turkey shoots down russian fighter jet...

[Hexen]

Oh right, so everything they publish must be nonsense.

All I'm saying is you must take everything from a grain of salt when it comes to sources you know especially the ideological basis that they're run by.

[Emmett Till]

Well first of all the former is Russia's Fox News and the latter is a conspiracy mongering site dressed up as 'leftist' due to the WW3 hype apparent there which is popular among conspiracy nuts since it links to their main basis (biblical prophecies).

Russia's Fox News? Well, maybe so, but if Fox News reported the cancelling of an American pipeline project there would be no reason to think they were making it up.

As for the "South Shall Rise Again" religious nutcases, even a stopped clock can be right once a day.

Their notion that Erdogan is blackmailing the Europeans with Syrian refugees is so inherently plausible that I suspect they have that one right.

But guess what, that kind of blackmail doesn't work on America, the right wing backlash since Paris means that there won't be any Syria refugees allowed into America.

And sure enough, whereas the Europeans may be playing the hate Russia card, we now have a turnabout, and suddenly the American press is more favorable to Putin after Paris. and so is the Obama administration. (The Republicans and Hillary with their Syrian no fly zone for the benefit of ISIS are a comedy act, which Hillary I am sure realises but the Republican clowns may not.) If you really want to go after ISIS, and America does, then some sort of deal with Putin is necessary.

[ckaihatsu]

[E]rdogan is blackmailing the Europeans with Syrian refugees

The reason why this kind of formulation can *correctly* be termed a 'conspiracy theory' is because it doesn't *logistically* hold-up....

True to its definition, it confers more 'power' / 'authority' / determination to the relatively subjective parties (nations) involved than is *objectively* possible....

The Syrian refugees, like *all* refugees, are going to want to head for the most economically developed countries, like those in Europe, and the U.S. -- whereas the affected countries like Turkey and those of the EU, regardless of *intent*, are not going to be able to *redirect* and *corral* refugees according to some kind of master conspired plan.

In other words this is a case of purported, projected 'micromanagement' onto those countries that clearly have less and less geopolitical leverage in the transpiring situation (Syrian refugees), which is 'blowback' from those same countries' recent prior actions, namely supporting ISIS against the cohesion of the Syrian state.

[Comrade Jacob]

He won't even apologise the absolute mad-man. They violate air-space all the time (thousands a year in Greece). Hundreds of nations have violated theirs this year and they somehow chose to shoot down a Russian jet? Clearly protecting the Da'esh area inbetween the Kurdish areas for their oil trade.

[Бай Ганьо]

An analysis by The Saker: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/week-nine-...-strikes-back/

[ckaihatsu]

An analysis by The Saker: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/week-nine-...-strikes-back/

The following is the real crux of the matter -- if the Western powers really are serious about curtailing ISIS then the first step would be the one that's most available to them, a geopolitical one, namely dealing with Turkey's position:

[I]t has now become undeniable that Turkey is not only an ally, but a patron and sponsor of Daesh.

[Devrim]

The Syrian refugees, like *all* refugees, are going to want to head for the most economically developed countries, like those in Europe, and the U.S.

This is completely untrue. 95% of the world's refugees are in countries bordering their own. 95% of Syrian refugees are in neighbouring countries. Turkey has over two million refugees. Gaziantepe, a small city in Turkey that I presume you have not heard of, has more refugees than all of Europe.

Devrim

[Sasha]

This is completely untrue. 95% of the world's refugees are in countries bordering their own. 95% of Syrian refugees are in neighbouring countries. Turkey has over two million refugees. Gaziantepe, a small city in Turkey that I presume you have not heard of, has more refugees than all of Europe.

Devrim

yup, and lebanon 1 in 4 people is a syrian refugee now, what makes most people move on to Europe is the realization that they have nothing to return too in the foreseeable future, that they seek dignified education and livelihood for themselves and their family.
(of which one of the reasons is that refugees in turkey are not able to work legally or study because Turkey didnt sign the refugee manifest)

if your house burned down you wait in a nearby hostel until the insurance comes through and you can rebuild, if the city was leveled by a nuclear accident you get the fuck out of the state.

it says a lot about the horror of the situation in Syria and how many Syrians view the future of the country that they move outside the region in these numbers (even when most, for now, stay), Palestinians but even Iraqi's never did this in these percentages for example.

[Devrim]

But the percentage is still low. It's just that the overall number is massive. Refugees are certainly allowed to work legally in Turkey, at least in some sectors.

To be honest with those who move are not the poorest of the refugees. They are the ones who hav money. The people smugglers taking them across the Agean on those dangerous boats are charging obscene amounts of money. Most of them don't have it.

Devrim

[Aslan]

Jordan has 1/4th of it's population as refugees. Also another thing apperantly the amount of children people have in Iraq and Syria has been dropping since the 80s. And now that all this shit has happened, it'll probably drop even faster.

Take that Eurabia screaming fascists!

[Emmett Till]

The reason why this kind of formulation can *correctly* be termed a 'conspiracy theory' is because it doesn't *logistically* hold-up....

True to its definition, it confers more 'power' / 'authority' / determination to the relatively subjective parties (nations) involved than is *objectively* possible....

The Syrian refugees, like *all* refugees, are going to want to head for the most economically developed countries, like those in Europe, and the U.S. -- whereas the affected countries like Turkey and those of the EU, regardless of *intent*, are not going to be able to *redirect* and *corral* refugees according to some kind of master conspired plan.

In other words this is a case of purported, projected 'micromanagement' onto those countries that clearly have less and less geopolitical leverage in the transpiring situation (Syrian refugees), which is 'blowback' from those same countries' recent prior actions, namely supporting ISIS against the cohesion of the Syrian state.

Wrong. Turkey has quite strong border controls, unlike for example Greece.

So yes, it is not difficult for Erdogan to turn the tap on and off for refugees escaping Turkey for Greece, the next stop to Europe. Indeed, if Turkey wanted to *facilitate* refugees escaping for Europe, nothing would be easier than just having the Turkish navy escort them by the hundred thousands onto Greek islands, or just filling up the trains from Istanbul to Thessalonica.

Granted, they can't micromanage the flow precisely, many refugees and paid smugglers can find ways of getting around Turkish border controls. But given that we have hundreds of thousands of human beings involved, if let us say Erdogan ends up off by ten or twenty thousand as to how many refugees he wants to deluge the EU with, no big deal.

[Emmett Till]

The following is the real crux of the matter -- if the Western powers really are serious about curtailing ISIS then the first step would be the one that's most available to them, a geopolitical one, namely dealing with Turkey's position:

The Saker is a right wing whacko.

The "West" is in a cleft stick over Turkey. Yes, the "West" at this point, whatever the powers may have felt 4-5 years ago, has noticed that the Frankenstein monster has turned on its creator, and would definitely like to put an end to ISIS. But pushing Turkey around is a big problem. Turkey is a very important country, economically, politically and militarily, so Obama and the rest of the "Western" Too Live Crew are kinda stuck.

Bad news for the imperialists, ultimately good news for the people of the world.

[A.J.]

As for the "South Shall Rise Again" religious nutcases, even a stopped clock can be right once a day.

Their notion that Erdogan is blackmailing the Europeans with Syrian refugees is so inherently plausible that I suspect they have that one right.

Or twice a day if it's using 12 hour time.

[ckaihatsu]

The Saker is a right wing whacko.

The "West" is in a cleft stick over Turkey. Yes, the "West" at this point, whatever the powers may have felt 4-5 years ago, has noticed that the Frankenstein monster has turned on its creator, and would definitely like to put an end to ISIS. But pushing Turkey around is a big problem. Turkey is a very important country, economically, politically and militarily, so Obama and the rest of the "Western" Too Live Crew are kinda stuck.

Bad news for the imperialists, ultimately good news for the people of the world.

Well, then, this is your *line* on the situation, and it *sucks* -- you're saying that Turkey will just remain unchanged, which implies that it'll continue to funnel arms to ISIS, so that ISIS can continue to carry out acts of violence, as it's already proven to do.

Worse, you're also saying that any strikes against the Western powers / imperialists are *unreservedly* good -- I'll simply juxtapose *my* line here, from that other thread:

[A]ny blows against the empire by ISIS will not be 'free'. The Islamic State will claim ground of their own from whatever efforts of theirs are successful, and they'd have no problem subjugating people to their belief system.

[Emmett Till]

Well, then, this is your *line* on the situation, and it *sucks* -- you're saying that Turkey will just remain unchanged, which implies that it'll continue to funnel arms to ISIS, so that ISIS can continue to carry out acts of violence, as it's already proven to do.

Worse, you're also saying that any strikes against the Western powers / imperialists are *unreservedly* good -- I'll simply juxtapose *my* line here, from that other thread:

Turkey will remain unchanged, until the working people of Turkey overthrow Erdogan in particular and capitalism in general. But that would require revolution, something you have lost interest in, rather you want to play the "geopolitics" game and defend Western Civilization against Muslim barbarians. Why you are still here on Revleft I do not understand, surely there are larger Internet ponds to play in for folks who believe as you do.

Strikes against the *people* who live in "the West," terrorism against civilians, is unreservedly bad. Strikes against the military forces of the imperialist ruling classes by people, whatever their politics, who are oppressed by imperialism and capitalism and wish to strike out against the oppressors are unreservedly good. That is ABC, anyone who doesn't understand that really doesn't belong here.

[ckaihatsu]

Turkey will remain unchanged,

No, not necessarily -- you're implying that I'm being naive for thinking that a multipolar roundtable will accomplish anything, while I'm maintaining that it's either geopolitical cooperation, or world war (and I favor cooperation).

until the working people of Turkey overthrow Erdogan in particular and capitalism in general.

No political differences here.

But that would require revolution, something you have lost interest in, rather you want to play the "geopolitics" game and defend Western Civilization against Muslim barbarians.

This is downright insulting, and you're continuing to impute characteristics onto my politics that simply don't exist. It's really a *pattern* with you, that you're just making accusations, to see what 'sticks' and what doesn't.

Why you are still here on Revleft I do not understand, surely there are larger Internet ponds to play in for folks who believe as you do.

Strikes against the *people* who live in "the West," terrorism against civilians, is unreservedly bad.

See, this is as far as the radical position can go -- to do some perfunctory hand-wringing about ISIS' attacks, and then to ignore any implications for the future regarding the perpetrators.

Strikes against the military forces of the imperialist ruling classes by people, whatever their politics, who are oppressed by imperialism and capitalism and wish to strike out against the oppressors are unreservedly good.

So after bemoaning the strikes against the people of the West, you're then saying that ISIS attacks against the *military* of the West is *good*.

But, guess, what -- ? ISIS *isn't* attacking the *military* of the West, it's attacking *regular people*, or 'civilians'.

Are you *applauding* these particular violent tactics, as being 'good', and somehow even 'anti-imperialist' -- ?

(Or can you wake-up and see that it's really *opportunistic terrorism* and fiercely sectarian politics at work -- ??)

That is ABC, anyone who doesn't understand that really doesn't belong here.

[Emmett Till]

No, not necessarily -- you're implying that I'm being naive for thinking that a multipolar roundtable will accomplish anything, while I'm maintaining that it's either geopolitical cooperation, or world war (and I favor cooperation).

So then, bombing by Russia and bombing by Turkey and barrel bombing by Assad and bombing by US, France, England and Germany should be coordinated, instead of them bombing each other's proxies?

Well, that's possible, they could all just agree to bomb the civilian population, which all of them including Russia are already doing. I am not in favor.

...See, this is as far as the radical position can go -- to do some perfunctory hand-wringing about ISIS' attacks, and then to ignore any implications for the future regarding the perpetrators.

And you want all the major perpetrators to get together against ISIS, the minor perpetrator.

So after bemoaning the strikes against the people of the West, you're then saying that ISIS attacks against the *military* of the West is *good*.

But, guess, what -- ? ISIS *isn't* attacking the *military* of the West, it's attacking *regular people*, or 'civilians'.

Are you *applauding* these particular violent tactics, as being 'good', and somehow even 'anti-imperialist' -- ?

(Or can you wake-up and see that it's really *opportunistic terrorism* and fiercely sectarian politics at work -- ??)

Well, the Obama strategy, unlike the Bush strategy, is to do the dirty work through local proxies and drone strikes and bombs, not with "boots on the ground." Though that is fraying, as it ain't working...

The crimes of ISIS don't just pale before the crimes of US imperialism, they also for that matter pale before the crimes of the Assad regime. And the Shi'ite sectarian rulers of Iraq and their Kurdish allies may not have killed quite as many Sunnis as ISIS has non-Sunnis, yet at least, but not for lack of trying.

No, not even here on Revleft is anyone likely to "support" the "tactics" of ISIS, I should hope. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether one supports the imperialist assault on the peoples of Iraq and Syria, currently disguised as a "war against ISIS."

By the way, just saw the Republican debate last night. Your position would have fitted in quite well, somewhere in between Rand and Trump. Fairly close to that of Jeb Bush.

[ckaihatsu]

So then, bombing by Russia and bombing by Turkey and barrel bombing by Assad and bombing by US, France, England and Germany should be coordinated, instead of them bombing each other's proxies?

Well, that's possible, they could all just agree to bomb the civilian population, which all of them including Russia are already doing. I am not in favor.

I *hear* ya -- here's from our exchange at that other thread:

I *know* that bombing campaigns are ultimately ineffectual -- if you'll notice, my support is for *diplomacy*, as at posts #55, 51, and 43.

[W]e have to look at the *larger powers* here, to see how geopolitical cooperation can wall-out ISIS, from a common position of consensus. In the short term I don't think anything else will be efficacious.

---

And you want all the major perpetrators to get together against ISIS, the minor perpetrator.

Correct -- due to concerns about what civil society / domestic policy would look like, ISIS (Islamic-fundamentalist) vs. the West (secular).

Well, the Obama strategy, unlike the Bush strategy, is to do the dirty work through local proxies and drone strikes and bombs, not with "boots on the ground." Though that is fraying, as it ain't working...

Agreed, and I agree with the position from the statement that I posted to the 'France' thread:

ISIS will not be defeated by airstrikes. But the Obama administration, the Pentagon and the American public have little appetite for a full ground invasion — which would be another quagmire, result in the deaths of huge numbers of Syrians and thousands of U.S. troops, and repeat the very conditions that gave rise to ISIS in the beginning. It is clear that ISIS can only be defeated by forces on the ground who are from the region itself. But the only ground forces with the experience and capability to take them on are the Syrian Arab Army, the YPG and their allied militias. That is the central contradiction in U.S. policy, and it cannot be wiggled out of.

---

The crimes of ISIS don't just pale before the crimes of US imperialism, they also for that matter pale before the crimes of the Assad regime. And the Shi'ite sectarian rulers of Iraq and their Kurdish allies may not have killed quite as many Sunnis as ISIS has non-Sunnis, yet at least, but not for lack of trying.

No, not even here on Revleft is anyone likely to "support" the "tactics" of ISIS, I should hope. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether one supports the imperialist assault on the peoples of Iraq and Syria, currently disguised as a "war against ISIS."

Oh, okay, well I remain anti-imperialism, but in reality there's the necessity of *priorities*, as we saw when NATO / the neo-con agenda decided to intervene against Assad -- certainly no one is defending his atrocities, but it's *inappropriate* for the Western powers to just *intervene* and bomb the Syrian state, for the same reasons that the U.S. should not have invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya (etc.).

By the way, just saw the Republican debate last night. Your position would have fitted in quite well, somewhere in between Rand and Trump. Fairly close to that of Jeb Bush.

Oh, okay, well, I'm *still* not 'the bad guy', nor am I anywhere near the politics of the bourgeoisie, despite your repeated attempts to juxtapose me that way. Please recall:

I'll prefer to invoke the 'politics makes for strange bedfellows' saying on this one, because I do happen to see the elimination of ISIS as ranking *very* high right now, with the need to overthrow global imperialism right behind it.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

http://russia-insider.com/en/terrori...larmed/ri11750


Washington Is Panicking That Putin Is Breaking the ISIS Supply Line

ISIS is intergral to the West's strategy for toppling Assad

Michael Lehner Subscribe to Michael Lehner(Neo Presse) Subscribe to Neo PresseMon, Dec 14 | 18,819 59


Originally Appeared at NEOPresse. Translated from the German by Susan Neumann

For years, the US-directed NATO alliance has made sure that convoys full of food, weapons, and other goods have gotten to the terrorist groups IS and al-Qaida via the Syrian-Turkish border. Russian air strikes have massively impeded this service, if not brought it to a standstill.

Russian airstrikes hit one of these convoys in the northwest Syrian town of Azaz, and the Turkish-based newspaper Daily Sabah is reporting the following:

At least seven people died, 10 got injured after an apparent airstrike, reportedly by Russian jets, targeted an aid convoy in northwestern Syrian town of Azaz near a border crossing with Turkey on Wednesday.

Strangely enough, this incident wasn’t picked up by the Western high-performance press. This is rather atypical considering both sides are currently engaged in a propaganda war. It almost seems like the USA/NATO either (a), don’t want to draw attention to the location of this remaining supply line, or (b), it’s not an aid convoy, but a supply truck for IS.

The Daily Sabah report continues:

Speaking to Daily Sabah, Serkan Nergis from the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said that the targeted area is located some 5 kilometers southwest of the Öncüpınar Border Crossing. Nergis said that IHH has a civil defense unit in Azaz and they helped locals to extinguish the trucks. Trucks were probably carrying aid supplies or commercial materials, Nergis added.

Regardless of what kind of goods were transported, this confirms that the terrorists in the area near the Oncupinar Border Crossing are in charge. This is where the supply line from Turkey to IS can be found. Already in November of 2014, the Oncupinar Border Crossing was mentioned in an article by Deutsche Welle (DW), that described a scene of hundreds of trucks waiting at the border to get into IS territory. Probably with Ankara’s approval. The DW article from 2014 reads as follows:

Like this article? Donate to keep us alive!

Every day, trucks laden with food, clothing, and other supplies cross the border from Turkey to Syria. It is unclear who is picking up the goods. The haulers believe most of the cargo is going to the “Islamic State” militia. Oil, weapons, and soldiers are also being smuggled over the border, and Kurdish volunteers are now patrolling the area in a bid to stem the supplies.

[DW Video, Turkey: IS supply channels / Focus on Europe]

Already last year one would have had to ask the legitimate question: if the plan was to destroy IS, why didn’t the US just bomb the supply route instead of leading operations inside Syria? (because it was, de facto, never the plan to destroy IS.) Especially if (a), these attacks were considered to be less dangerous and (b), logistics for the attacks were right there in the area (Turkish airbase).

Asking the more obvious questions would be enough to place a crown on the lying politics of the West:

Why weren’t these convoys stopped while they were still in Turkish territory?
Why wasn’t the driver arrested and detained in Turkey, and "the sources for these supplies" traced back to their origins?
Because they just didn’t want to?

When answering these questions, it has to be obvious to everyone – even to those who don't give it much thought – that there’s real intent behind this, and that USA/NATO purposefully provided IS with supplies. Period.

Here’s where Russia comes in. Every country that wants to fight IS will do so on the supply lines. This has been an employed military strategy for centuries. Russia’s bombing of supply trucks near the border (so that the fewest possible goods can be unloaded and redistributed through other means) is therefore logical, because if the supplies make it over one of the controlled border crossings, they will end up in the hands of terrorists (whichever target area that may be).

This development doesn’t please the strategists in Washington one bit and is probably the reason for the shoot-down of the Russian fighter jet. While Syrian and Kurdish forces control the border east of the Euphrates, the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor is the last remaining pathway for supplies to the IS. The Syrian army has also begun a campaign (starting from Aleppo) and has advanced eastwards. Eventually they will start to swing towards the Syrian-Turkish border at Jarabulus. More or less at the same time the Syrian army began their campaign, Russia began bombing in the area around Afrin, Ad Dana, and Azaz to cut off the supply route.

The interaction between Russian air raids and the Syrian army offensive on the ground have the potential to get rid of IS. This is an unparalleled nightmare for the planners in Washington. Closing this supply corridor would mean the complete defeat of the terrorists from IS, al-Nusra and Co. and it would mean the restoration of Syrian sovereignty and the government structures in this area. This could explain the sudden "activity" of the West in sending special forces to Syria, and as already mentioned, the reason for the shoot-down of the fighter jet.

In summing it all up, it also becomes evident that the Syrian "civil war" never really was one. Rather, the terrorists were supported by the West from the very beginning, for the purpose of overthrowing Assad’s government (as I’ve written in previous articles). When faced with a terrorist defeat, the sponsors will throw all their political weight behind the terrorists, no matter what it costs.

Ultimately, this is proof that the hegemonic ambitions of the US / the West in this region were the reason behind the creation of IS. It was never a fight against IS. It was the targeted, planned, intentional creation of Islamic extremism, in the form of the Islamic State.