Turkey navy to escort aid ships to Palestinians in Gaza

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Not mentioned in all these pages.

And the most important and "wild Card" aspect of this situation.

If Israel Attacks Turkeys ships with armed men and live rounds like the previous flotillas, esp if in international waters they will be making an:

ACT OF WAR against an

NATO MEMBER



Does nobody see the dangers, irony and potential this causes.

What would happen if Russia attacked turkey to bolster the problems by NATO in Georgia etc, and get closer to its allies Syria and Iran?

NATO has to retaliate or protect its own members this is not some Veto UN spin council.

The US knows this, the Isralies Know this, Israel cannot survive without the hundreds of millions of $ per day from the US to keep it going, how could they fund support an enemy of an NATO alliance member?

What is Turkey pushes the NATO and Un security council?

ISRAEL will do nothing, they are nothing without the USA nothing at all would be bankrupt and invaded destroyed in weeks without the USA support, they also don't fight wars against those who may be able to beat them, and turkey would probably give them a good go for their money.

Israel lost of talk and spin, open and obvious, action though probably do something covert to stop the supplies.

I just wish the Israeli Mad fundementalist, Genocide repeating Sociopath killing Arab children, and the crazy Radical Islamofascist clerics, and all the wests 3 letter killing organisations and chaos creators, could all be put on an island somewhere and let the rest of the 99.99% of the regions population live in peace as they really all want to.

Kind Regards,

Elf
edit on 5-9-2011 by MischeviousElf because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
More plan B measures from Turkey :

Turkey: Israeli diplomats must leave country by Wednesday

Move marks latest step taken by Turkey against Israel following the release of the UN-commissioned report on the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid.


And this from the IDF :

IDF Homefront Command chief: Likelihood of a regional war is increasing (Ch. 10)

Yeah because you are acting like jackasses.

- Apologize to Turkey
- Recognize Palestinian State

How freaking hard is that?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Getting hot over there,isnt it V?

Common sense,is they do both of the things you ask.

I put up another scenario,in this thread,that I thought would work also.

Airlifting Humanitarian Aid,like the Berlin Airlift in 1948-49. I think that also would alleviate tension.

Why wouldnt NATO back Turkey,if they did this,would be a tough question........................
edit on 5-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: date....=)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
And so it begins. There WILL be another large war soon. It is coming. Get ready for it. This is NOT going to end well. Not at all. Between the Palestinian state vote, the U.S. automatically saying they will veto the vote and Turkey sending a armed naval armada to break the Israel blockade of Palestine there will be blood.

Not much else to say. I guess I will post some war quotes.

"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come." -Carl Sandburg

"I dream of giving birth to a child who will ask, "Mother, what was war?" ~Eve Merriam

"It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passions, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace." ~André Gide

"Organized slaughter, we realize, does not settle a dispute; it merely silences an argument." ~James Frederick Green



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I can't take Turkish stances on human rights seriously until they accept the genocide they carried out on the Armenians. 1.5 Million Armenians died at the hands of the Turks, far more than have been killed on Gaza.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


if there is any skirmish the circus in the USA will be full blast.

the election cycle is on, the candidates will go for the votes of right wing christian cults.

presidential candidates will compete for the support of the lunatic fringe, the war mongers will foam at the mouth.

i just wish i had a hideaway in the mountains where i could get away from these stupid idiots.

the circus of history runs a fever in north america.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


possibly as it would be a conflict that would not involve the north atlantic i seem to rember the uk doing that whole falklands thing and the rest of nato didnt go bum rush Argentina and i may be wrong but i think you have to be attacked for the nato thing to apply so if nato were gonan defend them they would have to let the Israelis shoot first rarely a good option in naval engagements and another key point will be where conflict happens international waters=act of war but if they interdict them in the blockaded area it might be a different story .Lots of lots of varibles in this one it could go either way but most likely like most things it will eventually blow over

www.nato.int...
en.wikipedia.org... it all hinges on article 5 and that can be viewd on the top link from natos page
edit on 5-9-2011 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)


Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

also from same source article 6= For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . from, www.nato.int...
edit on 5-9-2011 by KilrathiLG because: add link to article 5
edit on 5-9-2011 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org... In peace time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by U.S. soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases who work together with the host nation forces.[1]

so that answers if turkey could use usa's nukes on its own they have the missiles and whatnot but no codes

and to further clarify from same source "The US insists that its forces control the weapons, and that no transfer of the nuclear bombs or control over them is intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the NPT treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.[6] However, the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO countries practice handling and delivering the US nuclear bombs, and non-US warplanes have been adapted to deliver US nuclear bombs which involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information. Even if the US argument is considered legally correct, some[who?] argue such peacetime operations appear to contravene both the objective and the spirit of the NPT. Essentially, all preparations for waging nuclear war have already been made by supposedly non-nuclear weapon states. "
so they definatly wouldnt have access to the nukes it seems



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Not mentioned in all these pages.

And the most important and "wild Card" aspect of this situation.

If Israel Attacks Turkeys ships with armed men and live rounds like the previous flotillas, esp if in international waters they will be making an:

ACT OF WAR against an



Actually it would be an act of war, but Isreal would not be the one starting it. Since Turkey is knowingly escorting vessels into a blockade zone, the act of war would be by Turkey. Since the blockade is declared, and Israel is the controlling party, Turkey cant claim ignorance. Its irrelevant if they are in territorial waters or international waters. The moment the vessels declare their intent to violate the blockade, they are committed and as such can be confronted long before they arrive (check UN laws since some people like to pick and chose how they work).

Their intent, Israel, is clear.

Turkey is upping the stakes, and its going to blow up in their face.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
More plan B measures from Turkey :

Turkey: Israeli diplomats must leave country by Wednesday

Move marks latest step taken by Turkey against Israel following the release of the UN-commissioned report on the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid.


And this from the IDF :

IDF Homefront Command chief: Likelihood of a regional war is increasing (Ch. 10)

Yeah because you are acting like jackasses.

- Apologize to Turkey
- Recognize Palestinian State

How freaking hard is that?


Apparently just as hard as Hamas refusing to acknowlege the existance of Israel. To hard for Hamas to do anything except call for the complete destruction of Israel. Apparently just as hard for Hezbollah, Iran, Syria etc to recognize the existance of Israel.

Apparently its to difficult for Russia / China to keep its ME allies in check, instead allowing them to continue to incerease tensions.

Why should Israel appologize for defending themselves?

Turkey is behind the floatillas, and escalation is directly related to Turkey and its actions.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


I was under the impression the US had removed its nukes from Turkish soil when the new government was voted in and decided to warm up to Iran.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


NATO article 5 is incumbent on a member nation being attacked. The application of article 5 can be challenged when a NATO country puts itself on course to be the agressor. It would no longer be defensive at that point, and invocation of article 5 would not be valid.

Turkey doesnt have to fire the first shot. The mere act of violating the blockade while escorting vessels is the agressive action, and not Israel firing on those vessels.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thats why a show of Humanitarian aid,and aid only, would be the right thing to do.

Isnt their enough WAR?

Screw putting ships in the way of possible conflict,Just parachute it in. When your done there,take a ride SW,and drop some off in Africa. I think ALL NATO country's should do this.
edit on 5-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


www.eurasianet.org... says they are still there and will be at least for the time being but it is a hot button issue for the nations that still house american nukes



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thats why a show of Humanitarian aid,and aid only, would be the right thing to do.

Isnt their enough WAR?

Screw putting ships in the way of possible conflict,Just parachute it in. When your done there,take a ride SW,and drop some off in Africa. I think ALL NATO country's should do this.
edit on 5-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


Humanitarian aid has always been allowed into Gaza. If the groups trying to break the lbockade actually cared about the Palestinian issues, they would seperate the 2 (humanitarian aid and challengeing the blockade).

They dont do this, which shows their intent. They are using the Palestinian issue for their own agenda. Gaza has an open border with Egypt. For all the complaining people do about settlements in the West Bank, why is it Gaza, who has no israeli troops insde the area, seems to be the one that takes the spotlight?

No troops in Gaza, yet Hamas continues to attack Israel.

Its not about the Palestinians.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


www.eurasianet.org... says they are still there and will be at least for the time being but it is a hot button issue for the nations that still house american nukes


Thanks for the info.

with the advances in technology I dont see a need for nuclear weapons to be deployed on foreign soil anymore. Its one thing to maintain numbers to guarantee a MAD scenario with Russia. However maintaining stockpiles will not act as a detterent to rogue nations who are pursuing their owwn wmd programs.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravitational

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by CountDrac
 


Israel was never outnumber 10 to 1 (military personal) in any war. That is a completely baseless lie. You are openly lying. I suggest you read this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... and stick your propaganda where it belongs.


Never ???
I see it didn't work for you on the previous thread, so now you need to rely on people's lack of knowledge or short memory.

let's take a look at the Yom Kippur war for example. Look at the table to the right:

en.wikipedia.org...

read some more:

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

so tell me, who is the liar now?


Still not outnumbered 10 - 1. I suggest you read your own wiki page you linked.

Syria and Egypts total maximum number of troops comes to 950,000 while Israels came to 415,000. That is around 2:1 not 10:1.

So tell me, who is lying now?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
From the Palmer committee :





Humanitarian aid my A#@
edit on 6-9-2011 by gravitational because: size
edit on 6-9-2011 by gravitational because: hmmmm....



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


Pictures arent showing, please correct.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant

Originally posted by gravitational

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by CountDrac
 


Israel was never outnumber 10 to 1 (military personal) in any war. That is a completely baseless lie. You are openly lying. I suggest you read this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... and stick your propaganda where it belongs.


Never ???
I see it didn't work for you on the previous thread, so now you need to rely on people's lack of knowledge or short memory.

let's take a look at the Yom Kippur war for example. Look at the table to the right:

en.wikipedia.org...

read some more:

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

so tell me, who is the liar now?


Still not outnumbered 10 - 1. I suggest you read your own wiki page you linked.

Syria and Egypts total maximum number of troops comes to 950,000 while Israels came to 415,000. That is around 2:1 not 10:1.

So tell me, who is lying now?


No it's not 1:10, but that's not what you intended to portray was it?
Just like your thread on the 1948 war, your aim is to debunk a myth of a few (Jews) vs many (Arabs).
Given the sheer numbers 900,000 – 1,050,000 troops against 375,000 – 415,000 / 3400 tanks against 1700, complete Arab air superiority, etc' in a surprise attack while the reserve units were not in readiness, is quite enough to show how the IDF were in inferiority and how ridiculous your claims are. I'm not sure what childish purpose this argument serve, except your your usual Israel bashing, but I'm sure you got some pseudo intellectual reason behind this.

I'm quite certain you didn't read through, but at the beginning of the war, it was 150 Israeli tanks against 1400 Syrian tanks and 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers.
Grow up will you...





new topics




 
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join