Thread: Turkey strikes targets in Syria in retaliation for shelling deaths

Turkey strikes targets in Syria in retaliation for shelling deaths - CNN.com

Is that making the 'December 2012' to get just a bit closer or:

"A senior U.S. defense official said the Pentagon is watching the situation with some degree of concern, "but at this point, there's nothing to suggest it's going to become a broader conflict."

What do you think? (Ideally, anything else other than "The US is looking for the ways to invade Syria" or alike).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

(Ideally, anything else other than "The US is looking for the ways to invade Syria" or alike).

Вы требуете невозможного.
Хотя скажу. Обстрел турецкой деревни – провокация со стороны Турции для оправдания более активного вмешательства в войну в Сирии.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Обстрел турецкой деревни – провокация со стороны Турции для оправдания более активного вмешательства в войну в Сирии.

1) Провокация не нужна. Достаточно просто дождаться шального снаряда.
2) По-моему, этот снаряд Турции выгоден. Теперь у неё развязаны руки. И Западу выгоден. Так как Турция - это агент Запада. И Крокодилу выгоден. Так как он агент Запада. (Агент - это тот, кто действует в чьих-то интересах).
3) Сирия конечно не хочет войны с Турцией или кем-то ещё. Надо быть самоубийцей чтобы в сложной ситуации хотеть ещё повоевать и с регулярными войсками соседних государств. Тем более, что у Турции очень многочисленная армия.

Originally Posted by Юрка

2) По-моему, этот снаряд Турции выгоден. Теперь у неё развязаны руки. И Западу выгоден. Так как Турция - это агент Запада. И Крокодилу выгоден. Так как он агент Запада. (Агент - это тот, кто действует в чьих-то интересах).

I'm not just a Western agent, I'm also paid by the West, so I'm a paid agent! (I'm paid to do other things, but it's the West which pays me. So, we all know whoever pays, dictates what to do... )

In investigation practice, the approach of "who benefits" is valid only to define a circle of the suspects and nothing more. However, when used outside of the applicability context, the "who benefits" becomes a powerful weapon of a propaganda to blame your political opponents of just about anything that happens. No proof is ever required.

Originally Posted by Юрка

3) Сирия конечно не хочет войны с Турцией или кем-то ещё. Надо быть самоубийцей чтобы в сложной ситуации хотеть ещё повоевать и с регулярными войсками соседних государств. Тем более, что у Турции очень многочисленная армия.

I agree to some extent. However, the problem with those kind of claims is that you can make that claim the other way around. For example: Syrian government wants to get rid of the insurgents, so it provokes Turkey thus putting the insurgents into the political situation in which they collaborate with the enemy. And that can significantly hit the motivation of the insurgents as well as the civilians who help them maybe causing their forces to split and thus weaken. "All Syrians, unite to fight the common enemy - Turkey!! They want our land and they want to kill our people and rape our women!! If you are a patriot, join the Army and fight Turkey with us!" That will not result with the war with Turkey (the UN Security Council will not let that happen), but it might effectively end the insurgence and make Assad be the leader of the nation again.

It is exactly because that logic (i.e. "who benefits") can go any way you want, it is LOVED by propaganda (and is strictly avoided by me outside of the applicability context). So, being the smart and the honest guy as you are, I think you would appreciate that and do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree to some extent. However, the problem with those kind of claims is that you can make that claim the other way around. For example: Syrian government wants to get rid of the insurgents, so it provokes Turkey thus putting the insurgents into the political situation in which they collaborate with the enemy. And that can significantly hit the motivation of the insurgents as well as the civilians who help them maybe causing their forces to split and thus weaken. "All Syrians, unite to fight the common enemy - Turkey!! They want our land and they want to kill our people and rape our women!! If you are a patriot, join the Army and fight Turkey with us!" That will not result with the war with Turkey (the UN Security Council will not let that happen), but it might effectively end the insurgence and make Assad be the leader of the nation again.

It is exactly because that logic (i.e. "who benefits") can go any way you want, it is LOVED by propaganda (and is strictly avoided by me outside of the applicability context). So, being the smart and the honest guy as you are, I think you would appreciate that and do the same thing.

То, что повстанцы получают всестороннюю помощь от Турции, всем в Сирии очевидно.

Originally Posted by Marcus

То, что повстанцы получают всестороннюю помощь от Турции, всем в Сирии очевидно.

And, again the same "propaganda magic" can be applied the other way around: the fact that Assad's regime is being supported by Iran is obvious to anyone in Syria.

Also: Lebanon news - NOW Lebanon -Iran assisted Syria to relocate chemical weapons, Al-Arabiya leaks reveal

You see? If you talk propaganda with me, I can easily talk propaganda back, because propaganda exists for each and every situation for any side you like. There's nothing to think about. I'm used to share my own thoughts (be them maybe 100% wrong), but when I ask others and they get back to me with propaganda I feel like . If I need to read propaganda I know where to find it. I'm curious to know what do you think of that?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not just a Western agent, I'm also paid by the West, so I'm a paid agent!

Наверное на первом же занятии агентам Запада рассказывают об этом способе ухода от угрозы раскрытия: сразу признаться, но перевести всё в шутку.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

"All Syrians, unite to fight the common enemy - Turkey!! They want our land and they want to kill our people and rape our women!! If you are a patriot, join the Army and fight Turkey with us!"

А я предполагаю другую логику. Бандам в Сирии очень трудно. Им очень нужна прямая военная поддержка (интервеция) стран Запада. Поэтому они сами стреляют в сторону Турции, организовывая провокации.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That will not result with the war with Turkey (the UN Security Council will not let that happen)

Нет стран, переступающих через Совет Безопасности в вопросах войны? Есть НАТО, есть США, есть Турция. Им нужен только повод, чтобы сохранить хорошую мину при плохой игре. Совбез им пока мешает, но если надо они об него ноги вытрут.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Наверное на первом же занятии агентам Запада рассказывают об этом способе ухода от угрозы раскрытия: сразу признаться, но перевести всё в шутку.

Wow! You have also figured out about our top secret Зе Скул?! You know too much, my friend...

Originally Posted by Юрка

А я предполагаю другую логику. Бандам в Сирии очень трудно. Им очень нужна прямая военная поддержка (интервеция) стран Запада. Поэтому они сами стреляют в сторону Турции, организовывая провокации.

Ok, let's assume you're right. Imagine you and me are the two field commanders of the Syrian opposition. Both of us are meeting at the dawn, dressed up in dirty and wet camouflage, surrounded by our best people. Everybody is tired and angry: it has been a very tough night - we were escorting the weaponry and ammo delivered by a Turkish guy named Murat. We don't know how he gets the weapons, but the rumors have it - the guy is stealing the weapon from the Turkish army and sells it for the relatively cheap. We can't pay more anyways. The following conversation takes place:

(Crocodile) - Man, my people are tired. It's getting worse and worse. First, those bastards killed Hossein and his brother Sаddam, and now about the quarter of my group are sick. The motivation is low. What do you think we should do?

(Юрка) - I have a brilliant idea. Let's fire a couple of shells towards Turkish villages and kill a dozen of villagers! That way Turkey would intervene in our war against the bastards, oust Assad and hand us the power!

- Are you out of your mind? What's going to happen is Murat would kill us all the very next time we show up to get more ammo!

- You have never been smart, Crocodile. You just don't understand where the weapon is coming from. It is actually the US paying for all the weapon and the ammo we get and Murat is just an agent of the US because he acts the way that benefits the US. So, the US can see we're tired and in order to help us they are only looking for us to provoke Turkey, so Turkey could have legal ground to start war against Syria. Assad, that is. They will not touch us for sure. Instead, they would give us the power to reign once they are finished.

- How do you know all that stuff, Юрка? Do you have a crystal ball?

- You're young and don't have much experience like me.

- You know, if you want to be crazy and kill yourself this very exotic way, it's your right. But, I don't want Turkish coming to kill, rob, and rape whoever they see fit because I was an officer in the Syrian army, so I don't let you do that!!

(The fire exchange starts.)

Can you see your assumption is rather close to absurd in practice?

Я тоже высказываю свои мысли, а не пропаганду.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Я тоже высказываю свои мысли, а не пропаганду.

So, how do you know what is obvious for Syrians and what is not? And what that "obvious" has to do with the rest of the topic?!

Assad had already explicitly said, he would attack Israel if NATO would intervene, right? And if that happens, Israel will retaliate which could spin things out of control, right? So, what interest NATO (i.e. one of their member - Turkey) would have in attacking Syria?! Speaking of the benefits, it is much more beneficial for NATO to sit quiet, talking about the 'freedom fighters' (and maybe even helping them with weapons like you said) waiting for the "freedom" to slowly take effect, as it is happening today, than fire any kind of weapon towards Syria! Why to start stirring if Syria would be yours from within in a matter of months?! It is Assad's government which needs to do anything extraordinary to save his butt. On the contrary, the US is trying to play down the incident: "but at this point, there's nothing to suggest it's going to become a broader conflict."

So, what "impossible" had I asked?! Why to blame the US government again?! What makes the thoughts like: "Обстрел турецкой деревни – провокация со стороны Турции для оправдания более активного вмешательства в войну в Сирии" yours?! Can you really think that way? I'm pretty sure you haven't thought a second before writing that purely propagandistic point. It just came out naturally without any thinking as it would for anybody who is heavily influenced by propaganda. And that is a pity.

Besides, all I asked in my original question was whether this conflict would escalate or not. There was nothing impossible to answer without blaming the US government again, wasn't it? I'm looking for your thoughts on that matter...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Turkey strikes targets in Syria in retaliation for shelling deaths - CNN.com

Is that making the 'December 2012' to get just a bit closer or:

"A senior U.S. defense official said the Pentagon is watching the situation with some degree of concern, "but at this point, there's nothing to suggest it's going to become a broader conflict."

What do you think? (Ideally, anything else other than "The US is looking for the ways to invade Syria" or alike).

I cannot see how this or anything similar could bring "the December 2012" around. That dictator is pretty much similar to the former Lybian one, and he's obviously going to end up like him, be it international forces or his own people from inside the country, that will put him down. But that's it, just another stinky dictatorship erased from the world, it'll hardly lead to collapse of anything else.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I cannot see how this or anything similar could bring "the December 2012" around. That dictator is pretty much similar to the former Lybian one, and he's obviously going to end up like him, be it international forces or his own people from inside the country, that will put him down. But that's it, just another stinky dictatorship erased from the world, it'll hardly lead to collapse of anything else.

What about the dictatorship in the U.S.?

So, if a 'major super power' arms rebels, you are supposed to lean over? Both groups are vicious to one another, the difference is one is supported by all the globalists.

So, Assad will attack with some rockets when the rest are all against him?

I guess you guys think the 'international intervention' in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. have all been successes, right?!? LOL!

Originally Posted by 14Russian

What about the dictatorship in the U.S.?

So, if a 'major super power' arms rebels, you are supposed to lean over? Both groups are vicious to one another, the difference is one is supported by all the globalists.

So, Assad will attack with some rockets when the rest are all against him?

I guess you guys think the 'international intervention' in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. have all been successes, right?!? LOL!

I can't say they were successes, many ppl died in that hell, etc. But what I was saying was that whatever way the events in Syria go, they'll hardly bring some sort of "global collapse" or anything. And I think the dictator won't really have guts to go with a rocket strike while busy defending his ass against the people.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I cannot see how this or anything similar could bring "the December 2012" around. That dictator is pretty much similar to the former Lybian one, and he's obviously going to end up like him, be it international forces or his own people from inside the country, that will put him down. But that's it, just another stinky dictatorship erased from the world, it'll hardly lead to collapse of anything else.

Well, as far as I know, Gaddafi did not have the weapons with the proper range to attack Israel and Assad does. In that case, Israel would retaliate, Iran would intervene as promised, China would intervene, etc.

Here's what I was thinking... There's a great chance Israel would be pressed not to retaliate the same way it was pressed not to reply to Hussen's missiles in 1991. So, this time Israel would say: "Oh, so Turkey could reply and we cannot?!" I'm thinking that was the reason for shelling Turkey. To make a close precedent.

Does that sound a bit more serious now?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well, as far as I know, Gaddafi did not have the weapons with the proper range to attack Israel and Assad does. In that case, Israel would retaliate, Iran would intervene as promised, China would intervene, etc.

Here's what I was thinking... There's a great chance Israel would be pressed not to retaliate the same way it was pressed not to reply to Hussen's missiles in 1991. So, this time Israel would say: "Oh, so Turkey could reply and we cannot?!" I'm thinking that was the reason for shelling Turkey. To make a close precedent.

Does that sound a bit more serious now?

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. 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?

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."

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..

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.

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"?

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...

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).

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.