Turkey Right Now

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mage246 said:
Why is the Turkish government being so slow in banning ancalimon?

He is not joking though.

Here is the full dialogue of the scandal about how Turkey was planning a false flag operation in Syria:
Turkey war room secrets revealed: Turkish authorities wants to create a casus belli for Syria intervention.
In the leaked tape,

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davudoğlu
Head of Turkish Intelligence MIT Hakan Fidan
Undersecretary of Foreign Ministry Feridun Sinirlioğlu
General Yaşar Güler
search for a reason (and wants to create one if the search is not fruitful) to declare war against Syria. The leakage has two parts, the latter is yet to be translated to English. Here is the first part.

Başçalanın Seçim Güdümlü Savaş Planı 1-1

ELECTION DRIVEN WAR PLANS – I PART 1 Ahmet Davutoğlu: “Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us.”
Hakan Fidan: “I’ll send 4 men from Syria, if that’s what it takes. I’ll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary.”
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: “Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit.”
Yaşar Güler: “It’s a direct cause of war. I mean, what’re going to do is a direct cause of war.”
FIRST SCREEN:
Ahmet Davutoğlu: I couldn’t entirely understand the other thing; what exactly does our foreign ministry supposed to do? No, I’m not talking about the thing. There are other things we’re supposed to do. If we decide on this, we are to notify the United Nations, the Istanbul Consulate of the Syrian regime, right?
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: But if we decide on an operation in there, it should create a shocking effect. I mean, if we are going to do so. I don’t know what we’re going to do, but regardless of what we decide, I don’t think it’d be appropriate to notify anyone beforehand.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: OK, but we’re gonna have to prepare somehow. To avoid any shorts on regarding international law. I just realized when I was talking to the president (Abdullah Gül), if the Turkish tanks go in there, it means we’re in there in any case, right?
Yaşar Güler: It means we’re in, yes.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: Yeah, but there’s a difference between going in with aircraft and going in with tanks…
SECOND SCREEN:
Yaşar Güler: Maybe we can tell the Syrian consulate general that, ISIL is currently working alongside the regime, and that place is Turkish land. We should definitely…
Ahmet Davutoğlu: But we have already said that, sent them several diplomatic notes.
Yaşar Güler: To Syria…
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: That’s right.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: Yes, we’ve sent them countless times. Therefore, I’d like to know what our Chief of Staff’s expectations from our ministry.
Yaşar Güler: Maybe his intent was to say that, I don’t really know, he met with Mr. Fidan.
Hakan Fidan: Well, he did mention that part but we didn’t go into any further details.
Yaşar Güler: Maybe that was what he meant… A diplomatic note to Syria?
Hakan Fidan: Maybe the Foreign Ministry is assigned with coordination…
THIRD SCREEN:
Ahmet Davutoğlu: I mean, I could coordinate the diplomacy but civil war, the military…
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: That’s what I told back there. For one thing, the situation is different. An operation on ISIL has solid ground on international law. We’re going to portray this is Al-Qaeda, there’s no distress there if it’s a matter regarding Al-Qaeda. And if it comes to defending Suleiman Shah Tomb, that’s a matter of protecting our land.
Yaşar Güler: We don’t have any problems with that.
Hakan Fidan: Second after it happens, it’ll cause a great internal commotion (several bombing events is bound to happen within). The border is not under control…
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: I mean, yes, the bombings are of course going to happen. But I remember our talk from 3 years ago…
Yaşar Güler: Mr. Fidan should urgently receive back-up and we need to help him supply guns and ammo to rebels. We need to speak with the minister. Our Interior Minister, our Defense Minister. We need to talk about this and reach a resolution sir.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: How did we get specials forces into action when there was a threat in Northern Iraq? We should have done so in there, too. We should have trained those men. We should have sent men. Anyway, we can’t do that, we can only do what diplomacy…
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: I told you back then, for God’s sake, general, you know how we managed to get those tanks in, you were there.
Yaşar Güler: What, you mean our stuff?
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: Yes, how do you think we’ve managed to rally our tanks into Iraq? How? How did manage to get special forces, the battalions in? I was involved in that. Let me be clear, there was no government decision on that, we have managed that just with a single order.
FOURTH SCREEN:
Yaşar Güler: Well, I agree with you. For one thing, we’re not even discussing that. But there are different things that Syria can do right now.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: General, the reason we’re saying no this operation is because we know about the capacity of those men.
Yaşar Güler: Look, sir, isn’t MKE (Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation) at minister’s bidding? Sir, I mean, Qatar is looking for ammo to buy in cash. Ready cash. So, why don’t they just get it done? It’s at Mr. Minister’s command.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: But there’s the spot we can’t act integratedly, we can’t coordinate.
Yaşar Güler: Then, our Prime Minister can summon both Mr. Defence Minister and Mr. Minister at the same time. Then he can directly talk to them.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: We, Mr. Siniroğlu and I, have literally begged Mr. Prime Minster for a private meeting, we said that things were not looking so bright.
FIFTH SCREEN:
Yaşar Güler: Also, it doesn’t have to be crowded meeting. Yourself, Mr. Defence Minister, Mr. Interior Minister and our Chief of Staff, the four of you are enough. There’s no need for a crowd. Because, sir, the main need there is guns and ammo. Not even guns, mainly ammo. We’ve just talked about this, sir. Let’s say we’re building an army down there, 1000 strong. If we get them into that war without previously storing a minimum of 6-months’ worth of ammo, these men will return to us after two months.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: They’re back already.
Yaşar Güler: They’ll return to us, sir.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: They’ve came back from… What was it? Çobanbey.
Yaşar Güler: Yes, indeed, sir. This matter can’t be just a burden on Mr. Fidan’s shoulders as it is now. It’s unacceptable. I mean, we can’t understand this. Why?
SIXTH SCREEN:
Ahmet Davutoğlu: That evening we’d reached a resolution. And I thought that things were taking a turn for the good. Our…
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: We issued the MGK (National Security Council) resolution the day after. Then we talked with the general…
Ahmet Davutoğlu: And the other forces really do a good follow up on this weakness of ours. You say that you’re going to capture this place, and that men being there constitutes a risk factor. You pull them back. You capture the place. You reinforce it and send in your troops again.
Yaşar Güler: Exactly, sir. You’re absolutely right.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: Right? That’s how I interpret it. But after the evacuation, this is not a military necessity. It’s a whole other thing.
SEVENTH SCREEN
Feridun Siniroğlu: There are some serious shifts in global and regional geopolitics. It now can spread to other places. You said it yourself today, and others agreed… We’re headed to a different game now. We should be able to see those. That ISIL and all that jazz, all those organizations are extremely open to manipulation. Having a region made up of organizations of similar nature will constitute a vital security risk for us. And when we first went into Northern Iraq, there was always the risk of PKK blowing up the place. If we thoroughly consider the risks and substantiate… As the general just said…
Yaşar Güler: Sir, when you were inside a moment ago, we were discussing just that. Openly. I mean, armed forces are a “tool” necessary for you in every turn.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: Of course. I always tell the Prime Minister, in your absence, the same thing in academic jargon, you can’t stay in those lands without hard power. Without hard power, there can be no soft power.
EIGTH SCREEN
Yaşar Güler: Sir.
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: The national security has been politicized. I don’t remember anything like this in Turkish political history. It has become a matter of domestic policy. All talks we’ve done on defending our lands, our border security, our sovereign lands in there, they’ve all become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit.
Yaşar Güler: Exactly.
Feridun Siniroğlu: That has never happened before. Unfortunately but…
Yaşar Güler: I mean, do even one of the opposition parties support you in such a high point of national security? Sir, is this a justifiable sense of national security?
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: I don’t even remember such a period.
NINTH SCREEN:
Yaşar Güler: In what matter can we be unified, if not a matter of national security of such importance? None.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: The year 2012, we didn’t do it 2011. If only we’d took serious action back then, even in the summer of 2012.
Feridun Sinirlioğlu: They were at their lowest back in 2012.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: Internally, they were just like Libya. Who comes in and goes from power is not of any importance to us. But some things…
Yaşar Güler: Sir, to avoid any confusion, our need in 2011 was guns and ammo. In 2012, 2013 and today also. We’re in the exact same point. We absolutely need to find this and secure that place.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: Guns and ammo are not a big need for that place. Because we couldn’t get the human factor in order…
 
Kobrag said:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=417_1395941834

This is BIG. It's all over the news now. It was first released on Youtube, which is why Youtube got blocked in the first place. There is more info in English on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/21ia5a/turkey_bans_youtube/
 
Major german news are picking it up as well

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/tuerkei-erdogan-laesst-youtube-sperren-a-961163.html

Particularly the angry reaction by the turkish government and its threats and claims of treason to whomever publicized the conversation back up its authenticy.
 
What would Erdogan gain from outright war against Syria? Seems to me like it would be the equivalent of sticking your hand in a grinder just to see what it feels like.
 
Well, from my assessment he couldn't really lend that much to it. Air superiority is about it, any Turkish ground forces would get shredded for a variety of reasons.
 
Austupaio said:
Well, from my assessment he couldn't really lend that much to it. Air superiority is about it, any Turkish ground forces would get shredded for a variety of reasons.

Yep. Which doesn't necessarily mean that they are NOT trying to get involved. Putin-excepted, Irrational authoritarians are not known for making "wise" foreign policy decisions.

Nonetheless, its an interesting question: why would Erdogan want to go to war against Syria? Distraction? Excuse for martial law?
 
Anthropoid said:
Austupaio said:
Well, from my assessment he couldn't really lend that much to it. Air superiority is about it, any Turkish ground forces would get shredded for a variety of reasons.

Yep. Which doesn't necessarily mean that they are NOT trying to get involved. Putin-excepted, Irrational authoritarians are not known for making "wise" foreign policy decisions.

Nonetheless, its an interesting question: why would Erdogan want to go to war against Syria? Distraction? Excuse for martial law?

He could delay the local elections (which are on the 30th) that he might "lose" and take advantage of people's patriotic and nationalist emotions to regain his popularity. Other than that, there are probably lots of other things that we don't know about.
 
Anthropoid said:
Austupaio said:
Well, from my assessment he couldn't really lend that much to it. Air superiority is about it, any Turkish ground forces would get shredded for a variety of reasons.

Yep. Which doesn't necessarily mean that they are NOT trying to get involved. Putin-excepted, Irrational authoritarians are not known for making "wise" foreign policy decisions.

Nonetheless, its an interesting question: why would Erdogan want to go to war against Syria? Distraction? Excuse for martial law?

I think Erdoğan and his party in general are what I would call Pro Neo-Sunni (neo here meaning corrupted).

Erdoğan has made quite an impression on the Semitic Sunni population of Middle East. He seriously is seen by them as some kind of savior. I think Erdoğan wants to use the Turkish army against non-Sunni population of Middle East.
 
There's dozens of different interpretations of what "sunni" should really mean. Saying they're not REALLY "sunni" is just some bull**** No True Scotsmanism. But essentially I agree with you, geopolitically the shia in Lebanon and Syria (even if they're themselves fragmented in different ideologies, they're still closer to twelver shia islam than sunni) are aligned with Iran, out of necessity more than anything else. Given the recent shift to religious propaganda as a political tool it's not surprising Turkey is joining Qatar and Saudi Arabia and all of the rest of the wahhabi retards club, with some pakistani deobandis thrown in for good measure. It's a proxy war of regional powers in the Mid East broken down along religious/ethnic barriers.
Turkey has already tried to start **** with Syria during it's ongoing civil war, from repeated claims of air space abuse to irredentist claims on turkmen territory and desiring the protection of their "race" there (still better reasons than Russia in Crimea, there is an actual civil war going on there unlike the poor "opressed" russian minority in Crimea who were "victims" of absolutely nothing despite propaganda of nazis and genocide and ethnic cleansing blared incessently from state controlled russian media ). Not to mention all the weapons and fighters flowing in from Syria's northern border.
 
So let me see if I get this right . . . Assad regime, Shia and allied with Iran. Current Iraqi regime Shia, but with major Sunni insurgency (Iraqi Al Qaeda recently regained control of Fallujah right?). Saudia Arabia, and Afghanistan Sunni (hate Shia Iranians), and significant Pakistani Sunnis. Egypt I seem to recall is mostly Shia CORRECTION Sunni and with Sunni-Shia violence, plus secular pole as well. So we got a massive geographic patchwork of enemy-friend-enemy-friend.

We got 13+ years of violence in Iraq, basically 36 years of war in Afghanistan, with the most recent "Coalition vs. Taliban/Al Qaeda" phase lasting for over 12 years. We got nuclear armed Jewish Israel surrounded by Islamic militants and a long history of conflict and violence there.

Now Turkey, long considered the most moderate, secular, democratic of Islamic states in the region is slowly deteriorating into a religious militant authoritarian regime . . . Horrific, vicious civil war ongoing for over three years in nearby Syria, and what is the main theme underlying that conflict? Sunni-faithful vs. Shia-secular, eh?

So maybe Erdogan by going to full fledged war against the Assad regime, sees a possibility to delay his reelection, distract public opinion, give excuse to crack down on protests and opposition, even impose more martial law and potentially retain power indefinitely.

Not too hard to conclude that the Islamic world is teetering on the brink of a massive international religious war.
 
If by Maghreb you mean Morocco, then yeah, probably one of the most stable muslim countries in the world. Algeria, Tunisia and Lybia though?...Not to mention Mauretania, where slavery is STILL ******** legal and protected under "cultural" reasons or how the Sahara is the open roving ground for dozens of religious extremist groups and criminals funneling drugs into Europe. They're often the same people in fact. How do you think they finance themselves?
Egypt is sunni incidentally, although like in a lot of sunni majority countries there are small shia communities. Heck, there are shia in Saudi Arabia. They're treated like second class citizens obviously, but they're there. And shia-secular, what? That's an oxymoron. No, they can just as religiously demented as any wahhabi. A cursory examination of Iran or Hezbollah proves it.
 
Technically Algeria is still in a civil war. Tunisia though, granted. Even the Arab Spring there was like a shower of flowers compared to the repercussions in Lybia or Egypt. I've met plenty of secular sunni as well. Let's not kid anyone though, they are overwhelming minorities in their own countries, politically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom