Conflicts in the Middle East & Northern Africa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Big Bad Sven
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2009
    • 1528

    uh oh, seems like we were not getting the whole truth from the media in regards who started the chemical attacks
    Why would Obama lie to everyone? Why are they so eager to blame the Assad government with no proof? Pretty disappointed with the current US government, I really trusted them


    Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, ‘cherry-picked’ intelligence: report

    The Obama administration quashed intelligence reports that suggested an al Qaeda-linked group could have been responsible for the sarin gas attack carried out in Syria last August, according to a news report published in London on Sunday.

    In threatening a U.S. military strike on Syria during the weeks that followed after the Aug. 21 chemical attack, President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry cited “definitive” evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad had been responsible for the incident.

    What they kept secret, according to an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, was the belief of U.S. spy agencies that military forces loyal to Mr. Assad were not ones in Syria’s civil war to have access to sarin.

    “In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal ‘Operations Order’ — a planning document that precedes a ground invasion — citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al Qaeda, had master the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity,” Mr. Hersh wrote in the London Review of Books.


    The Obama administration quashed intelligence reports that suggested an al Qaeda-linked group could have been responsible for the sarin gas attack carried out in Syria last August, according to a news report published in London on Sunday.

    Comment

    • George S.
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2009
      • 10116

      that is just the tip of the bucket Obama has lied about heaps of other things.The americans stanleast of all for ruth.
      "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
      GOTSE DELCEV

      Comment

      • Gocka
        Senior Member
        • Dec 2012
        • 2306

        NOOOOOOO! Say it ain't so Sven say it ain't so? But those lovely terrorists seemed like such stand up guys and everything.



        Originally posted by Big Bad Sven View Post
        uh oh, seems like we were not getting the whole truth from the media in regards who started the chemical attacks
        Why would Obama lie to everyone? Why are they so eager to blame the Assad government with no proof? Pretty disappointed with the current US government, I really trusted them


        Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, ‘cherry-picked’ intelligence: report

        The Obama administration quashed intelligence reports that suggested an al Qaeda-linked group could have been responsible for the sarin gas attack carried out in Syria last August, according to a news report published in London on Sunday.

        In threatening a U.S. military strike on Syria during the weeks that followed after the Aug. 21 chemical attack, President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry cited “definitive” evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad had been responsible for the incident.

        What they kept secret, according to an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, was the belief of U.S. spy agencies that military forces loyal to Mr. Assad were not ones in Syria’s civil war to have access to sarin.

        “In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal ‘Operations Order’ — a planning document that precedes a ground invasion — citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al Qaeda, had master the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity,” Mr. Hersh wrote in the London Review of Books.


        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ck-cherry-pic/

        Comment

        • George S.
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2009
          • 10116

          BBS yes the Americans are a bunch of liars with their huuuge deIt Ibt ridden country.Nothing special.As far as Macedonia is concerned it could have told others wIt has lied to us about a lot of things.here to go in respect of the so called one sided name dispute.
          "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
          GOTSE DELCEV

          Comment

          • Soldier of Macedon
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 13670


            A couple weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama virtually declared war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). But it is hard to reconcile the seemingly urgent need to confront the threat posed by this organization with the chosen means of doing so. By opting to support the “moderate” Syrian opposition and running the risk of an open confrontation with President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, the West appears to be primarily appeasing Arab Persian Gulf allies that have turned the overthrow of Mr. Assad into a policy fetish that runs against any rational calculation of how to defeat Islamist terrorism.

            The persistent belief in Western policy circles that there is a “moderate opposition” in Syria — reiterated at the close of a NATO summit meeting in Wales on Sept. 5 — warrants serious scrutiny. The very notion of a “vetted” opposition has an absurd ring to it. It assumes that moderation is an identifiable, fixed element that can be sorted out from other, tainted characteristics. It further presumes that the vetting process will not stain those being vetted. It takes as a given that Western-backed opposition will prevail and in turn provide the basis for a happier and better Syria. There is little to support any of these beliefs. The most effective forces on the ground today — and for the foreseeable future — are decidedly nonmoderate. This is not primarily because the West has let down the Syrian opposition, but because the conflict now sweeping through the Levant is grounded in elements that have little to do with the presumed struggle between moderation and extremism.

            Sunni jihadists have been successful precisely because of their insidious appeal to deep-rooted societal and religious instincts and their ability to evoke symbols that elicit a genuine response across the Sunni world, despite their brutality. Anti-Shiite sectarian sentiment adds to their appeal; they have a substantive ideological overlap with Al-Qaeda (which disavowed ISIS in February) and with other Syrian rebel groups, like the Saudi-backed Islamic Front, the gulf-financed Ahrar Al-Sham and the Al-Qaeda-associated Nusra Front. And let’s not forget the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, whose role in inflaming the conflict has been disguised under the mantle of the “moderate” Syrian National Coalition, backed by the West, the Arab nations and Turkey. Ultimately, this is the same bed that the West made — and in which it slept — in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The alleged moderates have never put together a convincing national program or offered a viable alternative to Mr. Assad. The truth is that there are no “armed moderates” (or “moderate terrorists”) in the Arab world — and precious few beyond. The genuine “moderates” won’t take up arms, and those who do are not truly moderates.

            The suggestion in Washington and Brussels that a “Sunni coalition,” made up of Arab states and Turkey, can deal with ISIS is equally fatuous. Neither has any real credibility among the Sunni constituencies attracted to Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations; indeed, these countries are their enemies. In many ways, the current struggle among the Arab gulf kingdoms (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) and the various iterations of violent jihadism is a family fight, a struggle for power and legitimacy within Wahhabist, salafist and other interpretations of Islam. So by insisting on a Sunni coalition, the West will only appear to be joining a gulf-led war on the Shiites of Iraq, Syria and Iran. (It bears noting that neither Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement based in Lebanon, nor Iran has declared a global war on the West and non-Muslims, unlike Saudi-inspired salafists and their jihadist brethren.)
            Turkey remains a key ally of the US despite Ankara’s refusal to back Washington’s bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria, the State Department said. Ankara is fighting claims that militants are entering Syria and Iraq through its territory.

            Turkey remains a key ally of the US despite Ankara’s refusal to back Washington’s bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria, the State Department said. Ankara is fighting claims that militants are entering Syria and Iraq through its territory. "When it comes to Turkey, we share a partnership with them that's essential," deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Wednesday. "They play a key role obviously in the region. And ISIS is a threat to Turkey's security. And they felt the ripple effect from this, quite frankly, more than most countries in the region." Turkey was present at a meeting last week, where the US tried to get a coalition together to deal with the problem presented by the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). Although 10 Muslim nations in the Middle East did sign up, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey abstained.

            Ankara fears that any military strikes in Syria could strengthen President Bashar Assad. Turkey was one of the Syrian opposition’s major backers during the civil war, to overthrow the Syrian president. "It's a very complicated balancing act. Turkey is trying to satisfy its US partner without extending full collaboration. They will come under intensifying pressure but will find it very difficult to block US strategy," said Fadi Hakura, a Turkey analyst at the London-based think-tank Chatham House, Reuters reported. "It's a coalition of the unwilling and the apathetic. Turkey and most Arab countries supposedly part of this coalition is deeply skeptical of US intentions in the region." Turkey will be asked to try and stop the flow of foreign militant fighters entering Syria and Iraq through its territory. While supporting the Syrian opposition in the civil war, Ankara often turned a blind eye to foreign radicals passing through the country en route to Syria, in the hope they would help to overthrow Assad more quickly.

            Assad criticizes US & Turkey for arming Syrian opposition. A former US ambassador to Turkey, Francis Ricciardone, told a media call in Washington last week, according to Reuters, that Turkey had cooperated with groups such as Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch al Nusra Front, an organization Washington considered "beyond the pale." However, Turkey strenuously denies that it is at all responsible for the rise of extremists in Syria, saying the blame lies squarely with the Syrian government. "Our position is clear, we are against all forms of radicalization and activity which may affect the stability and prosperity of our region," Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Tuesday during a visit to Cyprus. "Those who accuse Turkey... must know that the main responsibility for all these massacres in the region is the Assad regime, which killed its people and opened the way for radicalization... as well as the sectarian policies in Iraq," Turkey’s PM added.

            In response, President Assad hit back at the Turkish claims during a meeting with Iraq's national security adviser, Falah al-Fayadh, saying, “The battle against terrorism starts with pressure on the countries that support and finance terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq and pretend that they want to fight against terrorism,” according to the Syrian state news agency SANA. Damascus has criticized several countries in the past for arming Syria’s opposition – including the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Turkey’s lukewarm response to US wins approval at home. Turkey is not expected to allow the US to use its airbases to carry out attacks in Syria and Iraq. This was also the case in 2003, when Turkey’s parliament rejected a request by Washington to use Turkey as a launchpad to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein.

            "Turkey has to play the long game, and right now the strategy disclosed by the US government does not give confidence that the region will be stabilized," said Sinan Ulgen, who is the head of the Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies in Istanbul. "Just hitting ISIS won't solve anything ... The recent history of Western intervention has amply demonstrated this. Look at where Libya stands today, at where Afghanistan stands today, at where Iraq stands today," he said. "The Islamic State is actually a bigger threat to Turkey than to the United States, so there is every incentive for Ankara to be part of this coalition. But right now there is no big overlap about its strategic direction." Ankara’s reluctance to join the US led coalition has also been applauded by pro-government supporters in Turkey. In early September, revelations by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden showed that that Turkey is one of the agency’s top spying targets, on a par with Venezuela and more than arch-foe Cuba – despite Ankara’s close cooperation with Washington on intelligence.

            Turkey is the NSA’s oldest partner in Asia. However, their military and intelligence officials, as well as politicians, are seen in the US as legitimate targets to spy on, according to a report in Der Spiegel. Turkey wants US to back Syrian rebels openly. Ankara is also annoyed with the US for not doing more to back the Syrian rebels in their attempts to overthrow Assad. One Western diplomat said Washington had a lot to gain by appeasing Turkey on this front. "Backing the Syrian opposition is key to legitimizing the operations (in Ankara's eyes). So far the US is reading this situation very well," said the diplomat, adding Erdogan would ultimately not want to jeopardize ties with Washington. On Tuesday, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed that the US Central Command has a plan to take “targeted actions against ISIS (Islamic State/IS) safe havens in Syria,” including striking infrastructure. Hagel also unveiled a plan to boost Iraqi forces with 1,600 US “military advisers.” The US will also train and equip 5,000 members of the Syrian opposition to fight militants from IS. At the same time, the US has made it clear that there will be no cooperation with Assad’s government in any way in its fight against the Islamic State. Obama’s position has long been that he would like to see Assad leave power, particularly after he was ‘accused’ of using chemical weapons against his own population last year.
            I am not purporting to fully understand Middle Eastern politics, but there appears to be a religious angle here that the U.S is either trying to downplay or ignore altogether. First, they supported the Sunnis against the Alawite (a branch of Shia Islam). Now that a segment of the Sunnis are supporting ISIS, they are looking for moderate Sunnis to fight against both Assad and ISIS. And Turkey's reluctance to join, aside from not wanting to embolden the Kurds, may or may not have something to do with not wanting to go against their fellow Sunnis. Ye this has not deterred countries like Saudi Arabia (also Sunni), who probably see this as a means to an end (removing Assad from Syria). Meanwhile, Iraq and Iran (both Shia majorities) support Syria and are no doubt hoping the U.S go after ISIS with everything they have. The complications of politics.
            In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

            Comment

            • vicsinad
              Senior Member
              • May 2011
              • 2337

              I think the US just wanted a reason to bomb Syria. And we found one.

              Comment

              • Big Bad Sven
                Senior Member
                • Jan 2009
                • 1528

                It’s Time to Kick Terrorist Turkey Out of NATO

                While the US tried to stop ISIS from killing Kurds in Syria, Turkey, the state sponsor of ISIS across the border sat, watched and killed some Kurds inside their own country.

                This isn’t the first time Turkey has been involved in genocide. This isn’t the first time that it’s been involved in ethnic cleansing even as a member of NATO.

                The original excuse for keeping Turkey on board was the USSR. But the USSR is gone. The alliance with Turkey collapsed long ago. With the rise of the AKP, Turkey has become a Jihadist state that vacuums up loans to build an empire of terrorist oligarchs funneling money to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

                NATO may have outlived its purpose, but Turkey’s role in it certainly has. Turkey is obstructing the US fight against ISIS the way that it obstructed the US fight against Saddam. And this time it’s even more serious.

                Turkey is determined to drag the US into a war against Syria by using its ISIS terrorists to massacre Kurds and Christians. While Turkish spies trawl the US, its ISIS allies commit mass murder.

                NATO stands for very little if it can include a member state that is engaging in armed occupation, that has jails filled with political dissidents and that actively sponsors genocide.

                It’s time to kick terrorist Turkey out of NATO. There’s no room for a genocidal thug like Erdogan in any organization dedicated to protecting peace, democracy and freedom.

                Comment

                • Big Bad Sven
                  Senior Member
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 1528

                  Turkey Will Pay for Abandoning the Kurds

                  In blocking the resupply of the Kurdish fighters who are trying desperately to hold off a siege by Islamic State in Kobani, Syria, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is making a decision that may haunt Turkey for years to come.

                  This is not just about Turkey's failure to join the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State. It also threatens Turkey's fragile truce with its Kurdish minority, many of whom are growing impatient with the sight of Turkish soldiers watching, from their side of the border, as Islamic State attacks Kobani.

                  On Tuesday, Kurdish protests across Turkey led to clashes with police, Turkish nationalists and supporters of Islamic State -- killing as many as 15 people. In response, the Turkish military imposed curfews reminiscent of the bad old decades after 1984, when Turkey battled insurgents from the Kurdish Workers' Party, or PKK. Their year-old cease-fire is now in jeopardy.

                  When pressed to say why Turkey wasn't helping the PKK-affiliated fighters in Kobani, Erdogan said: "For us, the PKK is the same as ISIL. It is wrong to consider them as different from each other."

                  To begin with, this statement is simply untrue. While the PKK has carried out terrorist attacks in Turkey, it has never beheaded captives, engaged in genocide against civilians of different creeds or systematically raped women. The PKK doesn't want to create a caliphate across the Middle East and convert or kill all non-Kurds within it. What the PKK wants most is greater political autonomy for Kurds in eastern Turkey -- a negotiable demand.

                  Even if it worked to Erdogan's political advantage by tapping into Turkish nationalist sentiment, a return to war with the PKK would be destructive -- to the country and the wider region. Refusing to let Kurds resupply their kin through Turkish territory also makes Erdogan appear complicit in the rise of Islamic State.

                  Nevertheless, he is taking as tough a position with the U.S. as he is with Syria's Kurds, refusing to join the military coalition against Islamic State until the U.S. agrees to broaden its goals to include toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He also wants the coalition to enforce a no-fly zone and a (Turkish-dominated) buffer area in northern Syria from which to organize the attack on Assad.

                  This strategy would provide capable ground troops to follow up on the U.S. coalition's airstrikes -- so it is worth discussion. But negotiations should take place after Turkey joins the coalition. By essentially holding the coalition ransom to his demands, Erdogan is making its Arab members vulnerable to criticism at home. Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates also want to see Assad gone, after all. But they have accepted the "Islamic State first" approach, and at some domestic political risk.

                  Ultimately, Erdogan's stance will also strain Turkey's most important security alliances, which are with the U.S. and NATO. Turkey is denying its allies use of the U.S. airbase at Incirlik, just 100 miles from the Syrian border.

                  The fall of Kobani will not, as many say, prove that airstrikes against Islamic State can't work -- only that they can't work without Turkish cooperation. Kobani's defenders have been remarkably effective against a much larger and better armed opponent, and with access to arms and reinforcements, there is every reason to believe they could succeed.

                  Comment

                  • Big Bad Sven
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 1528

                    Turkey is a joke. It blocks resources being sent to the Kurds but allows ISIS to enter turkey so they can be treated and healed and sent back to fight. A year ago they had ISIS training camps in Turkey.

                    Turkey supports ISIS financially and with arms. They support fanatical islam in the balkans (along with Saudi Arabia and Quatar). Turkey is no longer a real friend of Macedonia, which is a shame.

                    However the ironic thing is that in this interesting game in the middle east it seems like the USA wants Turkey to send troops in to "fight" ISIS (basically invade Syria and remove Assad) but to the Turks credit they are not stupid. They want ISIS to continue because ISIS will kill two birds with 1 stone - ISIS will destroy the Kurds and the Syrian government.
                    But the USA is still trying to make Turkey take the fall, while the middle east is being torn apart.
                    Just LOL if you think Americans are good allies.

                    And LOL at the Kurds, used as pawns TWICE by the USA against Saddam and TWICE the USA has let them down by letting them get slaughtered. Its the same situation today the USA is arming them to beat ISIS but wont come to support them when they are surrounded and likely to be slaughtered. Again LOL as thinking the yanks are any sort of honorable ally.

                    Comment

                    • Big Bad Sven
                      Senior Member
                      • Jan 2009
                      • 1528

                      Btw dont you find is strange that with USA, UK and Australia spending so much money and resources to air bomb ISIS in Syria and Iraq, yet it seems its no slowing ISIS down?

                      ISIS controls 40% of Kobane and is bombing the shit out of it (e.g. they would be easy targets to air bomb) and also ISIS is apparently a few kms from Baghdad.

                      Dont you find it strange that ISIS is not attacking Turkey? Or even attacking Israel or saying negative things about Israel? Or is it strange that Israel is no concerned about ISIS or is doing anything to destroy ISIS?

                      Just LOL if you believe the story the western government is telling you

                      Comment

                      • Phoenix
                        Senior Member
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 4671

                        Originally posted by Big Bad Sven View Post
                        Btw dont you find is strange that with USA, UK and Australia spending so much money and resources to air bomb ISIS in Syria and Iraq, yet it seems its no slowing ISIS down?

                        ISIS controls 40% of Kobane and is bombing the shit out of it (e.g. they would be easy targets to air bomb) and also ISIS is apparently a few kms from Baghdad.

                        Dont you find it strange that ISIS is not attacking Turkey? Or even attacking Israel or saying negative things about Israel? Or is it strange that Israel is no concerned about ISIS or is doing anything to destroy ISIS?

                        Just LOL if you believe the story the western government is telling you
                        The ISIS story is very interesting...

                        They've just popped out of nowhere (apparently)...only to be (apparently) the most social media savvy paramilitary/terrorist organisation in the history of insurgencies and possibly the most wealthiest as well...big LOL...all in the timeframe of America vacating Iraq and leaving them to their own devices...even BIGGER LOL...so some 50 billion dollars of American and western taxpayer funds to set up a new Iraqi security force and it turns to shit in a couple of years...Fark me LOL...good job guys, money well spent.

                        Comment

                        • Soldier of Macedon
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 13670

                          Nevertheless, he is taking as tough a position with the U.S. as he is with Syria's Kurds, refusing to join the military coalition against Islamic State until the U.S. agrees to broaden its goals to include toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
                          The Turkish government is resentful towards Assad because he is accused of assisting Kurdish separatists in Turkey, hence the reason why they're putting forth this precondition before they join the fight against ISIS.


                          Originally posted by Big Bad Sven
                          Turkey is a joke. It blocks resources being sent to the Kurds but allows ISIS to enter turkey so they can be treated and healed and sent back to fight. A year ago they had ISIS training camps in Turkey. Turkey supports ISIS financially and with arms..........They want ISIS to continue because ISIS will kill two birds with 1 stone - ISIS will destroy the Kurds and the Syrian government.
                          If ISIS were able to accomplish that, there is no doubt the Turkish government would be pleased. But then what is to stop ISIS from spreading their influence into Turkey? Is their common Sunni branch of Islam enough to keep relations between them calm, despite the fact that ISIS considers the Turkish president (and perhaps by extension, both his government and population) an apostate? The Kurds are Sunnis but that hasn't proved to be a very effective bond with either Turks or Arabs.

                          Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan faces another political crisis over the hostage crisis and his Syria and Iraq policies.
                          In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                          Comment

                          • George S.
                            Senior Member
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 10116

                            i heard that turkey are aiding the terrorists.They desrve a few bombs themselves.,
                            "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                            GOTSE DELCEV

                            Comment

                            • spitfire
                              Banned
                              • Aug 2014
                              • 868

                              Movements of the people, have a tendency to grow especially when those movements are succefull (in their own sense of success).
                              When you create a movement and use it in order to overthrow a situation that is not to your interests, you'll have to remember that it's a movement of people.
                              The moment you realise that your creation has grown out of hand and therefore it starts to bug you, you need to stop it.
                              However, if your political agenda was that you should never again be involved in the stopping by force of such movements, you got a problem.
                              Then you must seek all alternative combined with your actions. So you turn to your alies for help. The alies know that you don't want to be involved and they will bargain to their favor.

                              Bottom line. It's the same story again and again. I'm nostalgic of the time they used dictators for such a purpose. Much more controled.

                              Comment

                              • Philosopher
                                Senior Member
                                • Sep 2008
                                • 1003

                                Turkey is no longer Turkey. It is now a country dominated by the interests of Fethullah Gulen, one of the richest and most powerful men in the world. He is financing this Islamic movement in much of the world.

                                ISIS is a Western (CIA/MI6/Mossad) operation funded and armed. The whole agenda, for sometime now, is about creating a justification to outs Assad from Syria. ISIS is providing the much needed justification for Western intervention. The real objective, however, is eliminating Assad.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X