> >

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-24-12, 08:15 PM   #15
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn_7 View Post
If so, why Syria shot down the plane in International air space knowing very well this act of war would have had dire consequences? It sounds quite strange. It was a bait and they have eaten the bait knowing it was a bait.
Because Assad thinks like everyone else does that it's only America looking for an excuse. And, because he has Russian bases there, he's secure in the UN veto. So, if America wants to have the Turkish AF send in a plane, he can shoot it down with impunity (and immunity) because Russia will back him up in the UN. And, as long as no American interests are directly harmed, America has to sit on their thumbs and watch...

But, while America has it's hands tied by the UN and world opinion, Turkey doesn't. Assad, in his insanity, can't believe that his northern neighbor and long time friend Turkey would have any reason to attack him, unless America was going to lead the attacks. Problem is that Syria has been harboring PKK terrorists (Kurdish separatists) that have been attacking Turkey. That, and the refugee problem is costing Turkey lots of money. Add to that the fact that the Turkish Prime Minister is a megalomaniac who sees Turkey as the next Super Power and "fixing" Syria is the way to get there.

No, Assad can't see Turkey acting on it's own, unless America is is leading the charge. And since they can't interfere, he figures nothing will happen. He's blind to what Turkey's ambitions are, and that's going to cost him...

:)
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-12, 10:08 PM   #16
Too sexy for this board

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: teh earth
Posts: 1,565
I was waiting for ada to reply to this one, because of his location, and I'll go with his viewpoint
SteveJones7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-12, 12:08 AM   #17
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
Actually Steve, I didn't give enough of an explanation to what Turkey's plans are, and you've given me the opportunity.

They don't want to invade or take over Syria. What they want to do is move deep enough inside to create a buffer zone and humanitarian corridor for the delivery of medical supplies and food. That sounds like a noble cause, and it's also what has been proposed to the UN, but was vetoed by China and Russia.

However, it isn't all that noble because Turkey knows what will happen if they do that. By creating that buffer zone, they'll tip the balance in favor of those who are trying to bring down Assad. So Turkey will effectively be taking sides against their old friend. That's why Russia at least is against it, because they want Assad to stay in power. Not sure what China's reasons are, but they probably have some kind of arrangement with Assad as well.

For Turkey, it's an all win situation. They invade just a few miles across their border, and set up peacekeeping duties. If Assad somehow wins, Turkey says they only did the humanitarian thing (Syria isn't strong enough to call them liars in public). If the opposition wins, they'll be grateful to Turkey for tipping the scales in their favor. Either way, Turkey ends up the big hero, with minimal fighting and minimal losses.

All they need to go ahead, is an excuse to cross the border against the UN veto. And now they have it, with the unprovoked attack against one of their aircraft. Not sure how long it will take to get the public behind them, and get the military actually moving. But I'd be very surprised if it took more than a month.

:)
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-12, 01:56 AM   #18
Expert
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 718
Does seem unlikely that the fly-over was "an accident", but also unlikely that they could guarantee such a hostile response.
How would Turkey know that the Syrians would just shoot their plane down? (It appears that the Syrians have formally admitted to doing so.)
If they were routinely flying through Syrian airspace, which they'd probably have to to provoke the response they needed (from your argument), it would be more obvious.

We'd have to assume also that the pilots themselves were pretty bright and not on a suicide mission.
If it was given knowledge that the Syrians down planes without any warning, would you do a fly-over?
Valid_Username is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-12, 03:59 AM   #19
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
To be honest, a lot of this doesn't make much sense, unless you figure it was planned to get exactly the response it did.

I mean, yes the Prime Minister has been talking about how Turkey will be the new power in the region. And, he was talking a lot about what needed to be done in Syria, meaning the buffer zone and the humanitarian corridor. But he's been talking about these things for months, and all it's been is talk.

They routinely patrol the shared border with aircraft as a show of force. And, since it's a shared border, I'm sure minor incursions happen all the time (a mile or two inside). Plus, being nominally friends, you wouldn't expect a slight drift off course to provoke a hostile response. A polite warning, yes, but a hostile response, no.

So, the plane must have been deeper inside Syria than a mile or two. Possibly the pilots were told to see if they could get pictures of the Russian military bases or something.

But, here's where it falls apart, if you don't have a conspiracy theory. Turkey has F-16's and unmanned drones too. So why send the oldest, slowest and noisiest piece of crap jet fighter you have (an F-4) so deep into Syrian territory, unless you were hoping it would get shot down?

And, all the talk that's been going on since the incident, about retaliation for their cowardly and unjustified act, makes it seem all the more likely that it was planned.

Then again, maybe it wasn't planned, and the whole thing was just a misunderstanding. Either way, the Prime Minister is making the most of the situation, and from the way things look, he'll be launching an attack of his own soon.

I need to note something here, before someone else does. All of this is just guesswork based on what's in the news, and what people are saying on the streets. I don't have an inside track to the Prime Minister's office, or highly placed contacts in the military here. But, the last time the rhetoric was this hot, Turkey sent half it's army into the Iraqi mountains (Feb 2011) to try and wipe out the PKK for good.

:)
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-12, 08:49 AM   #20
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Eventyrland
Posts: 5,578
Quote: Originally Posted by Adanaliyik View Post
To be honest, a lot of this doesn't make much sense, unless you figure it was planned to get exactly the response it did.

---

But, the last time the rhetoric was this hot, Turkey sent half it's army into the Iraqi mountains (Feb 2011) to try and wipe out the PKK for good.
Agree, it doesn't make sense. And BTW I think the Kurdish people has the right to live peacefully in its own land, i.e. Kurdistan.

And I say the same for the Northern Irish People and the Basque people, so nothing in particular against Turkey but the People right to self-determination as it's clearly stated in international law.
Shawn_7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-12, 02:11 PM   #21
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn_7 View Post
Agree, it doesn't make sense. And BTW I think the Kurdish people has the right to live peacefully in its own land, i.e. Kurdistan.

And I say the same for the Northern Irish People and the Basque people, so nothing in particular against Turkey but the People right to self-determination as it's clearly stated in international law.
There is no such place a Kurdistan, and historically there never was. The Kurds were nomads who lived in the region, true. But saying that the land belongs to the people who lived there the longest is not a legal precedent since pretty much every national boundary came about as the result of some invasion or another.

Besides, that's not what the PKK is about. There was no PKK until they found out the the GAP Project (also called the South Eastern Anatolia Project or the Ataturk Dam Project) would make that area rich and fertile land with abundant free energy. They just want to become rich by taking over after all that work has been completed.

As for self determination, they do have their own elected officials as part of the overall Turkish government. What they are asking for isn't self determination, they are demanding that the Turkish government turn over 1/3 of it's land to less than 1/6th of the population, because it will be some of the best land in the country. And, of course, they want it to be their own country, with no obligation to ever pay back the money (a lot of it European financing) that went into building that project.

Also, the biggest fallacy is believing that the PKK represents the Kurdish people. They do not. They kill more Kurds, for not bowing down to them and giving them support, then they kill other Turkish people. Armed men surround a village, extort all it's wealth at gunpoint, and then say they are fighting for these same villagers freedom from Turkish oppression.

And, any time the Turkish government tries to do anything to better the lives of the people in that region, the PKK is right there to destroy the schools and hospitals and to murder the engineers and teachers. It's only by keeping the people in that region poor and uneducated that the PKK can control them.

I can buy the Basque, because they were the actual majority in Spain at the time. And I can even buy the IRA because Britain tries to rule it as a colony. But until you do your research into the origins and motivations of the PKK, you have no right to call the Kurds an oppressed people or the PKK freedom fighters, since the only people oppressing the Kurds are the PKK. Because if you do that, you might as well support the Taliban being the rightful owners of Afghanistan, and applaud their rights to enslave their women.

:)
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-12, 04:09 PM   #22
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Eventyrland
Posts: 5,578
Quote:
There is no such place a Kurdistan
Evidently you must be kidding

Quote:
Kurdistan "Land of the Kurds"; also formerly spelled Curdistan; ancient name: Corduene is a roughly defined geo-cultural region wherein the Kurds form a prominent majority population, and Kurdish culture, language, and national identity have historically been based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan
Shawn_7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-12, 01:17 AM   #23
Too sexy for this board

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: teh earth
Posts: 1,565
Some of adas thoughts may seem a bit contraversial, but I recognize a certain "truth" in his words, and I love to read his work.

Now to comment on something from another post I read; Ada, you are under contract with the military, as a "lawyer" or something?

I say that, because your writing is very precise.

Last edited by SteveJones7; 06-26-12 at 01:20 AM.
SteveJones7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-12, 01:46 AM   #24
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn_7 View Post
Evidently you must be kidding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan
No, I'm not kidding.

A roughly defined geo-cultural area does not make a country. There was never a Kurdistan as a country with a centralized governing body. The Iraqi Kurdistan is the closest they've ever come, and that is a recent development (since the 2nd Gulf War officially).

All that can be said is that the Kurds (similar to Bedouins) used to be nomads who generally roamed around in that area. And because their caravans used to frequently meet each other, they had a sort of culture, and a common language.

With never having had defined borders, or even large cities, you cannot say there ever was a country called Kurdistan. It'd be like saying the Pampas in Argentina is it's own separate country, and belongs to the herders who've been herding there for centuries...

:)

Edit: Sorry, just had to add a curiosity question. Where the hell is Bedouinia or Bedouinistan, or whatever country the Bedouins ruled? Same thing for the Kurds...

Last edited by Adanaliyik; 06-26-12 at 01:50 AM.
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-12, 11:24 AM   #25
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Eventyrland
Posts: 5,578
To deny that a problem exists does not solve the problem. Obvious, is it not? So to deny that Kurdistan and Kurdish people exist does not solve the Kurdish issue.

At the same time, to deny the Armenian Genocide does not delete the Armenian Genocide. This is obvious too. The right comparison, I think. There is an historical accurate documentary on this matter (beside 2006 documentary), it's called Grandma's Tattoos and was shot by the Armenian-Swedish director Suzanne Khardalian
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/grandmas-tattoos/
Let's say it's like when USSR denied the Katyn Massacre. USSR denied that there had been a massacre until Gorbachev admitted it in 1990-91.

So well, in your opinion Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdish people are not a people.
I see. Nothing to add, in this case.

Last edited by Shawn_7; 06-26-12 at 12:48 PM.
Shawn_7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-12, 01:28 AM   #26
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn_7 View Post
To deny that a problem exists does not solve the problem. Obvious, is it not? So to deny that Kurdistan and Kurdish people exist does not solve the Kurdish issue.

At the same time, to deny the Armenian Genocide does not delete the Armenian Genocide. This is obvious too. The right comparison, I think. There is an historical accurate documentary on this matter (beside 2006 documentary), it's called Grandma's Tattoos and was shot by the Armenian-Swedish director Suzanne Khardalian
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/grandmas-tattoos/
Let's say it's like when USSR denied the Katyn Massacre. USSR denied that there had been a massacre until Gorbachev admitted it in 1990-91.

So well, in your opinion Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdish people are not a people.
I see. Nothing to add, in this case.
Shawn, as usual you take my comments and put the most extreme spin possible on them.

I never said there was no such thing as a Kurdish people, or even a Kurdish identity. I said there was no such thing as a definitely definable Kurdistan. I'm going to repeat myself here: There were Kurds, but they were like the Bedouins, a bunch of nomadic tribes that roamed around a particular area that had no cities, no centralized government and no defined borders.

And, if you look at the Bedouins, they roamed the entire Arabian peninsula. There is a Bedouin people, a Bedouin culture, and even a common language (although it may just be a dialect of Arabic). But, there is no Bedouinia, or Bedouinistan. Why not? Does that mean that Bedouins don't exist?

I don't deny that there is a Kurdish problem. But the problem is not what you seem to think it is. The issues you are talking about are not the issues the majority of the Kurds want fixed. The majority wants to be able to use their native tongue on official documents and have it taught in schools as a second official language. Kind of like Basque in Spain, or Spanish in America. And they want the right to have print and broadcast media (TV and radio) in that language as well. Both of these issues are being worked, but the PKK terrorists are hindering rather than helping things. I already mentioned that they have a level of autonomy, because they get to elect all their own local officials, and regional governors. True, they have to govern inside the Turkish framework, but it's better than having their local officials appointed by the Turks.

It's the PKK, like ETA in Spain, who want their own separate country. The average Kurd knows exactly what will happen if the PKK gets what it wants. A worse situation then what they have how, run by ruthless dictators. Not the quiet peaceful country the PKK advertises that it wants, because that's just their PKK propaganda.

I mean, any large group that thinks the right way to win what they want is to specifically target women and children with their attacks, has given an indication of the type of government they will impose. And, as I used in an earlier example, any group that gathers "support" by robbing the people they are supposedly supporting, has made it clear what type of "democracy" they can look forward to.

Two premises you may want to argue against, so I'll give more detail on them now.

One, how can the PKK be hindering increased rights for the Kurds? Simple, you go as a group to the government, and through standard political means, ask for something you feel is a right. But, while you're asking, and the government is considering your request, another group enters the picture. They claim to also represent you, but while you're trying to talk, they're throwing rocks at the government representatives, and demanding even more concessions from the government. How long do you think it takes before the government tells both groups to go F themselves? And when the government does that, the rock throwers say "see, just like we told you, the government will never give us our rights". An even bigger problem is that the talkers won't denounce the rock throwers as being terrorists, because both groups are Kurds. That, and the Kurdish talkers fear they will be the next target if they denounce the rock throwers.

As for the PKK specifically targeting women and children, I'm not saying that's all they are targeting. They do target military and police establishments as well. But, when you set off a bomb in the center of the market district in the middle of the week, who do you think the bombs will kill? Turkey, like most middle-eastern countries, has large open air markets. And, like most middle-eastern countries, the women do most of the shopping. So, if you set off a bomb in the busiest section of the market, while most men are at work, who do you think it would kill? And, since the PKK obviously knows this, setting off bombs in these areas amounts to targeting women and children.

So, that's the Kurdish situation. The majority don't want what you think they want. A violent minority are the one's who want that, because they will be the one's in charge if they get what they want. And, if they do become the leaders of a new "Kurdistan", the average Kurd will be worse off than they are today, because they've proven what kind of leaders they will be. Try looking at both sides of the issue, not just the PKK propaganda you see on Roj TV.

I don't know how the Armenian issue ended up in here, but I'll address it anyway. It was a tragedy, but it was in no way, shape or form, genocide. During WW I, the Turks were fighting against the Russians. During these fights, certain groups of Armenians took up arms and attacked the Turkish forces from behind (a bid for autonomy maybe). Those attacks failed, but of course they pissed the Turks off.

Now, the Turks could have killed them all, but even they felt it would be a massacre and even genocide. Instead, they told all the Armenian inhabitants of that region that they were no longer welcome in Turkey, since they had tried to back stab them. And, they force marched all those people to the Turkish border and left them there. But, the only Armenians they force marched were those from that particular region. They didn't go to other regions of Turkey and force the Armenians there to move, and there was no systematic plan to ensure the Armenians died. They just wanted the traitorous back stabbers from that region out of their country.

Yes, people died, and it was a tragedy. But, since the entire population of that region was only a little over 1 million people, and 90% of them survived, claims of 1.2 million deaths are a gross exaggeration. Official Turkish records show somewhere between 100,000-150,000 deaths. Still a whole hell of a lot of people. The march was very poorly planned, without enough supplies to ensure things went smoothly. But this was a war torn country at the time, so supplies for traitors to the Turkish people were not a high priority.

To claim genocide, you have to prove a systematic effort to eliminate a particular group of people. Just the fact that only the Armenians from the region that rose up and attacked the Turkish forces from behind were forcibly deported already disproves the genocide claim. Armenians from areas that didn't rise up were not deported. And, the fact that they didn't kill them outright, just took them to the border and told them never to come back, also disproves the genocide claim. As I said before, poorly planned, and poorly executed, but not an attempt at genocide, just an attempt to deport a large number of people who had risen up against the Turkish government.

All of this could easily be proven, if the Armenian Diaspora would allow it to be debated or verified by an outside entity. But Yerevan has said that before they will open their records, and allow them to be compared to the Turkish records, Turkey must first admit that it was genocide. That's like saying to someone that before they can go to court to prove their innocence, they must first plead guilty to all charges against them. The Armenians, having more global influence, are pushing their side of the story. The Turks are trying to tell their side, and prove it too, but no one can hear them over all the yelling the Armenians are doing.

Like I've said before Shawn, although not in these words, don't just jump on the bandwagon of the people who are yelling the loudest. Listen to the stories from both sides of an issue before you jump to judge. Neither side may be telling the 100% truth, and the truth may be somewhere between the two. And, that's what you have a brain for, to listen to both sides, and figure out the truth yourself, not take what only one side is feeding you...

:)
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-12, 01:38 AM   #27
Master
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,162
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveJones7 View Post
Some of adas thoughts may seem a bit contraversial, but I recognize a certain "truth" in his words, and I love to read his work.

Now to comment on something from another post I read; Ada, you are under contract with the military, as a "lawyer" or something?

I say that, because your writing is very precise.
No Steve, I'm only an assistant IT manager. I like to think that I have above average intelligence, and my writing may reflect the fact that I'm also a voracious reader.

I thank you for your praise of my writing, but you almost negated that praise by thinking I might be a lawyer. I thought you liked me, but then you go and insult me like that!!!!

BTW, a lot of times my writing is almost my undoing. I tend to over explain and over complicate some of the issues. Whereas your short and right to the point answers are often better than my long winded diatribes...

Also, since I'm now a Master of TPX, I think someone owes me an explanation of who the hell Bruno is...

:)

Last edited by Adanaliyik; 06-27-12 at 01:41 AM.
Adanaliyik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-12, 01:57 AM   #28
Too sexy for this board

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: teh earth
Posts: 1,565
First off, hell of a read in your latest replies in this post ada, that was very interesting to say the least.

And glad your NOT a lawyer, that means I can still like you lol

And I'll let mandy explain Bruno to you, if she ever appears again, Id say her real life is so busy, she doesent have time for us lowly TPX'ers right now lol.

Assistant IT manager eh?

You should be a journalist or something.

I guess in a small way, you kind of are already, your certainly teaching me a thing or two about world news, so thanks.
SteveJones7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 PM.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.