ISIL War in Iraq and Syria II

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Turkey didn't threaten Iraq with an invasion, nor it invaded after the referendum was held. If Catalonia was a major source of terrorism for France I'm sure their take on such a referendum would be quite different.

No, it just held a military drill with Iran to hint at one, a veiled threat.

The case of Palestine is hardly similar to the case of Kurds in Turkey. It's an absurd parallel to use. Let me know when Israel can even come close to having a Kurdic president even if he was assimilated like hell. What I pointed out is the logical outcome and already the reality. There are likely more Kurds in Istanbul than there are in the region. They're there because they can have a better life. Even those in the region know how dependent they are on the other provinces of Turkey. It's just the reality on the ground.

Israel had an Arab president, albeit briefly, but that is completely besides the point. Arabs have more rights in Israel than in almost any Arab state, they're better off living in Israel, but that doesn't mean that Israel should annex Arab states. Algerians probably had a better quality of life under France than Algiers, should Algeria had remained part of France forever because of that?
If you're so sure, why not hold a referendum? Iraqi Kurdistan held one and the population was overwhelmingly in favour of independence. Would you be in favour of Iraqi Kurdistan becoming independent? Your reason for opposing Turkish Kurdistan's freedom seems to be that you think they don't want it, but that's clearly not the case in Iraqi Kurdistan.

[ioannis76]

Eh, if it weren’t for the Kurdish issue, I wouldn’t mind a resurgence of the “Ottomans.” With fossil fuels becoming less economically vital over time, the stability of a dominant power in Asia Minor could help mitigate the global threat of Islamic terror. As a bridge between east and west, expanded Turkish hegemony could check Russian and Chinese ambitions in the region while the West scales back and turns attention to Asia. Considering Iran is a theocracy that employs terrorism as a foreign policy tool, the more ecumenical legacy of the “Ottomans” would be a desirable alternative.


Wishful thinking, I know. Here’s hoping the Turks are both successful and also don’t massacre the Kurds.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that a resurgence of the "Ottomans", and in control of oil-rich areas at that, would lead toward any form of stability?
Turkey doesn't control any oil at this time, and it's causing trouble in the whole area and beyond (Libya). Turkey's views are strictly expansionist, and given sufficient power, would cause destabilization in every area that Turkey can affect.
Much of the islamic terror that has benn going on is endorsed and strengthened by Turkey.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, it just held a military drill with Iran to hint at one, a veiled threat.

Israel had an Arab president, albeit briefly, but that is completely besides the point. Arabs have more rights in Israel than in almost any Arab state, they're better off living in Israel, but that doesn't mean that Israel should annex Arab states. Algerians probably had a better quality of life under France than Algiers, should Algeria had remained part of France forever because of that?
If you're so sure, why not hold a referendum? Iraqi Kurdistan held one and the population was overwhelmingly in favour of independence. Would you be in favour of Iraqi Kurdistan becoming independent? Your reason for opposing Turkish Kurdistan's freedom seems to be that you think they don't want it, but that's clearly not the case in Iraqi Kurdistan.

You're referring to Majalli Wahabi? Sigh... You know better than me how inaccurate anything you said there is. There is a reason why you're distorting what I said despite me being explicit.

[alhoon]

Re-opened. Please try to make your post impersonal and keep them in the topic. When you discuss the actions of other countries try to discuss the in the context of their involvement in this conflict only and not every conflict in the area or in their history.

[Exarch]

Turks' proposed zone will push the kurds away from the rich and fertile lands and oil rich areas of syria and into the desert to presumably die.

[Tureuki]

Everyone, especially the Americans seems to be so convinced that Turkey's interest is entirely destroying or exiling all Kurds. Weird that we couldn't think of this solution in our own lands, since we have the largest Kurdish population among all countries with Kurdish minority. Neither in our own country, nor in Iraq where we conduct regular operations, or in the recent case of Afrin we conducted any mass slaughter or unnecessary urban destruction, but suddenly tUrKs aRe gOn gEnOcIdE kUrDs. Turkey was never as careless as US on the damage done to civilians, but according to %98 of twitter Americans, we are Warhammer Orcs on rampage.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...shift-in-afrin

Even this one sided, much likely twisted story confirms several facts through the mouths of Kurds themselves,

-Kurds are allowed to return Afrin as long as they are not known to be former militants or collaborators(for very obvious security reasons).
-They are given their propery back if they show the documents of their ownership

And the side note, 11 of 20 local assembly members were Kurds in the first assembly that was established after the operation.

[Exarch]

Everyone, especially the Americans seems to be so convinced that Turkey's interest is entirely destroying or exiling all Kurds. Weird that we couldn't think of this solution in our own lands, since we have the largest Kurdish population among all countries with Kurdish minority. Neither in our own country, nor in Iraq where we conduct regular operations, or in the recent case of Afrin we conducted any mass slaughter or unnecessary urban destruction, but suddenly tUrKs aRe gOn gEnOcIdE kUrDs. Turkey was never as careless as US on the damage done to civilians, but according to %98 of twitter Americans, we are Warhammer Orcs on rampage.
.

You're asking why Turks aren't allowed the free reign to kill civilians the way other european/western/anglo nations are allowed.
The answer is simple: Turks are insufficiently european/white and even more damningly, they are of the islamic faith, therefore they are considered racially lesser than the otherwise acceptable whiter albanians or bosnians.

Evidence supports this; a few weeks ago, white anglo americans murdered a bunch of peanut farmers in afghanistan and noone cared because the victims weren't white females whilst the perpetrators were white.

Secondly, the white anglo NATO leadership is only grudgingly allowing erdogan to conduct his campaign of extermination because they still need turkey onside which lately has been precarious given turks' moves to buy russian weapons.

[PointOfViewGun]

Turks' proposed zone will push the kurds away from the rich and fertile lands and oil rich areas of syria and into the desert to presumably die.

The only oil rich area we could speak of that falls under the buffer zone is the Suwayda oil field.

[ioannis76]

Turkish universities is starting to open faculties in Northern Syria. Some people in Turkey are started to call jokingly of the area as "North Syria Turkish Republic." on twitter. Turkey also announced that it is ready to spend 27 bn $ to built new towns at North Syria. The plans consist of the settlement of at least 1 million people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN1WJ0Z3

Thank God that Turkey, in its immense humanism is NOT trying to colonise and land-grab Syrian land. That would be terrible.
As for "rescuing" Europe from the refugee problem, the largest part of "refugees" coming to Greece are not Syrians, but Algerians, Moroccans, Afghans, Pakistanis, etc. Furthermore, who guarantees that Turkey is not going to settle turkish civilians in these areas, instead of Syrians. Turkey? lol. The EU's refusal to fund this "city building" is a step in the right direction.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You're referring to Majalli Wahabi? Sigh... You know better than me how inaccurate anything you said there is. There is a reason why you're distorting what I said despite me being explicit.

I like how that's the only part of my post that you replied to. You know, the most irrelevant part. And yes, Wahabi was acting president of Israel for 2 weeks. As I said, briefly. Now how about you reply to the rest of it?

[PointOfViewGun]

I like how that's the only part of my post that you replied to. You know, the most irrelevant part. And yes, Wahabi was acting president of Israel for 2 weeks. As I said, briefly. Now how about you reply to the rest of it?

Only the first sentence addresses the "president" while the rest addresses the rest of your post. How did you connect those two sentences only to one part is beyond me. Ultimately, your objections are tangents that's not worth diving into to clear all the misrepresentations you presented on them. Let's stay on topic.

[Abdülmecid I]

The only financial value of the proposed safe-zone is its agricultural production, which is not exactly a huge incentive to launch a large military operation. The Turkish invades northern Syria, mainly because of strategic concerns and, secondarily, for domestic reasons, as the ruling party's popularity is declining. Economy plays a marginal role, at best. Meanwhile, in other news, President Donald has stated in his "reciprocal" speech that his Obama had partnered with PKK (ignoring the fact that he continued the policy of his predecessor by assisting, funding and arming YPG).

I still believe that Trump's decision was geopolitically reasonable and inevitable, given the much larger significance of Turkey, in comparison to a minor militia, but his statements are unnecessarily inflammatory. He could have handled it more flexibly, by simultaneously appeasing Turkey and maintaining American influence over YPG, by exploiting the desperate situation of the latter, but his erratic behaviour needlessly adds fuel to the fire. It's like he intentionally wants to provoke a controversy, just for the sake of it.

Everyone, especially the Americans seems to be so convinced that Turkey's interest is entirely destroying or exiling all Kurds. Weird that we couldn't think of this solution in our own lands, since we have the largest Kurdish population among all countries with Kurdish minority. Neither in our own country, nor in Iraq where we conduct regular operations, or in the recent case of Afrin we conducted any mass slaughter or unnecessary urban destruction, but suddenly tUrKs aRe gOn gEnOcIdE kUrDs. Turkey was never as careless as US on the damage done to civilians, but according to %98 of twitter Americans, we are Warhammer Orcs on rampage.

The paranoia about genocide is definitely hyperbolic, but the attitude of TFSA is a legitimate cause for concern. These groups in Afrin acted in a completely undisciplined manner and they regularly violate the law and oppress the civilians, through acts of vandalism, violence, kidnapping, blackmailing and murder. It's safe to assume that the quality of life of the people living inside the safe-zone, even of those not affiliated with YPG, will deteriorate as a result.

[ioannis76]

The only oil rich area we could speak of that falls under the buffer zone is the Suwayda oil field.

So, at this point, Turkey will only get the Suwayda oil field. The rest will be taken later, piece by piece.

These groups in Afrin acted in a completely undisciplined manner and they regularly violate the law and oppress the civilians, through acts of vandalism, violence, kidnapping, blackmailing and murder

Hasn't the performance of the Turkish military (and thus the groups it controls) been "stellar"? I am shocked.

[Tureuki]

Kurds has no right to deny the settling of fellow Syrians in Syrian soil, do you have any right to complain about your neighbour's background? Turkey is not colonizing the land with Turkish citizens, and it is not claiming to exile the Kurds from their properties. Afrin example is right there, a few messages above. Unruliness of TFSA is whole another story, it should fixed, but Turkey's general stance about the local population is clear, they are allowed to stay and retain their homes.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that a resurgence of the "Ottomans", and in control of oil-rich areas at that, would lead toward any form of stability?
Turkey doesn't control any oil at this time, and it's causing trouble in the whole area and beyond (Libya). Turkey's views are strictly expansionist, and given sufficient power, would cause destabilization in every area that Turkey can affect.
Much of the islamic terror that has benn going on is endorsed and strengthened by Turkey.

The things you’re alluding to are almost uniformly the fault of Erdogan’s regime.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/23/turkey...-of-terrorism/

Turkey's Crippled Counterterrorism Capacity: How Domestic Purges Represent A Major International Threat To Europe's Security

Turkey historically has a strong secular tradition; probably the strongest in the Middle East. I’m simply pointing out that the design of petty dictators propped up by competing western nations is not sustainable in an era when the west is scaling back significantly, and sources of fossil fuels are becoming less economically imperative and more diversified. Local players are gaming for dominance, and Turkey is trying to catch up to the likes of Iran and Saudi, for better or worse.

[Mithradates]

Erdogan threatens to send 'millions' of refugees to Europe if EU calls Syria offensive 'invasion'

Wouldn't that be an invasion too?

[Exarch]

Kurds has no right to deny the settling of fellow Syrians in Syrian soil, do you have any right to complain about your neighbour's background? Turkey is not colonizing the land with Turkish citizens, and it is not claiming to exile the Kurds from their properties. Afrin example is right there, a few messages above. Unruliness of TFSA is whole another story, it should fixed, but Turkey's general stance about the local population is clear, they are allowed to stay and retain their homes.

turks have the history of the armenian genocide; why would the kurds be any difference?

What really amuses me is that the Pentagon spent the last 5 years arming and training the kurds and now we're going to see a NATO power with US training and weapons go up against US armed, trained and equipped kurds. We even have actual americans going to the YPG held areas to help the kurds fight.

Relevant:

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Kurds has no right to deny the settling of fellow Syrians in Syrian soil, do you have any right to complain about your neighbour's background? Turkey is not colonizing the land with Turkish citizens, and it is not claiming to exile the Kurds from their properties. Afrin example is right there, a few messages above. Unruliness of TFSA is whole another story, it should fixed, but Turkey's general stance about the local population is clear, they are allowed to stay and retain their homes.

They have no right to protest a foreign country invading and changing local demographics? they have every right. No one wants to be ruled by your salafist Jihadists. Turkey's attempt to change the demographics of northern Syria is obvious, as is the reasoning for it.

[Vanoi]

Sigh... Yes, that's what I claimed you said. Are you confused about your own words?

Claiming Turkey didn't vwant a buffer zone at the beginning of the war is not claiming Turkey never wanted a buffer zone. Two different statements. Anyone with a basic understanding of grammar can see that. You are twisting my words now simply because you don't want to talk about how Turkey could have intervened on day 1.

I will ignore it alright since its your tangent to muddy up the waters and argue for arguments sake.

Addressing your hypothetical and Turkey's idea of a buffer zone is not a tangent. Its you refusing to address arguments which is poor debating behavior for a civitate.

I was still referring to the crisis in Europe. You can't really change the scope of what people say to argue against them, especially when they're explicit about it.

Like i said it still wouldn't stem the tide completely and still not addressing my point about ISIS? Do you always just ignore arguments you can't counter?

That's a link to an article FROM 2012 on think thank organization members talking about how PYD was set up by PKK. Your claim was about Turkey, aka the government, consistently arguing about how PYD is PKK before the war, aka 2011.

I found sources but the links are broken so 2012 is the best i could find. I'll drop my argument about Turkish claims before the war but its still outright false that Turkey only started to fight against the Kurds when its ties became apparent. My source alone shows there was already speculation in Turkey that the PYD were connected to the PKK.

A direct threat was made concerning buying oil. Turkey never threatened to invade Iraq. Invasion threats are only used when PKK's presence in Kandil is concerned.

From my source:

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has threatened to invade Iraq, after the country's Kurds voted for independence in a non-binding referendum.

Here is the former minister of defense from USA.

Secetary of Defense isn't a military commander. Nor did Carter say the YPG were the PKK. Do try again.

[PointOfViewGun]

Claiming Turkey didn't vwant a buffer zone at the beginning of the war is not claiming Turkey never wanted a buffer zone. Two different statements. Anyone with a basic understanding of grammar can see that. You are twisting my words now simply because you don't want to talk about how Turkey could have intervened on day 1.

Sigh... I never once claimed that you said Turkey never wanted a buffer zone. The discussion was on whether Turkey wanted it early on in the conflict. I myself said that Turkey could have intervened on day one as well. Seriously. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue anymore.

Like i said it still wouldn't stem the tide completely and still not addressing my point about ISIS? Do you always just ignore arguments you can't counter?

You made no point in relation to European refugee crisis that had anything to with ISIL.

I found sources but the links are broken so 2012 is the best i could find. I'll drop my argument about Turkish claims before the war but its still outright false that Turkey only started to fight against the Kurds when its ties became apparent. My source alone shows there was already speculation in Turkey that the PYD were connected to the PKK.

Former PYD leader of the time Salih Muslim was frequently visiting Ankara to meet with government officials in 2013. So, even your 2012 article is flawed. We're talking about government position, not what people argued.

From my source:

The invasion claim is made only in the title and the first sentence of the article that doesn't refer to any sentence the president made. Instead, the vast majority of the article is on Turkey cutting the oil passage from its lands.

Secetary of Defense isn't a military commander. Nor did Carter say the YPG were the PKK. Do try again.

Graham tells that YPG is either aligned or have substantial ties with PKK and asks if that's true. Carter responds with a yes. I don't really need more.