Turkey says Syrian plane carried Russian munitions

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Issues expanding, dunno what to think about this

www.reuters.com...

 


Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

edit on Fri Oct 12 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I think some of what I was reading last night on another site indicated Turkey has had a "secret" command center 60 miles off the Syrian Border for quite some time now to run the war against Assad from there. The U.S., European and other world powers would seem to coordinate through that center for actions taken further on inside Syria itself.

Now...that really makes me wonder....at what point does Turkey RIGHTFULLY become a legitimate target? How long or far do they have to go in actively helping run the rebels determined to overthrow the Syrian Government and likely kill Assad outright? I mean, at some point, lines get crossed here...and Turkey has no right to say squat.

I personally didn't know that Turkey had gone so far into formalizing their literal running of the Civil War inside Syria that they could rightly be called combatants RIGHT NOW. I guess it's Syria not wanting to start World War III..and honestly, bring their own total destruction..that keeps them from dropping ordinance right into Ankara. After all, Damascus seems to ring with the blasts planned from a post inside Turkey and turn about WOULD be fair play at this point!


Remember the "old" days when the U.N. and General World consensus was that outside nations HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to take sides and interfere with the strictly internal matters or civil conflict of another member nation? What happened to that? The world was a hell of a lot safer when these nations weren't treated like UN property and the leader just care taking in their stead.
edit on 11-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Cold War ended that what happened also EU happened. In that time there were status quo, even there were some crisis everyone knew their place.. Now there is too much testosterone and too much macho BS and everyone are testing how far they can go.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I personally didn't know that Turkey had gone so far into formalizing their literal running of the Civil War inside Syria that they could rightly be called combatants RIGHT NOW. I guess it's Syria not wanting to start World War III..and honestly, bring their own total destruction..that keeps them from dropping ordinance right into Ankara. After all, Damascus seems to ring with the blasts planned from a post inside Turkey and turn about WOULD be fair play at this point!


The Syria question will not start WW-III imho.

It's a sideshow.


Remember the "old" days when the U.N. and General World consensus was that outside nations HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to take sides and interfere with the strictly internal matters or civil conflict of another member nation? What happened to that? The world was a hell of a lot safer when these nations weren't treated like UN property and the leader just care taking in their stead.
edit on 11-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


AND

The UN was accused of being as about as useful in previous similar situations as Paris Hilton's IQ for decades. Now that they take a proactive stance all of a sudden they are intruding.

So, where does this leave us?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Damned if we do, damned if we dont ?


2nd

Edit: Nice new avatar Slayer. I wish the book didnt kill off eddard stark. Bean is the man
edit on 11-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


UN is a make up.. decisions are made elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 

. . . what to think about this

When the CIA gives the rebels radios, its "non-military assistance".
When the MSM talks about radios for the Syrian government, it is "munitions".



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

The Syria question will not start WW-III imho.

It's a sideshow.


I will agree with this much. Syria isn't the point of the exercise and they are a sideshow to the main effort. They're a very necessary side show though, as I'm sure you'll agree. The U.S. cannot go taking on Iran with a fully capable Syria sitting to our figurative rear and with sights aimed on the trigger which would blow any small war into a regional one at best. Israel. Syria has to be dealt with of neutralized as a threat first. It's such tactical basics, I'm sure Obama didn't even need a briefing to get that part. lol....

I think World War III is certainly possible here if people aren't careful but it would be an uncontrolled spiral of events, not deliberate and calculated if it started at that spot. I sure could see Turkey perhaps 100% accidentally....attacking and killing or destroying something which sends Assad into a PERSONAL rage and brings retaliation that could be seen in context...any other time, eh?



The UN was accused of being as about as useful in previous similar situations as Paris Hilton's IQ for decades. Now that they take a proactive stance all of a sudden they are intruding.

So, where does this leave us?

We really don't disagree often..and maybe we don't in a fundamental way here...but I sense we do. Proactive is one way to see it....directly intervening in memvber nations with no clear cut criteria for why, when or limits for how is what I think has changed so much. Sure the UN has always been worthless.....but NO nation particularly wanted to be brought up before the Sec. Council, particularly a member OF the Sec. Council, to take their thrashing in the world press and public.

It seems to me..before crusading across the planet for end goals I still don't understand yet as the scope just keeps widening on this whole thing, that fear of ridicule and economic sanctions or pressure WAS enough to keep nations half way decent in public.

Now the UN has become the very tool of abuse which they were formed to prevent.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Is it a rebellion?
Is it a civil war?
Is it a case of a brutal dictator crushing the people?

Each would require a different approach.

No?

Now, depending on ones perspective they would either be viewed as saviors or the hand of imperialism.

yes?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reuters is controlled media,
why would it be reliable???



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Well, in a very real and honest sense, I'd ask where it's right for outside nations to interfere in any of the 3 examples you cite?

As much as every person with a heart would even want to intervene in the last example, I still say it's not our place...and until recent years..it wasn't something we did in any overt way. The UN and West are still brutally selective about which "moral causes" rate our precious attention. Syria gets Al Qaeda type guerrilla fighters backed to the hilt while Myanmar and the Karen people barely rate a back page paragraph every year or two.

Iran is fit to support opposition forces now...but when opposition was in full bloom and could have grabbed the initiative, they weren't worth the effort for some reason. Just a couple years have passed...eh?

Arguments can certainly be made and individual examples cited for action to all 3 type of situations you bring up as well. The problem I have is in a real world look at how that turns out, regardless of the intentions which started it. It always seems to end badly for the people it was "done for". I don't even necessarily condemn the motives in every case....it's the follow through and end wrap that never seems to go in a way anyone's glad it happened for.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Well, in a very real and honest sense, I'd ask where it's right for outside nations to interfere in any of the 3 examples you cite?


You know me I'm not advocating interference but, How on any sort of moral ground can people stand by when people are being killed?


As much as every person with a heart would even want to intervene in the last example, I still say it's not our place...and until recent years..it wasn't something we did in any overt way. The UN and West are still brutally selective about which "moral causes" rate our precious attention. Syria gets Al Qaeda type guerrilla fighters backed to the hilt while Myanmar and the Karen people barely rate a back page paragraph every year or two.


Agreed.

Maybe if Assad and company survive this fiasco they'll look long and hard at their covert activities of the past in other countries and think twice next time?


Iran is fit to support opposition forces now...but when opposition was in full bloom and could have grabbed the initiative, they weren't worth the effort for some reason. Just a couple years have passed...eh?


Make no mistake. Iran has ambitions of being a major regional power come hell or high water. Now, on the surface for many that seems like no big deal but in reality the majority of their neighbors are just about done with their covert meddling and denial too.


Arguments can certainly be made and individual examples cited for action to all 3 type of situations you bring up as well.


It's a fine line for some between minding our own business and being accomplices by inaction to atrocities on all sides.

It's a ugly situation that will only get worse imho.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I like how the article image is a picture of the plane and not the explosives in question. We have at least established that Syria owns a passenger jet, so if they can manage that, how hard is it to create some rockets of their own without smuggling them from Russia, and right over Turkey no less, rather than going through Iran.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Turkey has been fabricating quite a few lies lately in an attempt to seek justification for involvement in Syria....
Just like they lied about their plane being shotdown in international waters when it was in fact inside Syrian Airspace, so too they lie this time about weapons being onboard when there wasnt.

The pilot was forced to sign a statement saying that no F16 escorted the jet, but that it landed due to technical issue before the Turks would allow them to leave.

Several passengers were beat up going by witness reports aswell.

I think Turkey is playing with fire here at the moment, regardless if it is a NATO member or not....it will get a rap on the knuckles by the Russians if they are not careful.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You know me I'm not advocating interference but, How on any sort of moral ground can people stand by when people are being killed?


That's what I meant by saying it may real be hard to stay out and be very tempting on moral grounds to get involved...but the road to hell and good intentions, right? I just can't, for the life of me, come up with a major intervention that went well outside of situations that were born from total ruins and total defeat of one form or another.

Recently, even that hasn't ended well at all since Iraq truly WAS a total defeat in the first phase, yet the U.S. shortcomings for planning in post war phases snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the end... So, it's not that I think things like Rwanda should happen, to name one example....but the outcome in Libya for another where we DID intervene is hardly an improvement for the people and a damn bit worse all around. They had SOME law and order ..in fact too damn much...before. Now it's like every other post war nation from what it appears.. borderline chaos and general uncertainty as a way of life. Err.. oops. I think the locals had it better before?


Maybe if Assad and company survive this fiasco they'll look long and hard at their covert activities of the past in other countries and think twice next time?
You know what they say about justifying behavior by citing other examples... lol...Although you do have a point and if Syria wasn't a key point in a larger slow motion disaster here I'd see a whole lot more of the irony to this.

Syria HAS been a happy host to HQ centers for Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas among others..at various times like Embassy Row there in Damascus. Now, guerrilla forces of another stripe are about to cook HIS bird....
It really does have poetic justice to it.

...Oh but then I keep coming back to that nasty issue of....Why US ..again?? 12 long years of war and we can do no more..really.. Not in money and not in human resources.. Enough? Let 'em kill each other off but it's a snake pit we've been in too long, IMO. It's just too much now and when does it ever stop if not with Afghanistan when we leave there? Syria? Iran? North Africa? Pakistan? ..... We can't fight forever...



Make no mistake. Iran has ambitions of being a major regional power come hell or high water. Now, on the surface for many that seems like no big deal but in reality the majority of their neighbors are just about done with their covert meddling and denial too.

Yes they are. No question. If there is proof of a nuclear weapon...I'm content with what it takes to remove that and yes my qualms about war have their limits. I'm anything but pacifist. I'm just war weary after so many years of it. However, Saudi Arabia among others have stated in NO uncertain terms that if Iran tests a Nuclear Weapon (assuming NO war starts at all) they absolutely WILL build their own Nuclear Weapons and as quickly as humanly possible.

I'm guessing you're well aware of that too as a major factor. For that reason, IF proof is established, I would NOT be opposed to war with Iran..because a nuclear arms RACE over there is far beyond what the world can accept.

However....nations like China and Russia know this too and Russia is NO favorite of the Jihadis or extremists. They have their own little war on terror going.....and an Iran with nuclear weapons that aren't secure would be a larger direct threat to THEM than us. After all, Iranian and Russian Federation soil sits 115 miles apart at one point as I recall the maps. They are literally neighbors down the Caspian coast.

I think they're making serious nuclear capability, but energy and with an eye toward not simply servicing the world market for it but outright dominating it. Ambitious little cusses...but I think that's what we're seeing. when those who know them best, as noted. have no apparent concerns about taking one in the teeth.


No one can expect to agree 100% though...There was bound to be a minor thing we ended up disagreeing about eventually. lol... I'd say it's on general outlines and not the fundamental principles though. There are enough nukes in that region as it is....and the world doesn't even know about some of them, is my guess. It's all a question of Iraq style "proof" or PROOF in capital letters. I just need the latter when it comes to Iran.





top topics
 
1

log in

join