Turkish Foreign Minister Hurriyet: "If Israel were to attack any Muslim country, Turkey would respo

According to this article by Haaretz, The Turkish FM Hurryet has already confirmed that an Israeli strike on any neighboring Muslin country would result in war. What does this mean for NATO, since Turkey is a member of NATO and the U.S. is such a verdant ally of Israel, and what would be the outcome of a US/NATO conflict involving Israel? Or a US/Israel conflict involving NATO?

Originally posted by Davian
According to this article by Haaretz, The Turkish FM Hurryet has already confirmed that an Israeli strike on any neighboring Muslin country would result in war. What does this mean for NATO, since Turkey is a member of NATO and the U.S. is such a verdant ally of Israel, and what would be the outcome of a US/NATO conflict involving Israel? Or a US/Israel conflict involving NATO?

Well they hit syria so why are they not declaring war? I KNOW! because the US aid money and the US troops on the syrian border would murderlize them in a crushing counter attack. I swear Turkey does not know when to shut up at times.

^ Well its a good thing someone is willing to stand up and say something.
2nd

Talk is cheap. As the Yuppa said their word has already been proven to be false in this regard. If they intended to back it up they would have declared war on Israel already.

reply to post by Davian


Well they always mention some rhetoric along those lines.....but they never actually do anything at all.....all bark no action....at least israel has the balls to carry out surgical strikes on syria, and they couldn't care less whether turkey is ok with that or not.

Syria was a muslim country the last time i checked.

reply to post by ISeekTruth101

Syria was a muslim country the last time i checked.

When was that? It has been a secular country for quite some time...Assad succedeed in making the country secular that is one reason why so many people love him actually(and also one reason many muslims hate him, like the "Allah Akbar" FSA). But the west does not want you to know this of course...

Syria is NOT a muslim country.

Syria is NOT a muslim country.

And this statement invalidates all previous arguments.

Turkey would not make false claims and then refuse to back them up, I bet you all.

reply to post by NeoVain


while it may be secular, its generaly accepted that by majority ...its a muslim nation even if it doesnt follow shariah or islamic based ruling.

87% of the syrian population is muslim.

Davutoglu doesn't seem to be bothered about other nations "attacking" Muslim countries.

reply to post by junglimogli

double standards ... they beat their chests in favor of Nato .. and also for muslims ... they should just honestly shut up ..

Why should they shut up. They have every right to stand up for their neighbours. If more countries had taken the same stance maybe the USA would not have just got away with murdering some 2-3 million people in the middle east in two illegal wars.

Turkey hey... Maybe they should stay out of everyones business because they seem to be batting for both sides.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by ISeekTruth101

 

Syria was a muslim country the last time i checked.

When was that? It has been a secular country for quite some time...Assad succedeed in making the country secular that is one reason why so many people love him actually(and also one reason many muslims hate him, like the "Allah Akbar" FSA). But the west does not want you to know this of course...

Syria is NOT a muslim country.

edit on 7-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

I can see what your saying because it is a secular country but when it comes down to it, most of the population are Muslims and now with the FSA booting Christians and palestinians out of their homes, it wouldn't surprise me if the % of Muslims is increasing..

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by junglimogli

 

double standards ... they beat their chests in favor of Nato .. and also for muslims ... they should just honestly shut up ..

Why should they shut up. They have every right to stand up for their neighbours. If more countries had taken the same stance maybe the USA would not have just got away with murdering some 2-3 million people in the middle east in two illegal wars.

FALSE NUMBERS of the death tolls are really low. Those numbers are way off and have been debunked many times. SInce when does a opinion poll of how many you think are dead become a scientific poll? The International red cross,wiki,the Iraqi body count and human rights watch,and many other organizations have studied that and found that number to be very far off. Usually WIKI would claim the highest death toll but this time they Do not. It was a poll done by A BRITISH COMPANY. SO Why are you citing a source that is WESTERN when they all lie?(according to some all westerners lie)It is hypocritical to state false numbers when it is in your interest,but when its not in your best interest to you do not.

reply to post by yuppa


I took the numbers from the top of my head but they originally came from the lancet report. The reason I used that is because it is the only per reviewed paper on the subject. Its real science..

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by yuppa

 

I took the numbers from the top of my head but they originally came from the lancet report. The reason I used that is because it is the only per reviewed paper on the subject. Its real science..

Its been debunked though.Not to mention SAUROS funded it. Read the following link i post up.

Serious flaws in lancet study


Lancet study debunked

Almost everyone else is calling that fraud. If everyone in the room is screaming fire there might be a fire.

reply to post by yuppa


Thank you for the info. I will read through it. However I would only consider it debunked if it is done scientifically. Regardless of its funding it is still per reviewed. Science is not perfect but it does generally work. Anyone can say anything they want too on a website you cannot do that with science.

Originally posted by purplemer
...maybe the USA would not have just got away with murdering some 2-3 million people in the middle east in two illegal wars.

A bit of “death inflation” here. I dispute the “2-3 million” without reliable evidence and point out that the majority of murdering has been Muslim on Muslim, usually indiscriminate with suicide bombing in public places being fairly frequent.

On topic. Israel is not about to invade anyone. Why spoil a good thing with all the traditional belligerents falling to pieces. Turkey is more concerned with Syrian anarchy because they will probably have to pick up the pieces and suffer the consequences of even more refugees.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


I do not think its death infation in 2006 the Lancet published two per reviewed studies on the affects of the war in Iraq. Back then the figure was over 650,000. Those figures have been climbing since. Add to those the death tolls of Afganistan and you are looking at about 1.5 million. Opinion Research Busines, an independent polling agency in London put that figure at about 1.2 million deaths,

These reports often come under critisim but I would point out the first is the only peer reviewed set of papers on the subject. They have not been scientifically discredited.

Turkey would respond. Not Turkey would go to war, not Turkey would attack, not Turkey would defend. Turkey would respond as would most nations a letter of protest.