babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Did Turkey declare war on Syria November 29 ?
November 29, 2016 - 10:30am
$$$$$$$$
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-entered-syria-to-end-al-assads-r...
I wonder what Putin will say to this. As far as I know the Assad government is reconignzed governement of Syria by most of the world.
dp
Western press is not picking up this story, everyone using hurriyet daily news as a source which seems to be a solid media source. A major turk news newspaper with a english online site.
There is an interesting contradiction here. Turkey appears to suggest that interference ought to come only through the UN. I actually find that to be a reasonable position. How this becomes an argument for unilateral intervention escapes me when we have enough of those.
I cannot say if Assad would have been toppled or survived without any foreign interference. Do we even know this?
What we do know is the war has gone on longer with more deaths due to the interference from multiple countries.
What we have had is a number of countries claim the right to interfere but lack the wherewithal or commitment to do it decisively so instead they feed the violence so more die and more are displaced. The excuse that minor actions are somehow helpful have surely been disproven. The idea that a major action will help is not looking particularly good especially given the many foreign interests that trump those of the people actually living there.
This is a return to cold war proxy conflict and the people are dying. I don't see Turkey offering a solution but they are in good company as I don't see anyone else either. At this point it is so broken can one even be identified?
I added this story to the Syria thread because I think it should be included there. It's an important story.
The UN is a US-dominated (sometimes even a disgraceful US puppet) institution. Nevertheless, it's all we have. And small countries, as Haile Selassie said, long ago, as Italy attacked Ethiopia back in 1936 with chemical weapons,...
Erdogan's shameful neo-Ottoman fantasies do not justify such barbaric disdain for the independence of a sovereign state. Such actions, if they continue and remain un-challenged, could easily form the basis for the next World War.
And that won't be a picnic.
Erdogan's shameful neo-Ottoman fantasies do not justify such barbaric disdain for the independence of a sovereign state. Such actions, if they continue and remain un-challenged, could easily form the basis for the next World War.
And that won't be a picnic.
http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/turkey-coup-d%C3...
Are they still?
It's not clear to me whether you are in agreement with Erdoğan, and his own view that he has the right to invade Syria and overthrow the elected President, or not. Maybe you could clear that up for me.
What Moscow does or doesn't think is of secondary importance here, don't you agree?
Turkey will require a constitutional amendment to continue the current State of Emergency past the six month limit. That will be in January. If passed, we can really then describe the "New Turkey" under wannabe Sultan Erdogan as a police state.
Turkey, that is to say, as a police state that invades neighbouring countries for domestic political reasons.
. What could be wrong with that?
Term due to expire in 2021, seven years after the last election.
That case could be made.
Time to invade Saudi Arabia, then.
I see that the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, has had a hurried meeting with his Russian counterpart. A quick statement about their "common" concern for fighting terrorism. Perhaps all the blovating by "Sultan" Erdogan was for domestic consumption only.
I don't really get why the Russians don't take a more "in your face" approach with Turkey. I guess someone has to be the adult in the room.
Erdogan Says Turkey Faces ‘Economic Sabotage’ as Lira Plungesby Selcan HacaogluDecember 3, 2016 — 10:43 AM EST
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday said his political enemies are trying to sabotage the economy by speculating on the stock market, foreign exchange rate and interest rates after failing to overthrow his administration in July.
The lira plunged to record lows over the past week even as Erdogan urged Turks to convert their foreign currency savings into liras and gold while vowing to keep up his fight against high interest rates........
.....they have a common enemy...global capitalism...forcing them to build a common economic infrastructure, and a new financial system....
I missed the nonsense part of this the first read through. You have, like all pro-NATO Western observers, completely ignored the fact that one country and one country only has the permission to participate in the defence of Syria against the terrorists. That is Russia. All other states have no such arrangement. They are invaders. Period. Furthermore, as such, their actions in Syria are war crimes, prima facie, since they act and presume to know better than Syria what's "good for Syria". In the case of the USA, they also "accidently" killed 62 (and wounded 100) SAA soldiers.
How convenient to ignore this simple truth. To you, all are to blame, and this claim made just when the monstrous terrorists are getting beaten to a pulp by the Syrian Arab Army and their Allies (primarily the Russian AF, but also Hezbollah and other militias, etc.) .
Truly, the barbarians here are the Western regimes. They should pay for the mess they've made. That's their "useful" contribution.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/russian-ambassador-to-turkey-karlov-sho...
Russian ambassador shot in Turkey
The paper had a reporter at the event.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/world/europe/russia-ambassador-shot-an...
They have a picture.
Sorry I missed this garbage until now. You should correct your claim from simple to simplistic.
The leader of a country is not necessarily a representation of the will of the people of that country. To suggest they are, would be to defend interventions at the request of puppets throughout the entire cold war. The US has a long list of invitations to prop up leaders of various states whose governments, without US interference would have died a natural death at the hands of the people.
Your biased interpretation of legitimate authority to invite is a distinction not worth making. Any foreign power violently going into a country is interference and prolongs conflict.
Of course you know that my position is not that of a pro-NATO observer which is why you claim me to be one -- just becuase your post intends to infuriate rather than argue or explain. I have not defended NATO or Western governments here and you know it. You are yourself part of this post truth movement to avoid anything inconvenient from your own biases.
Interference is interference regardless as to whether it is at the invitation of a government that is losing control or an opposition trying to gain it. Both prolong war and lead to greater deaths and both distort any power differences on the ground. Neither reflects any kind of "will of the people" in the country. Neither has a greater claim to legitimacy or the interst of the people.
Your aggression in your post is just designed to cover up the reality that you are making a distinction that has no basis except in the eyes of the "invitor" and its allies. The pretence of any kind of legitimacy is the lie you are selling here.
So let's get really blunt. Are you prepared to make your rule universal and sign your approval to every single intervention where the government -- no matter how illegitimate or lacking in popular approval -- has invited the intervention? Are you prepared to endorse every single US (or other imperialist) intervention whenever a side claiming to be a government has invited them?
If you are to endorse all of these, then you give up your anti-imperialist creds here. If not then you give up this bullshit line that an invitation from one party, that happens to head a government, becomes automatically a legitimate excuse for an imperial power to further its interests by getting involved in another state.
Your are completely full of it to suggest that my criticism of intervention is a defence of western governments or NATO, when their history of intervention is well known.
Now if you want to debate without the insults I am happy to but you need to get off your sanctimonious name-calling.
The Syrian war would have ended long ago -- on one side or another -- had foreign countries not intervened. I include them all becuase they have all fed the bloodshed. I have not defended one side against another -- it is you trying to do that. You are part of the problem defending an intervention. Your hypocrisy is the blood that flows through the heart of your line of argument in this thread whitewashed by the flimsy, pathetic invitation argument that nobody who is a true anti-imperialist has accepted at any point. Here you promote Russian imperialism becuase somehow you think it is a better brand of it.
Intervention is bad enough -- meddling just to keep a proxy war going killing more and more people, without a willingness to committ enough to end it is worse. But do not pretend that you have any moral ground to stand on by way of some invitation.
The only defence Russia has here may be that it is committing enough to end the war. But its intervention is still an intervention and designed for the interests of Russia not Syria. The good thing would be that the war end. That's it.
Good luck with that request.