

My apologies to the innocent one.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Because they weren't consulted. They're supposed to be consulted and given details of the mission whenever there's a deployment. They weren't this time.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This may simply have been a breach of protocol, as you suggest, but that in itself raises suspicions. It did in the German parliament. It looks like something sneaky was going on. They wanted to know what data was being collected and to whom it was being given. That's about more than simple protocol, don't you think?

Do you think that there is a committee of the Bundestag that sees all the readouts from every AWACS mission? Undoubtedly NATO installations in Germany would, certain of them, but why are parliamentarians suddenly concerned about this level of detail?

I think they suspected some game was afoot.
edit on 27-7-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

They don't see the data, but they are supposed to know why they're flying the mission and who they're supporting. It's the same everywhere with any kind of significant deployment. Even in the US Congress is given the mission details.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Who exactly in the Obama Administration is the "Hawk" that got the President to sign off on it? That's what doesn't pass the smell test. The U.S. would never had backed such a half assed Coup. The Military in Turkey would have pulled off an Egyptian style takeover if they really were serious. They would have had assets right next to all the Leaders they needed to neutralize. This Coup was laughable.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: Zaphod58

This person doesn't know that when a link looks like that they have to click the "quote" button and then copy the entire link and paste it into their search engine. A newbie issue.

My apologies to the innocent one.


Not a newbie issue. I can post the link just fine.

Here... Sledge hammer trials

Also I asked for link that proved Gulen was around in the 80s.
edit on 27-7-2016 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
This is an article that other news sources have quoted on this subject.

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

It seems that you were right about the impulse to query the deployment on the part of the Bundestag.


"The government must immediately inform parliament of the details of this deployment, in particular what missions will be assigned to these planes and the destination of any data they collect," Tobias Lindner, the green party's head of defense matters, demanded in German daily Bild.


But here is the government's response to this:


Though the mission involves sending German troops abroad, the government said it has no plans to consult the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament. The defense ministry noted the deployment was aimed at carrying out airspace surveillance and not armed operations.


The government says it will not disclose details of the operation to the Bundestag.

A NATO spokesperson gave a run down of numerous other measures designed to enhance Turkey's security.


"All this shows a strong commitment by allies to the defense of Turkey and will contribute to increasing stability in the region."


Fortunately the Russians (a threat to Turkey's security according to NATO) were there in the clutch to pull Erdogan's fat out of the fire when NATO were busy not disclosing.

Here's another interesting little tidbit:


NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said early this month the alliance was working on new support measures for Turkey but insisted the commitment predated Ankara's shooting down of a Russian jet along the Syrian border.


The shoot down of the Russian warplanes is the most common explanation given for the AWACS deployment to Turkey, but Stoltenberg insists that it was in the works anyway. Why? Turkey is that weak? Keep in mind that Turkey, up to that moment, had been the one wreaking all the damage in the area.

In the Bundestag they were saying this:


Sahra Wagenknecht, vice president of radical left party Die Linke, called the mission "highly dangerous" and demanded a vote in the Bundestag. The head of the Bundestag's defence committee, Social Democrat Wolfgang Hellmich, said the timing of the news was "a bit curious" given that lawmakers were away for the holidays and have not yet taken up the matter.


The Merkel government, apparently, fobbed the parliamentarians off and the squadron was deployed with no satisfactory explanation.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join