Ish is getting real...

NATO survived Cold War, but downed Russian jet provides biggest threat

Washington (CNN)The cool, calm, clear thinking that kept the NATO alliance intact as it weathered the Cold War with the Soviet Union has been shattered.

Decades of careful diplomacy and nail-biting inaction during the potentially world-annihilating nuclear arms race of the 1950s, 60s and 70s appears to have been sacrificed in a few brief seconds by Turkey.

During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the deployment of nuclear weapons in western Europe in the 1980s and many other causes of strife, NATO did not take on the Soviet Union or Russia directly and Moscow did not attack any NATO country.

That all changed when Turkish air force jets shot down a Russian bomber -- the first time a NATO country has taken such action since 1952.

Any chance of a quick end to the war in Syria seems to have gone up in smoke.

Russian President Putin has been trying to undermine the unity of NATO for years. Whether it's been Russian planes flying in Baltic airspace, aging bombers buzzing the coast of Britain, the destabilization of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, he has needled NATO, testing its resolve and probing for division. The downing of Russia's fighter plane may help Putin reach his goal of destabilizing and dividing NATO.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that was still the case Tuesday after an emergency meeting arranged for Turkey to tell its allies what had happened.

"As we have repeatedly made clear, we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally, Turkey," he said.

But already, German and Czech officials are expressing surprise at Turkey's action -- taken after the Russian plane was inside Turkish airspace for 30 seconds or less, according to U.S. calculations.

Perhaps that seemed more possible this week, with both France and Russia mourning losses from ISIS terror and when they were collectively trading their national tragedies for compromises to find a solution in Syria.

It was a rare moment in international diplomacy and some diplomats were beginning to think Russia's policy on Syria and its support for Bashar-Al-Assad could be changed. Not quickly, or easily, but the chance was there.

And Erdogan has squandered it.

The downing of the Russian jet smacks of what Erdogan's enemies accuse him of -- of aspirations to resurrect the Ottoman Empire -- and leaves him open to claims he is too soft on radical Islamists. Putin has gone further -- saying that Erdogan, the head of state of a NATO member, is siding with the terrorists.

And that's why -- at first analysis -- this looks like a disaster, beyond the loss of life of one pilot and a would-be rescuer. It may also be a gain for Putin. For all those years he has was trying to undermine NATO unity, Erdogan's hasty move has handed it to him on a plate. We may learn what led up to the strike, but the deed is done.

Erdogan's NATO partners can now only look at him as a loose cannon, an unstable element in a very combustible situation. Not a steady partner capable of calm nerve that saw the alliance last the Cold War. Erdogan has thrown the whole card table in the air. In Turkey, as internationally, Erdogan has a history of pushing his own agenda, whether it's against the tide or not.

And when Erdogan finally decided to act militarily in July, the targets were more often Kurdish groups fighting the Islamic extremists, rather than ISIS itself. Turkey did grant the United States permission to use one of its air bases for anti-ISIS missions after a suspected suicide bomber attacked the Turkish city of Suruc, but the two allies have different agendas. There's almost no freedom of the press there -- just ask the journalists locked up while covering the recent elections, in which Erdogan's party did surprisingly well after a summer poll flop.

Conflict with Kurdish people inside and outside Turkey continues. Turkey took no action against ISIS for a year and a half as the group advanced across the border in northern Syria.

Even as the United States sees Kurdish fighting groups as a hope to beat ISIS, Turkey continues to attack them. To many in Turkey, the prospect of an independent state for the Kurds is seen as a greater threat than the religious extremism of ISIS. To much domestic acclaim, Erdogan has moved Turkey away from its secular past and resurrected Islamism in Turkish politics.
 
Well done, NBC News!

"You're en garde!"
F0E72BDA-FA48-4788-82CA-D6BFA6DA4CD8_zps0dtksmbo.jpg
 
And from ANHA through google translator:

"A source told the News Hawar that the arms shipment entered into Azaz area across the border crossing safety door after passing from Turkey .

The source said that Russian fighter jets bombed a shipment en route to the victory mercenaries are free and the Levant.

This is not the first time that Turkey has sent a shipment of arms to mercenaries Nasra and free -Sham , the beginning of this month handed over several arms shipments at Otmh camp near Bab Hawa border crossing .

The mercenaries are free and Sham victory yesterday launched an attack on Afrin province and met with a response by the People's Protection Units , the effect Mrtezkin killing and wounding a number of them last ."

and from Hawar News Agency also google translator:


A Turkish convoy, which according to some reports was transporting weapons to terrorist organizations, has been hit by apparent airstrikes in northwestern Syria.

Footage released online by the Istanbul-based Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) shows plumes of smoke from the burning trucks and people running about in panic. At least 20 trucks were engulfed in flames.

The mission, however, wasn’t sponsored or organized by the IHH, the group said. No organization has as yet confirmed that the convoy belonged to them.

"Our teams helped to extinguish the fire... The trucks do not belong to us and there is no information on who bombed them," Mustafa Özbek, an official from İHH, told Reuters.

At least seven people were killed and 10 injured in the incident, according to the Turkish Anadolu agency. The trucks were reportedly heading to the town of Azaz in northwestern Syria.

"Turkey has repeatedly sent convoys with arms to the Al-Nusra Front and other terrorist organizations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Reports on Twitter went further – they identified the arms as allegedly “Docka machine guns” and “small arms with ammunitions.”
 
ISIS would not be as strong today if it weren't for the support that they receive from Turkey.
Most likely. I read the major ME news sources and only half of them are already translated into or even available in English. PITA! So I have to use the pathetic google translator for the rest of them. Same issues for some EU, Russian and Asia media that I also read.
 
Last edited:
ISIS would not be as strong today if it weren't for the support that they receive from Turkey.

More matter of fact, ISIS wouldn't be as strong today as they are if we told Turkey to STFU and armed the Kurds with more substantial firepower.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
More matter of fact, ISIS wouldn't be as strong today as they are if we told Turkey to STFU and armed the Kurds with more substantial firepower.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's amazing to me that we supplied tons and tons of weapons to people who didn't take care of them, abandoned them, sell them, surrendered them, groups who as it turns out are the "enemy" and more. We've had no issue supply arms to so called "rebel" groups, bit the Kurds? Oh yeah, Turkey is our big ally so we can't do that. An ally who has refused on many occasions to let our fighters use their base, supports ISIS and other terrorist groups, the fact that under Erdogan, they have been moving farther and farther away from anything to do with the "west", their politics have become more geared to taking any power away from their citizens, infringing on their rights and funneling all the power to the authoritarian Erdogan himself.

We cannot be so blind not to realize that they have been for example, treating the wounded ISIS fighters and bringing them back to Turkey, that they give them full asylum there, and that they have long supported Hamas. I mean for crap's sake Salah al-Aruri operates right out of Istanbul! They have also welcomed with open arms the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

Regarding Iran's nuclear threat, Ankara (unlike its NATO allies), has refused to adopt any of the U.S. stance on any harsher sanctions They consistently vote no on the sanctions.

All Erdogan cares about is bombing and trying to destroy the Kurds and Assad. The Kurds, IMO, have done the best job thus far in protecting their land, standing up to ISIS and taking back land that ISIS gains.

As Mike D keeps pointing out, we are always on the wrong side and supporting the wrong people. What exactly would Turkey have to do before somebody wakes up and stops calling them an ally? What NATO country would shoot down airmen strapped into their parachutes after having to eject from a severely damaged aircraft? Oh yeah, that would be Turkey. The Geneva Convention means nothing to them. Shooting down a fighter over Syria no less, that was no threat to them, they'd do it again in a heart beat.

They are never going to attack ISIS, they will keep their borders open to them, but they will continue to bomb the Kurds. Even this past Summer when Erdogan told Obama he would join the fight aginst ISIS, who does he attack yet again? Oh yeah, the Kurds. Then he stated that they would have round ups of ISIS members and affiliates in their country. But who exactly did they arrest? PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party members!

It's just madness that we keep aligning ourselves with the wrong people, the wrong causes and supporting the wrong countries. How can we claim that we are helping the Syrian people when we are supporting Turkey - the largest haven for ISIS on the planet, while turning our back on the Kurds, is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing to me that we supplied tons and tons of weapons to people who didn't take care of them, abandoned them, sell them, surrendered them, groups who as it turns out are the "enemy" and more. We've had no issue supply arms to so called "rebel" groups, bit the Kurds? Oh yeah, Turkey is our big ally so we can't do that. An ally who has refused on many occasions to let our fighters use their base, supports ISIS and other terrorist groups, the fact that under Erdogan, they have been moving farther and farther away from anything to do with the "west", their politics have become more geared to taking any power away from their citizens, infringing on their rights and funneling all the power to the authoritarian Erdogan himself.

We cannot be so blind not to realize that they have been for example, treating the wounded ISIS fighters and bringing them back to Turkey, that they give them full asylum there, and that they have long supported Hamas. I mean for crap's sake Salah al-Aruri operates right out of Istanbul! They have also welcomed with open arms the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

Regarding Iran's nuclear threat, Ankara (unlike its NATO allies), has refused to adopt any of the U.S. stance on any harsher sanctions They consistently vote no on the sanctions.

All Erdogan cares about is bombing and trying to destroy the Kurds and Assad. The Kurds, IMO, have done the best job thus far in protecting their land, standing up to ISIS and taking back land that ISIS gains.

As Mike D keeps pointing out, we are always on the wrong side and supporting the wrong people. What exactly would Turkey have to do before somebody wakes up and stops calling them an ally? What NATO country would shoot down airmen strapped into their parachutes after having to eject from a severely damaged aircraft? Oh yeah, that would be Turkey. The Geneva Convention means nothing to them. Shooting down a fighter over Syria no less, that was no threat to them, they'd do it again in a heart beat.

They are never going to attack ISIS, they will keep their borders open to them, but they will continue to bomb the Kurds. Even this past Summer when Erdogan told Obama he would join the fight aginst ISIS, who does he attack yet again? Oh yeah, the Kurds. Then he stated that they would have round ups of ISIS members and affiliates in their country. But who exactly did they arrest? PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party members!

It's just madness that we keep aligning ourselves with the wrong people, the wrong causes and supporting the wrong countries. How can we claim that we are helping the Syrian people when we are supporting Turkey - the largest haven for ISIS on the planet, while turning our back on the Kurds, is beyond me.
Because at the end of the day, using Turkish airbases for staging US aircraft is of vital importance to the projection of US will and power in that region of the world. It is more important than the Kurds, ISIS, or Assad. We will continue to turn a blind eye.
 
Because at the end of the day, using Turkish airbases for staging US aircraft is of vital importance to the projection of US will and power in that region of the world. It is more important than the Kurds, ISIS, or Assad. We will continue to turn a blind eye.

And hence another example of why no one trusts the US as a true ally, or promises we make, sadly.
 
And hence another example of why no one trusts the US as a true ally, or promises we make, sadly.
And why we have no credibility and are perceived as weak and wishy washy. We pretend to care for others, yet only really care about our own interests. Political b.s. always gets in the way of traveling on what is truly the correct path to take. And we will waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives to this end. Much the same story with the Saudis as "allies", in truth. We are no better.

The President's comments after the Russian fighter was shot down, one of the pilots killed, the Search and Rescue helicopters fired upon, killing another soldier and one helicopter destroyed, were a disgrace. Interesting to find out that, that chopper was blown to bits by a USA-made and supplied TOW missile. Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided missile. Nice job America.
 
Last edited:
NATO survived Cold War, but downed Russian jet provides biggest threat

Washington (CNN)The cool, calm, clear thinking that kept the NATO alliance intact as it weathered the Cold War with the Soviet Union has been shattered.

Decades of careful diplomacy and nail-biting inaction during the potentially world-annihilating nuclear arms race of the 1950s, 60s and 70s appears to have been sacrificed in a few brief seconds by Turkey.

During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the deployment of nuclear weapons in western Europe in the 1980s and many other causes of strife, NATO did not take on the Soviet Union or Russia directly and Moscow did not attack any NATO country.

That all changed when Turkish air force jets shot down a Russian bomber -- the first time a NATO country has taken such action since 1952.

Any chance of a quick end to the war in Syria seems to have gone up in smoke.

Russian President Putin has been trying to undermine the unity of NATO for years. Whether it's been Russian planes flying in Baltic airspace, aging bombers buzzing the coast of Britain, the destabilization of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, he has needled NATO, testing its resolve and probing for division. The downing of Russia's fighter plane may help Putin reach his goal of destabilizing and dividing NATO.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that was still the case Tuesday after an emergency meeting arranged for Turkey to tell its allies what had happened.

"As we have repeatedly made clear, we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally, Turkey," he said.

But already, German and Czech officials are expressing surprise at Turkey's action -- taken after the Russian plane was inside Turkish airspace for 30 seconds or less, according to U.S. calculations.

Perhaps that seemed more possible this week, with both France and Russia mourning losses from ISIS terror and when they were collectively trading their national tragedies for compromises to find a solution in Syria.

It was a rare moment in international diplomacy and some diplomats were beginning to think Russia's policy on Syria and its support for Bashar-Al-Assad could be changed. Not quickly, or easily, but the chance was there.

And Erdogan has squandered it.

The downing of the Russian jet smacks of what Erdogan's enemies accuse him of -- of aspirations to resurrect the Ottoman Empire -- and leaves him open to claims he is too soft on radical Islamists. Putin has gone further -- saying that Erdogan, the head of state of a NATO member, is siding with the terrorists.

And that's why -- at first analysis -- this looks like a disaster, beyond the loss of life of one pilot and a would-be rescuer. It may also be a gain for Putin. For all those years he has was trying to undermine NATO unity, Erdogan's hasty move has handed it to him on a plate. We may learn what led up to the strike, but the deed is done.

Erdogan's NATO partners can now only look at him as a loose cannon, an unstable element in a very combustible situation. Not a steady partner capable of calm nerve that saw the alliance last the Cold War. Erdogan has thrown the whole card table in the air. In Turkey, as internationally, Erdogan has a history of pushing his own agenda, whether it's against the tide or not.

And when Erdogan finally decided to act militarily in July, the targets were more often Kurdish groups fighting the Islamic extremists, rather than ISIS itself. Turkey did grant the United States permission to use one of its air bases for anti-ISIS missions after a suspected suicide bomber attacked the Turkish city of Suruc, but the two allies have different agendas. There's almost no freedom of the press there -- just ask the journalists locked up while covering the recent elections, in which Erdogan's party did surprisingly well after a summer poll flop.

Conflict with Kurdish people inside and outside Turkey continues. Turkey took no action against ISIS for a year and a half as the group advanced across the border in northern Syria.

Even as the United States sees Kurdish fighting groups as a hope to beat ISIS, Turkey continues to attack them. To many in Turkey, the prospect of an independent state for the Kurds is seen as a greater threat than the religious extremism of ISIS. To much domestic acclaim, Erdogan has moved Turkey away from its secular past and resurrected Islamism in Turkish politics.

Another take on it...

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/24/9791612/russia-turkey-nato-world-war-3
 
Vox,
icon_smile_rotfl.gif
the same worthless rag that wrote:

"On February 23, Zack Beauchamp wrote an article with a very forceful opening: "If you want to understand what's happening in the Middle East today, you need to appreciate one fundamental fact: ISIS is losing its war for the Middle East." That unmodulated position — "ISIS is losing" — is what Vox decided to use as a headline on the article, and it gets echoed again and again throughout the piece, as Beauchamp argues (backed up by abundant colorful maps) that Iraq is looking great, ISIS is stumbling in Syria, its extremist ideology is about to burn itself out, and so on. Message: The president's policy is going swimmingly; we have nothing at all to worry about; we'll have this one wrapped up in no time.

On April 2, Beauchamp was back to share the good news that "ISIS just suffered its worst defeat yet — losing the Iraqi city of Tikrit." If that wasn't enough optimism for you, a section heading a few paragraphs into the story proclaimed, "Tikrit shows that ISIS is losing in Iraq."

Johnny Harris and Beauchamp returned again on April 15 with a follow-up: "ISIS is losing. Watch how and why it's happening." Once again, right out of the gate, the authors announce that "the group is being turned back in Iraq" because the Iraq army, Shia militias, and "an international air power coalition" are "retaking territory." To back up these cheerful assertions, Harris and Beauchamp offer a slick embedded 3-minute video that assures viewers that the movement is in retreat.

Super-hawk Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) provided a new occasion to drive home the point in early May when he declared on CNN that "the Islamic State seems to be winning now." This prompted Beauchamp to respond, in yet another piece, "This is, in fact, the exact opposite of what is occurring." The evidence Beauchamp provided to back up the assertion sounded utterly convincing.

Until 11 days later, that is. That's when ISIS took Ramadi, capital of Anbar province in Iraq — and shortly thereafter, on another front, the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.

Vox's string of Panglossian stories looks pretty embarrassing right now. ISIS wasn't losing three months ago, and it certainly isn't losing now. That doesn't mean it's winning either. But it does mean that the truth is more complicated than Vox has consistently made it seem. Which also means that its "explainers" about ISIS have been more like a disinformation campaign launched by a propaganda ministry than a series of illuminating articles published by a website that's genuinely devoted to news-gathering and policy analysis."

http://theweek.com/articles/557588/isis-still-losing-why-vox-keeps-getting-news-wrong

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/07/17/vox-is-terrible/

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally- ed-up-a-story-1673835447
 
Last edited:
It seems like you love all the right wing sites and have no trouble using a liberal amount of liberty to use massive amounts of information from them to try to make your point, so why so adverse to another view point?

Or do you want World War III?

Oh, by the way. The Washington Post (and other large media outlets) agrees with VOX and not you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f18b10-8d8a-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html
Vox is a worthless POS that gets more "facts" incorrect than it ever does right, that's why. And I read all sorts of international and some domestic media, certain journalists and sites. Vox would not be on that list, however. A high school newspaper is far more accurate and unbiased. I am not surprised that you find them worthy of believing/and would agree with them however. The fact that you are childish enough to suggest that I want WWIII, just goes to show that you are exactly the type of audience that follows Vox, vox stulti.

Are you sober? The Post article that you linked, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vox article.
 
Last edited:
Vox is a worthless POS that gets more "facts" incorrect than it ever does right, that's why. And I read all sorts of international and some domestic media, certain journalists and sites. Vox would not be on that list, however. A high school newspaper is far more accurate and unbiased. I am not surprised that you find them worthy of believing/and would agree with them however. The fact that you are childish enough to suggest that I want WWIII, just goes to show that you are exactly the type of audience that follows Vox, vox stulti.

Are you sober? The Post article that you linked, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vox article.

The Post article refutes your point that ISIS is winning.
 
Super-hawk Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) provided a new occasion to drive home the point in early May when he declared on CNN that "the Islamic State seems to be winning now." This prompted Beauchamp to respond, in yet another piece, "This is, in fact, the exact opposite of what is occurring." The evidence Beauchamp provided to back up the assertion sounded utterly convincing.

Until 11 days later, that is. That's when ISIS took Ramadi, capital of Anbar province in Iraq — and shortly thereafter, on another front, the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.

Vox's string of Panglossian stories looks pretty embarrassing right now. ISIS wasn't losing three months ago, and it certainly isn't losing now.

Right here...
 
Back
Top