• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkey says could act in Syria unless U.S. withdraws support for Kurdish force

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,693
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Turkey says could act in Syria unless U.S. withdraws support for Kurdish force


By Dominic Evans, Tuvan Gumrukcu
JANUARY 17, 2018

BELGAIMAGE-108080600.jpg

Turkish artillery and armor has been shelling Syrian Kurds in the Afrin canton of Kurdish Rojava in northern Syria

Turkish president Erdogan has repeatedly warned of an imminent incursion in Afrin after Washington said it would help the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by the Kurdish YPG militia, set up a new 30,000-strong border force. The plan has infuriated Turkey, which considers the Syrian YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group, which has fought an insurgency in southeast Turkey since 1984. The PKK is considered a terrorist group by the European Union, Turkey and the United States. Deputy Prime Minister and Government Spokesman Bekir Bozdag told reporters after a Cabinet meeting the planned U.S.-backed force posed a threat to Turkey’s national security, territorial integrity and the safety of its citizens.
Click to expand...

Turkey dictator Erdogan claims Kurds everywhere (Turkey/Syria/Iraq) are aligned with the outlawed Turkish PKK. Syrian Kurdish forces (YPG/YPJ) in northern Syria (Rojava) have been fighting and defeating ISIS since 2014. In October 2017, they captured the ISIS capital city of Raqqa which required fighting house by house. Now Erdogan wants to militarily occupy Kurdish Rojava in northern Syria and ethnically cleanse the region of Kurds.

Trump and Tillerson are about to stab these Syrian Kurds in the back to placate the Turkish dictator who is pragmatically no longer a friend or ally of the US......

Related: The U.S. backpedals on new Kurdish force as Turkey prepares for war
 
In reality, Erdogan wants the USA to stop arming the Kurds because of their natural affinity with the Kurdish terrorists in Turkey. The USA is occupying, illegally, I might add, the Kurdish area of Syria. ISIS from Dier ez Zor and Raqqa seem to have been brought into this region by the USA and are being trainded. For What????? The USA is violating Syrian sovereignity and without UN authorization. I think the USA trains and supports ISIS/Nusra Front/Jabhat al Sham/terrorist/etc. because you can't have a Terror War and its' outsized profits without terrorists. It's only good business to generate more terrorists to feed the profit stream, don't ya' know. I only think that becasue I know our gov't supports USA Corporations, for example Citizens United, tax cuts, $700 billion Military Offense budgets, and USA interests mean resources and strategic transportation hubs for USA Corporations operating overseaa, cozying up to scumbag Saudis and the like becaaue of USA interests, and screw a bunch of humanity, we got interests to take care of. I don't see where me, Grandma and the dog fit in the scenario, except as cannon fodder. Anywho, we've stabbed Syria in the back, and we've stabbed Turkey in the back, and you have to be cognizant of potential blowback, eh? I just got a hunch the MSM will blame it all on the Russians and Iran. Who'd a thunk it. See, you don't have to read the MSM if you already are aware of the agenda driven narrative.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
In reality, Erdogan wants the USA to stop arming the Kurds because of their natural affinity with the Kurdish terrorists in Turkey. The USA is occupying, illegally, I might add, the Kurdish area of Syria. ISIS from Dier ez Zor and Raqqa seem to have been brought into this region by the USA and are being trainded. For What????? The USA is violating Syrian sovereignity and without UN authorization. I think the USA trains and supports ISIS/Nusra Front/Jabhat al Sham/terrorist/etc. because you can't have a Terror War and its' outsized profits without terrorists. It's only good business to generate more terrorists to feed the profit stream, don't ya' know. I only think that becasue I know our gov't supports USA Corporations, for example Citizens United, tax cuts, $700 billion Military Offense budgets, and USA interests mean resources and strategic transportation hubs for USA Corporations operating overseaa, cozying up to scumbag Saudis and the like becaaue of USA interests, and screw a bunch of humanity, we got interests to take care of. I don't see where me, Grandma and the dog fit in the scenario, except as cannon fodder. Anywho, we've stabbed Syria in the back, and we've stabbed Turkey in the back, and you have to be cognizant of potential blowback, eh? I just got a hunch the MSM will blame it all on the Russians and Iran. Who'd a thunk it. See, you don't have to read the MSM if you already are aware of the agenda driven narrative.
/
Click to expand...

In reality, Erdogan and CTers like you are upset because the Kurds are fighting very effectively against ISIS. Erdogan is upset because he was really, really, really, really, really hoping ISIS would exterminate those pesky Kurds, and CTers are upset because the Kurds have relied on US support to help them fight ISIS, which totally destroys the “US supports ISIS” garbage you love so much.

I’m not surprised you are weepy because your beloved totalitarians weren’t able to roll in and crush the Kurds......CTers like you naturally support anti American, evil regimes like ISIS, and now that ISIS has miserably failed thanks to American support you are desperately hoping Erdogan can “get the job done” smash the Kurds, and let your heroes return.

You think the US is arming terrorists because you are not very bright and have never heard an anti American conspiracy theory you don’t like—and you don’t believe in that pesky “evidence” thing.

The rest of your post is just you babbling, throwing out phrases and hoping they stick together in some sort of coherent pattern. News flash—they don’t.
 
Tigerace117 said:
In reality, Erdogan and CTers like you are upset because the Kurds are fighting very effectively against ISIS. Erdogan is upset because he was really, really, really, really, really hoping ISIS would exterminate those pesky Kurds, and CTers are upset because the Kurds have relied on US support to help them fight ISIS, which totally destroys the “US supports ISIS” garbage you love so much.

I’m not surprised you are weepy because your beloved totalitarians weren’t able to roll in and crush the Kurds......CTers like you naturally support anti American, evil regimes like ISIS, and now that ISIS has miserably failed thanks to American support you are desperately hoping Erdogan can “get the job done” smash the Kurds, and let your heroes return.

You think the US is arming terrorists because you are not very bright and have never heard an anti American conspiracy theory you don’t like—and you don’t believe in that pesky “evidence” thing.

The rest of your post is just you babbling, throwing out phrases and hoping they stick together in some sort of coherent pattern. News flash—they don’t.
Click to expand...

The USA has admitted arming, financing, training ISIS, Nusra Front, Jabhat alSham, etc., A/K/A terrorists. You just don't get it. You can't have a Terror War without terrorists. Wars generate big profits. Why do you think they are so popular. You probably think they are about freedom and democracy. CT is the wording invented by the CIA when snoops began investigating the JFK assassination and when reporters began questioning the motives of the Iraq War and those WMDs, and even the MLK assassination. Remove the blinders, Bubba, there's a real world out there.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
The USA has admitted arming, financing, training ISIS, Nusra Front, Jabhat alSham, etc., A/K/A terrorists. You just don't get it. You can't have a Terror War without terrorists. Wars generate big profits. Why do you think they are so popular. You probably think they are about freedom and democracy. CT is the wording invented by the CIA when snoops began investigating the JFK assassination and when reporters began questioning the motives of the Iraq War and those WMDs, and even the MLK assassination. Remove the blinders, Bubba, there's a real world out there.
/
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. The US has never armed ISIS, Al Nusra, or any other of those groups you love so much. You are pathetically delusional—-and aren’t even bright enough to grasp the concept that the terrorists capture weapons we have supplied to the Iraqi Army. Your entire premise—-that we arm terrorists because they have American arms—-is based on ignorance and stupidity.

CTers like yourself are so narcisstic it is truly a sight to behold. No, conspiracy theories are exactly that—-deluded fantasies about a conspiracy by people who don’t live in the real world.

Those reporters are idiots then, because it’s a proven fact that Saddam had WMDs—he used them on the Kurd—and then, according to the Iraqi Air Force, the weapons were smuggled over to your hero Assad in exchange for him keeping the rat lines of jihadis coming into Iraq to fight the US running smoothly.

Yep, there’s a real world all right—-and you don’t live in it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
What a load of crap. The US has never armed ISIS, Al Nusra, or any other of those groups you love so much. You are pathetically delusional—-and aren’t even bright enough to grasp the concept that the terrorists capture weapons we have supplied to the Iraqi Army. Your entire premise—-that we arm terrorists because they have American arms—-is based on ignorance and stupidity.

CTers like yourself are so narcisstic it is truly a sight to behold. No, conspiracy theories are exactly that—-deluded fantasies about a conspiracy by people who don’t live in the real world.

Those reporters are idiots then, because it’s a proven fact that Saddam had WMDs—he used them on the Kurd—and then, according to the Iraqi Air Force, the weapons were smuggled over to your hero Assad in exchange for him keeping the rat lines of jihadis coming into Iraq to fight the US running smoothly.

Yep, there’s a real world all right—-and you don’t live in it.
Click to expand...

You need to throw away those comic books you are using for information. Get some video from Afrin, Northeast Syria. That is where the USA is occupying Syria, Illegally. Do a head count of ISIS there. Check and see who is housing and feeding them. Check with foreign news journalists, before USA adjustements.
.
 
Tigerace117 said:
What a load of crap. The US has never armed ISIS, Al Nusra, or any other of those groups you love so much. You are pathetically delusional—-and aren’t even bright enough to grasp the concept that the terrorists capture weapons we have supplied to the Iraqi Army. Your entire premise—-that we arm terrorists because they have American arms—-is based on ignorance and stupidity.

CTers like yourself are so narcisstic it is truly a sight to behold. No, conspiracy theories are exactly that—-deluded fantasies about a conspiracy by people who don’t live in the real world.

Those reporters are idiots then, because it’s a proven fact that Saddam had WMDs—he used them on the Kurd—and then, according to the Iraqi Air Force, the weapons were smuggled over to your hero Assad in exchange for him keeping the rat lines of jihadis coming into Iraq to fight the US running smoothly.

Yep, there’s a real world all right—-and you don’t live in it.
Click to expand...

"Sputnik spoke to former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to ask whether any further US involvement in the Syrian conflict is only likely to exacerbate division in the country, thus perpetuating the war.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested on Wednesday that the Trump administration would be taking on an open-ended military commitment to Syria as part of a stated strategy to prevent the regrowth of Daesh and to forge a new 'solution' that hopes to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.
Sputnik: The US — under both the Obama and Trump administrations — has long framed its objective in Syria rather narrowly to the defeat of Daesh. Now that the terrorist group's so-called caliphate is effectively gone, and there are forces in the country — such as the Syrian Arab Army — capable of destroying any possible Daesh resurgence, why does the US need to remain?
Peter Ford: Well it doesn't is the simple and obvious truth. In its own eyes, it needs to remain because Trump is being accused of having lost Syria to the Russians. This is, quite simply, now a power play by the US to show that it still has influence in Syria and the wider Middle East, and it's part of the US power game against Iran. It has nothing to do with removing terrorism from Syria, nothing to do with humanitarian issues, nothing to do with democracy in Syria. It's quite simply arm wrestling that the United States wishes to engage in with Russia or any other power that dares to question, in the slightest way, American pre-eminence in the world."...
"
Sputnik: How do you see the potential long-term presence of US forces in the country hindering any effort to reunify Syria in the future?
Peter Ford: This appears to be part of the US plan: precisely to prevent Syria being stabilized as a unitary sovereign state. It has been a long-term goal of the United States going back at least forty years, and now they see a way of partially implementing it: encouraging the formation of a Kurdish statelet in the north and northeast. There is no way that this can help to stabilize Syria. In fact, I would characterize the US policy — now openly more or less avowed by Tillerson — as the continuing destabilization of Syria. Given that America cannot impose its will in terms of regime change, it's settling for what it sees as the next best thing, which is to keep Syria constantly destabilized.
Sputnik: And finally, what does international law have to say about the US first of all even being in Syria, and secondly maintaining a presence there, uninvited by Damascus?
Peter Ford: What the Americans are doing is completely flouting international law. It is a gross breach of international law to maintain a presence on the territory of a member state of the United Nations, which has a seat in New York, which is recognized by most countries around the world. It is totally illegal to maintain a military presence without the express permission of the host government. But America plays by different rules. In the American playbook might is right for America. America is a scofflaw, an international scofflaw and has been in many instances, not only Syria."
 
DaveFagan said:
You need to throw away those comic books you are using for information. Get some video from Afrin, Northeast Syria. That is where the USA is occupying Syria, Illegally. Do a head count of ISIS there. Check and see who is housing and feeding them. Check with foreign news journalists, before USA adjustements.
.
Click to expand...

You need to throw out those moronic CTer websites you follow mindlessly; not a single one of them would be capable of telling the truth if their lives depended on it.

Oh, you mean where the US is helping hold off your heroes. And let me guess---by "foreign journalists" you mean check with the pathological liars in Moscow and Tehran. Yawn. Your agenda is so obvious it's boring. Go back to weeping about how your ISIS heroes has been massively driven back by US supported forces, like the Kurds you despise so much.
 
DaveFagan said:
"Sputnik spoke to former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to ask whether any further US involvement in the Syrian conflict is only likely to exacerbate division in the country, thus perpetuating the war.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested on Wednesday that the Trump administration would be taking on an open-ended military commitment to Syria as part of a stated strategy to prevent the regrowth of Daesh and to forge a new 'solution' that hopes to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.
Sputnik: The US — under both the Obama and Trump administrations — has long framed its objective in Syria rather narrowly to the defeat of Daesh. Now that the terrorist group's so-called caliphate is effectively gone, and there are forces in the country — such as the Syrian Arab Army — capable of destroying any possible Daesh resurgence, why does the US need to remain?
Peter Ford: Well it doesn't is the simple and obvious truth. In its own eyes, it needs to remain because Trump is being accused of having lost Syria to the Russians. This is, quite simply, now a power play by the US to show that it still has influence in Syria and the wider Middle East, and it's part of the US power game against Iran. It has nothing to do with removing terrorism from Syria, nothing to do with humanitarian issues, nothing to do with democracy in Syria. It's quite simply arm wrestling that the United States wishes to engage in with Russia or any other power that dares to question, in the slightest way, American pre-eminence in the world."...
"
Sputnik: How do you see the potential long-term presence of US forces in the country hindering any effort to reunify Syria in the future?
Peter Ford: This appears to be part of the US plan: precisely to prevent Syria being stabilized as a unitary sovereign state. It has been a long-term goal of the United States going back at least forty years, and now they see a way of partially implementing it: encouraging the formation of a Kurdish statelet in the north and northeast. There is no way that this can help to stabilize Syria. In fact, I would characterize the US policy — now openly more or less avowed by Tillerson — as the continuing destabilization of Syria. Given that America cannot impose its will in terms of regime change, it's settling for what it sees as the next best thing, which is to keep Syria constantly destabilized.
Sputnik: And finally, what does international law have to say about the US first of all even being in Syria, and secondly maintaining a presence there, uninvited by Damascus?
Peter Ford: What the Americans are doing is completely flouting international law. It is a gross breach of international law to maintain a presence on the territory of a member state of the United Nations, which has a seat in New York, which is recognized by most countries around the world. It is totally illegal to maintain a military presence without the express permission of the host government. But America plays by different rules. In the American playbook might is right for America. America is a scofflaw, an international scofflaw and has been in many instances, not only Syria."
Click to expand...

Sputnik is utter crap. It's quite literally whatever disinformation Moscow thinks would look best on paper slapped together with a smatter of total fabrications to top it. The surprise isn't that the Russians found a tankie who was willing to spew anti American crap for the Assad regime; the surprise is that you expect anyone to believe that garbage.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Sputnik is utter crap. It's quite literally whatever disinformation Moscow thinks would look best on paper slapped together with a smatter of total fabrications to top it. The surprise isn't that the Russians found a tankie who was willing to spew anti American crap for the Assad regime; the surprise is that you expect anyone to believe that garbage.
Click to expand...

Actually, anyone but you. I didn't see your link to prove or disprove any part of your OPINION.
/
 
Tigerace117 said:
Sputnik is utter crap. It's quite literally whatever disinformation Moscow thinks would look best on paper slapped together with a smatter of total fabrications to top it.
Click to expand...

The Editor-In-Chief of Sputnik, Margarita Simonyan, also serves as Editor-In-Chief of RT.

Mrs. Simonyan is also on the Executive Board to Reelect Vladimir Putin.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Editor-In-Chief of Sputnik, Margarita Simonyan, also serves as Editor-In-Chief of RT.

Mrs. Simonyan is also on the Executive Board to Reelect Vladimir Putin.
Click to expand...

So as I said, it's literally nothing more than propaganda.
 
DaveFagan said:
Actually, anyone but you. I didn't see your link to prove or disprove any part of your OPINION.
/
Click to expand...

As another poster already showed, Sputnik is run by Putin's cronies. I'm not surprised you don't understand the importance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom