Turkey strikes targets in Syria in retaliation for shelling deaths

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Ну, если агент Запада говорит, что версия абсурдна, значит ей можно верить. :)

---

Of course not. But if an agent of the East is saying it's true, that you can believe. :D

See? There's neither end nor conclusion to that kind of argumentation. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Турки сами могли подсказать "сирийской оппозиции": "ребята, стрельните вот сюда. Много народу не убъёте, а повод вам помочь дадите". Вы что, не знаете что такое провокация? Немцы не пожалели свой Рейхстаг, чтобы обвинить коммунистов. А тут максимум - кого-то из крестьян заденет.

---

Ok, I know what is provocation. Among the other things, provocation is something that works either way. If a round is landed on Akcakale, that is clearly a provocation. But, whose provocation is that? You're saying it was the opposition's provocation. Somebody could say, it was Assad's provocation. Someone else could say, it was Turkish provocation (yes, deploy some special Turkish troops across the border and fire their own town from Syria's border). Just to name a few: there could also be Iran's provocation, the US provocation, France provocation, China's provocation, and the last but not the least, the Antarctic penguins' provocation. There's no end to that and it could be twisted any way you want.

In my opinion, if those shells came not from the Syrian army loyal to Assad, there should be official denial and denouncing of the incident by Damascus. Walid al-Moualem should hold a press conference and clearly say something like: "Look, guys, it's not us, somebody's trying to provoke the war between Syria and Turkey." Was there that kind of response by the Syrian government or I'm missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Я уверен, что политики в Турции - это не ангелы, а люди, умеющие жертвовать (особенно, если жертвовать нужно не собой).

---

In general, I agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You know what the Iranian dictator said of the Lybian one as the latter was shot? Something like "every dictator is going to end up like that". That's to mean, he may sound tough but he doesn't have really serious background to play a "hero" and mess with NATO and their allies, and his fear sometimes reaches a point when he even has to verbally back up.

---

I see your point. The problem is Iran already military helping Assad's government: Iran confirms it has forces in Syria and will take military action if pushed | World news | The Guardian

"Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps (IRGC) are in Syria helping Bashar al-Assad's government crush rebels, and warned that it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As for China, that sounds even crazier - why in the first place would a country join an armed conflict going on thousands of miles away, and having absolutely nothing to do with it? Just for fun? But fun isn't what drives politics stuff, is it?

---

Well, there are lots of precedents to that. The US came to be involved with a Civil War in Afghanistan! What had the US to do with who among the various tribes would control the other tribes?! Afghanistan is a very poor country. There's no oil in Afghanistan. Just for fun? Maybe, to catch Bin Laden? Have the US caught Bin Laden in Afghanistan, after all?

I'm not 100% sure what China has to do with Iran (the slightly cheaper oil or reliable oil supply, maybe?), but they have clearly stated their military support. If you know Chinese, they are not just talkative for fun..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

In my opinion, if those shells came not from the Syrian army loyal to Assad, there should be official denial and denouncing of the incident by Damascus. Walid al-Moualem should hold a press conference and clearly say something like: "Look, guys, it's not us, somebody's trying to provoke the war between Syria and Turkey." Was there that kind of response by the Syrian government or I'm missing something?

---

Ха-ха. Да, пропустили. Информационную войну Запада против Сирии.
Запад сначала заткнул Сирии рот, а потом жалуется, что нет информации из Сирии. Ну, не лицемерие?.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Ха-ха. Да, пропустили. Информационную войну Запада против Сирии.
Запад сначала заткнул Сирии рот, а потом жалуется, что нет информации из Сирии. Ну, не лицемерие?.. :)

---

That is a pure propaganda. On October 2, 2012 Walid al-Moualem is able to convey his message that "the United States and its allies support terrorism in his country" Syria says US and allies support terrorism - Middle East - Al Jazeera English and when it comes to the shelling on October 4, 2012 he is suddenly quiet? The shelling is going on for a week and there was no way to even slip a short message like that through the cracks? That you blame on the information war?

"А чей это сайт?.." That is Al Jazeera, my friend, and not the BBC. :D Now, an intelligent guy like you (the school medals, the corporation, etc.) has nothing but to start making stuff up to support your point.. A real pity.. ;)

Propaganda is like a religion of a kind. If it can't explain something, it appeals to you with: "JUST BELIEVE! The explanation will come later!" ;)

1) Я видел программы русского телевидения из Сирии, в которых сирийцы пытаются докричаться до мира при помощи нашего телеканала. Потому что нет других средств.
2) Аль Джазира - по вашим понятиям это образец независимости и объективности? А по-моему, нет.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

the school medals, the corporation, etc.

---

Вот Вы на меня уже и досье завели. Ну, точно агент. Там стоит пометка "годится для вербовки"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

1) Я видел программы русского телевидения из Сирии, в которых сирийцы пытаются докричаться до мира при помощи нашего телеканала. Потому что нет других средств.
2) Аль Джазира - по вашим понятиям это образец независимости и объективности? А по-моему, нет.

---

I'm not sure this situation is very clear because there is so much lying, manipulation and media spin going on.

I just thought of presenting a point and you can beat it down or whatever you want. I am not interested in getting involved in another argument. But, I did come across someplace claims that Turkey was arming and/or training Syrian rebels and that the shelling was a response or reaction to this. So, just to speak on the hypothetical, what if this is part of the reason. It's not being reported. But, if Assad does try to claim this, then this should be included in any discussion.

It's peculiar that Syria (as bad and rogue a state as it is) cannot be left to its own devices in a civil war and when Iran is supposedly helping, it's condemned, too.

Yet, the U.S. can bomb the crap out of other countries AND INTERFERE with impunity. It's always one side and the media always portrays the U.S./NATO or whoever as one that cannot be beneath anything whereas it's Iran/Syria/whoever they want as the guilty one. It's funny how everyone immediately takes it as gospel.

Anyway, carry on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

1) Я видел программы русского телевидения из Сирии, в которых сирийцы пытаются докричаться до мира при помощи нашего телеканала. Потому что нет других средств.

---

Could you be kind enough a provide a link to Russian media which report that Syrian government officially denounce the shelling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

2) Аль Джазира - по вашим понятиям это образец независимости и объективности? А по-моему, нет.

---

Your approach "А чей это сайт?.." implies you don't believe any media could be objective and independent. Which is ok as long as we have what the other party has to say, so we could compare. Al Jazeera has a long-established history of publishing anti-Western and anti-US opinions, so I'm not sure what you want to say here. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 14Russian

But, I did come across someplace claims that Turkey was arming and/or training Syrian rebels and that the shelling was a response or reaction to this. So, just to speak on the hypothetical, what if this is part of the reason. It's not being reported. But, if Assad does try to claim this, then this should be included in any discussion.

---

And I would appreciate to consider that. But, at this time, there's nothing coming from Damascus that addresses the shelling. We are left with making up any reason we see fit.

But, I think you missed the point of my conversation with Юрка. He actually claims that the shelling was done by the Syrian opposition to provoke Turkey/NATO and not by the Syrian Army (whatever justified reason they might have).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And I would appreciate to consider that. But, at this time, there's nothing coming from Damascus that addresses the shelling. We are left with making up any reason we see fit.

But, I think you missed the point of my conversation with Юрка. He actually claims that the shelling was done by the Syrian opposition to provoke Turkey/NATO and not by the Syrian Army (whatever justified reason they might have).

---

No, I noticed that. Well, from what I could translate. I think it's plausible but I am not making any conclusions yet. But, then questions have to be answered, right? Do they have the firepower etc. Because, I think it's pretty easy to answer the why. Anyway, I have not investigated or researched this topic sufficiently. I thought it is interesting that other nations are not allowed to intervene but the U.S./NATO can do as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I thought it is interesting that other nations are not allowed to intervene but the U.S./NATO can do as they see fit.

---

Well, we all know, whoever has the might, has the right. It's not a big deal to find the justification. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Could you be kind enough a provide a link to Russian media which report that Syrian government officially denounce the shelling?

---

Крокодил, мы с вами стратеги или бухгалтера?
Неужели что-то зависит от одной ссылки?
Восток - дело тонкое. На Востоке не всегда стереотип поведения совпадает с тем, что ожидают в западном филиале западного мира. Они извинились перед Турцией, а Вы: "Неееет! Где осуждение?!! У нас принято осуждение!".
А извинение в данном случае - это более высокий и мужской поступок, чем осуждение. Извинение означает не перенос ответственности на кого-то, а признание ответственности за всё, что происходит на территории своей страны. Даже если стреляли бандиты, с которыми Сирия борется.
Осуждение - это более мелкий поступок, который относится скорее к сфере внутренней политики: поймали и осудили. А извинение - это больше подходит к международным делам.
У вас страна молодая и поэтому очень смутное представление о морали в международных делах. Иногда полная "каша". А на Востоке этикет в таких делах на высшем уровне. Учитесь, а не учите.
Если брать аналог из человеческих отношений, то на Востоке мужчина извинится за плохой поступок своей жены, но не скажет "я её осуждаю, не имею с ней ничего общего, бейте её кто хочет".
И ещё аналог: большевики заставляли отрекаться от родственников, публично осуждать их. Все должны были быть как Павлик Морозов. И ваше мышление (наших эмигрантов из СССР) похоже на большевистское.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Они извинились перед Турцией

---

Ah, now you're talking! They not only apologized but took the responsibility for the shelling! Syria Formally Apologizes for Cross-Border Shelling into Turkey -- News from Antiwar.com

Quote:

---

Turkey’s deputy prime minister on Thursday said Syria has admitted it was responsible for the shelling that killed five civilians in Turkey on Wednesday and has formally apologized for the deaths. The regime of Bashar al-Assad not only issued a formal apology, says Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay, but it reassured the United Nations that “such an incident will not occur again.”

---

Let's put aside the question of had it happen again despite the apologies since October 4, and focus on our main topic. So, if you admit Syria apologized that means you admit Syria was responsible and not the Syrian opposition!! So, what were all those previous posts of yours about? Just to confuse us? Propaganda, my friend, is so propaganda.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Крокодил, мы с вами стратеги или бухгалтера?

---

I don't know who are you, but I'm just a simple-minded crocodile. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Неужели что-то зависит от одной ссылки?

---

Well, you mentioned Assad's government used Russian media allegedly [due to the information war of the West against Syria] there were blocked to deliver official message they are not responsible for the shelling. So, yes, a couple of links to support what you said would be enough. Unfortunately, you haven't provided any. Which makes me think there's none and you said the things you said just for making up some argument. Demagogy, my friend, is so demagogy.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Восток - дело тонкое. На Востоке не всегда стереотип поведения совпадает с тем, что ожидают в западном филиале западного мира. Они извинились перед Турцией, а Вы: "Неееет! Где осуждение?!! У нас принято осуждение!".

---

I might have tentatively accepted what you say if I hadn't known a bit about the Middle East. Actually, among the people it works a totally different way: they can say whatever, regardless if that's true or false, just to convince you at this very moment. Not thinking about the future and the consequences. Words do not matter. Words mean nothing.

Now, when talking about the foreign affairs, both Syria and Turkey comply with the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations. Hence, their foreign affairs are guided by the same exact principles as the other countries, including Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

А извинение в данном случае - это более высокий и мужской поступок, чем осуждение. Извинение означает не перенос ответственности на кого-то, а признание ответственности за всё, что происходит на территории своей страны. Даже если стреляли бандиты, с которыми Сирия борется.

---

Unfortunately, that seems like demagogy to me. We're talking about the international affairs, which have rather strict rules. Also, like I said earlier, I'm not sure you know the Middle Eastern culture well enough. Maybe, you made that conclusion when talking with Osetians or Chechens. So, be it known to you those are rather different cultures, even though they are all Muslim countries. Whatever works in the mountains does not necessarily work in the desert and oasis (and the other way around). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Осуждение - это более мелкий поступок, который относится скорее к сфере внутренней политики: поймали и осудили. А извинение - это больше подходит к международным делам.

---

Assume you're right. So, what holds Syria from doing the smaller thing if it had already done a bigger one? Maybe, just to satisfy small and shallow creatures like myself [and as a side effect some not-so-manly Vienna Diplomatic Conventions]. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

Если брать аналог из человеческих отношений, то на Востоке мужчина извинится за плохой поступок своей жены, но не скажет "я её осуждаю, не имею с ней ничего общего, бейте её кто хочет".

---

Ok.. here propaganda goes again.. At least, he could say it was his wife and not him! And that he does not like either what she did! How difficult was that?

Besides, I can do the same thing as yours appealling to emotions, but the other way around. Following your analogy with a wife, it's going to be a wife which the super-manly man of yours is killing and torturing. So, the wife knocks on the common wall with the neighbors in a desperate gesture of: "Please, help me, this guy is killing me!" and the framed picture falls down on the other side of the wall. The angry neighbours are coming: "Why are you knocking on the wall?" The super-manly man replies: "Oh, I apologize, it was me, I take the responsibility. This will not happen again." How attractive that super-manly man of yours is now? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Юрка

И ещё аналог: большевики заставляли отрекаться от родственников, публично осуждать их. Все должны были быть как Павлик Морозов. И ваше мышление (наших эмигрантов из СССР) похоже на большевистское.

---

The next time you're invited to the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, tell them those very things. :D

What propaganda are you talking about, Crocodile?

Syria Did not Apologize to Turkey: Al-Jaafari

Turkey says Syria apologized via U.N. for shelling | Reuters

Austrian Newspaper Apologizes for Fake Syria Photo

I admit I am not sufficiently up-to-date on this issue but sirens go off when the U.S. is able to pressure all these other countries to gang up on another one. Even if you think Assad is the worst dictator in the world, you seem to reach conclusions very quickly.

Most people do. But, there's a lot of examples of spin and lies so I think it's best to reserve judgement. Imho, the BS about Libya and Iraq showed an example of how powerful the media is and how things can be spun one way to obtain a desired situation.

I guess that is why one can have a leaning towards a perspective but (I am) still reserve judgement until obtaining more info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 14Russian

What propaganda are you talking about, Crocodile?

Syria Did not Apologize to Turkey: Al-Jaafari

Turkey says Syria apologized via U.N. for shelling | Reuters

---

Ok, now that is interesting. Turkey is saying Syria apologized and Syria is saying it did not apologize. That looks to me like the real Middle Eastern politics.

Вести.Ru: Сирийские боевики обстреляли Турцию из натовского оружия
Об обстреле турецкой территории из натовского оружия.

Quote:

---

В субботу турецкая газета "Юрд" сообщила, что тогда минометный обстрел был произведен снарядами, которые может выпускать только установка натовского образца. У сирийских военных таких установок никогда не было, зато, указывает издание, они есть у боевиков так называемой "Сирийской свободной армии". Стоит отметить, что поставила им его сама же Турция. Таким образом, в гибели пяти турок точно не виноват Башар Асад и верные ему солдаты. Реакции Анкары на разоблачительную публикацию пока не поступало.

---

Стопроцентное разоблачение, ага. Жаль лишь, что газета "Юрд" забыла рассказать, что на войне бывает т.н. "трофейное оружие" и источники его происхождения всем известны.. :D

Короче, вот про это всё я и говорил. Боюсь, что конфликт может начать выходить за пределы Сирии. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Стопроцентное разоблачение, ага. Жаль лишь, что газета "Юрд" забыла рассказать, что на войне бывает т.н. "трофейное оружие" и источники его происхождения всем известны.. :D

Короче, вот про это всё я и говорил. Боюсь, что конфликт может начать выходить за пределы Сирии. :(

---

Marcus, can you respond? :)

It sounds like what Crocodile is saying that the NATO weapons were captured?!? Of course, that would be major news and all over the mainstream sites. I guess I suddenly lost the ability to use google because I couldn't find any hits.

Or perhaps, it is Syrian rebels (also called terrorists) who were given NATO weapons to shell Turkey with? Then it could all be blamed on Assad's army. It sounds just as plausible.

SYRIA | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Edit: Ok, found at least one:
http://www.examiner.com/article/syri...boxes-damascus

But, does it prove that the perpetrators were of the army or rebels?

Quote:

---

It sounds like what Crocodile is saying that the NATO weapons were captured?!?

---

Yes, he said it could happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Or perhaps, it is Syrian rebels (also called terrorists) who were given NATO weapons to shell Turkey with? Then it could all be blamed on Assad's army. [...] But, does it prove that the perpetrators were of the army or rebels?

---

Yeah, like I said, it proves nothing. Anybody could fire NATO weapons be it Syrian Army, Syrian opposition, or Turkish Army. All I said was a comment to "разоблачительную публикацию" in the cited source. I think, there is nothing "unmasking". I'll give you an example from another Middle Eastern country nearby. There must be a certain amount of Soviet-produced weapons captured by Israel during its wars. So, if somebody opened fire towards Syrian positions from Israel with some Soviet-made weapons, what you be able to comletely rule out Israeli Army provoking Syria? And call such incident "unmasking"? The "unmasking" works subconsiously to shift the focus the certain biased way. ;)