US Betrayal of the Kurds

[TragicMonkey]

What seems to happen in practice is that it's only people from Africa, or the former Yugoslavia, who ever get prosecuted for war crimes. Turkey's invasion of Syria is aggressive warfare under international law.

Yes, it's certainly funny how some invasions are criticized and others applauded.

 

[Henri McPhee]

No. Mr. Assange's arrest warrant was issued in 2010, long before these recent disclosures were received and concern allegations made by two ladies.

I don't think that's quite correct. This is a quote from that article on the internet I mentioned on this thread which gives background information about Assange and the Kurds and Turkey and America. I's a bit like all these mysterious deaths which seem to surround the Clintons whenever sex and drugs and contributions to the Democratic party are mentioned, and never mentioned in the mainstream media, and hardly at all in the alternative media:

"However,the following May WikiLeaks released a bombshell: secret documents indicating Rasmussen had struck a shadowy deal with the government in Ankara. Under the secret deal, the Turkish government agreed to support Rasmussen's bid to head NATO if Danish authorities shut Roj down.

“They were going to try all different methods and use creative tax investigations — it even uses that word 'creative' — in the cable to work out how to smash (Roj TV).”

The leaked document that WikiLeaks published as 09COPENHAGEN241_a and dated May 26, 2009, brought light to the inner workings of the deal.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 4

The rest is here

 

[Border Reiver]

The document released by Wikileaks recently was written in 2009, but was obtained by Wikileaks considerably later, and not released by them until after Mr. Assange was hiding in the Equadorian Embassy.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The document released by Wikileaks recently was written in 2009, but was obtained by Wikileaks considerably later, and not released by them until after Mr. Assange was hiding in the Equadorian Embassy.

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact as seen by our resident Swede that Sweden has been "neutral" only on paper for a long time, and Henri McPhee's follow-up thought that there might be something to Assange's fear of being extradited to the US on trumped up charges after all.

 

[Jimmy9]

Yes, it's certainly funny how some invasions are criticized and others applauded.

Exactly!

 

[Border Reiver]

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact as seen by our resident Swede that Sweden has been "neutral" only on paper for a long time, and Henri McPhee's follow-up thought that there might be something to Assange's fear of being extradited to the US on trumped up charges after all.

No, the impression is that Mr. Assange was accused of rape in Sweden because of the release of documents in the Rassmussen matter.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There are two things wrong here. American strategy and American command structure. These are the people, like Samantha Power, who have their fingers on the nuclear button. It's not Russian strategy that is wrong, as Ash Carter has said, it's Nato strategy. John Kerry has Jewish ancestry so he has unquestioning support for Israel.

Nato strategy seems to be to get its knickers in a twist over Ukraine and Georgia and Crimea and Latvia, to support Turkey against the Kurds, and to bomb Iran and Syria, and with the support of Israel and Turkey to support Isis and Al Qaeda, who are anti-Christian, while at the same time to tell the public to be vigilant about Jihadist bombings, and to put some Jihadists in prison. Then Nato plans to march on Moscow.

This is not the fault of the American and British military, as such. As the lawyer Norman Birkett wrote about justice at Nuremberg "but it is impossible to convict an army generally, and no doubt many of the terrible excesses were those of a brutal and licentious soldiery, to quote Gibbon..the only new thing is enforcement."

 

[Border Reiver]

There are two things wrong here.

Don't sell yourself short, there's a lot more two things wrong with this post.

American strategy and American command structure.

What is wrong, and why is it wrong?

These are the people, like Samantha Power, who have their fingers on the nuclear button.

The Ambassador to the UN has a finger on the nuclear button? What is your complaint with her?

It's not Russian strategy that is wrong, as Ash Carter has said, it's Nato strategy.

Destabilizing neighbouring countries to ensure your position as regional hegemon is better?

John Kerry has Jewish ancestry so he has unquestioning support for Israel.

Lovely, some more of the McPhee casual racism.

Nato strategy seems to be to get its knickers in a twist over Ukraine and Georgia and Crimea and Latvia,

First, the Crimea was until very recently a part of the Ukraine. Getting your "knickers in a twist" when a neighbouring nation takes advantage of instability to grab portions of another state with questionable means isn't something people should do? Not to mention that Latvia being a NATO member is a legally excellent reason be concerned.

to support Turkey against the Kurds,

Evidence?

and to bomb Iran and Syria,

Iran hasn't been bombed by NATO.

and with the support of Israel and Turkey to support Isis and Al Qaeda, who are anti-Christian,

First, Israel and Turkey are not supporting ISIS/al-Queada, second both those organizations are also anti-everyone who doesn't follow our own interpretation of Islam.

while at the same time to tell the public to be vigilant about Jihadist bombings, and to put some Jihadists in prison.

Because of course no one should ever worry about crime.

Then Nato plans to march on Moscow.

Sure. Remind me when the last time NATO started an aggressive war to absorb the territory of a neighbouring state?

 

[ddt]

Sure. Remind me when the last time NATO started an aggressive war to absorb the territory of a neighbouring state?

1974, Turkish invasion of Cyprus. No, that was not NATO; even more ironically, it was one NATO member against another. It just seemed sort-of appropriate to the thread.

 

[Border Reiver]

1974, Turkish invasion of Cyprus. No, that was not NATO; even more ironically, it was one NATO member against another. It just seemed sort-of appropriate to the thread.

Actually Cyprus isn't a member of NATO. Greece threatened to invade' but didn't. They came to assist after the fighting stopped and the green line established. And yes, it was a definitely a situation where the NATO Charter would have been challenged.

As a person with an UNFICYP medal, this is part of the pre-mission briefing.

 

[ddt]

Actually Cyprus isn't a member of NATO. Greece threatened to invade' but didn't. They came to assist after the fighting stopped and the green line established. And yes, it was a definitely a situation where the NATO Charter would have been challenged.

As a person with an UNFICYP medal, this is part of the pre-mission briefing.

I realized Cyprus itself wasn't a NATO member, but I remembered it nearly leading to war between Turkey and Greece, and I vaguely remember NATO members being more sympathetic to Greece (but I was 8 at the time, so cut me some slack ). I have no idea what the NATO charter says about internecine war. The only good thing to come out of it was that it directly led to the fall of the Greek colonel's regime.

 

[Henri McPhee]

First, Israel and Turkey are not supporting ISIS/al-Queada, second both those organizations are also anti-everyone who doesn't follow our own interpretation of Islam.

Sure. Remind me when the last time NATO started an aggressive war to absorb the territory of a neighbouring state?

The answer is Libya and Iraq. Turkey and Israel have been supporting Isis and Al-Qaeda because of their policy of 'Assad must go' and Israeli expansion, and war on the Kurds, and 'they have no plans' to bomb Iran and drag Nato into a war with Iran and Russia. The Russian strategy is not wrong if you look at it from a Russian perspective. I don't want to march on Moscow, or force regime change in Russia. It could lead to a world war.

I don't like all those corrupt privatizations in Russia and those shady Russian oligarchs. There is more to life than property and currency speculation.

In that recent incident when four American warplanes killed 62 Syrian soldiers Isis almost immediately acted decisively, and then captured that pro-Assad town. That's suspicious of prior agreement, like doing nothing about Palmyra and leaving it to the Russians. I don't know who gave the orders for that. It was probably the American military and industrial and financial complex, and the CIA in order to prevent Assad from taking back eastern Syria. John Kerry, and perhaps Obama, were probably never informed. All that while Isis bombs were going off in New York and New Jersey.

There is a bit of background to this in an internet article. I remember the former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, saying on TV once that there was no diplomatic solution to the Syrian problem. That makes sense to me. I don't know if he has changed his tune about that, and about any Geneva talks. It's made even worse by supporting our enemies.:

"In the same statement where Secretary Carter described the so-called strategic shift, he also called out many countries for only being part of the anti–Islamic State coalition “on paper.” He is correct. The attention of allies, especially those in the region, is turned elsewhere—notably to Yemen and Iran, among other areas. According to administration and military officials in not-for-attribution statements, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have essentially halted their air support operations. Saudi Arabia went months without flying a mission, Jordan has not been in the air since last August and the UAE since even further back, in March 2015. Meanwhile, the United States continues its “anemic approach averaging only six strike sorties a day,” based on David Deptula’s calculations. Despite all this, the United States could win this war on its own—but it should not. A legitimate victory requires the active and persistent participation of allies and partners, mostly regional ones, that demonstrate it is not just the West which is against the Islamic State’s vision of a just society. Finding incentives to bring these actors back into the coalition is vital to a strategic victory against the Islamic State. If the United States goes it alone, it could certainly win many of the battles, but the long war would be lost. It is in moments like these that friends are needed most."

 

[Border Reiver]

The answer is Libya and Iraq.

Which NATO state absorbed them? Or are either states particularly friendly to NATO member states at the moment with trade arrangements favouring NATO over all other states?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

There is no moderate Syrian opposition

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that Assad is the bad guy, and we have to take him out. Anyone who is his enemy must be our friend!

 

[Henri McPhee]

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that Assad is the bad guy, and we have to take him out. Anyone who is his enemy must be our friend!

That's a load of bollocks. Isis and Al Qaeda are the bad guys, unless you support Al Qaeda with regard to 9/11. What beheadings, and murders on tourist beaches, and suicide car bombs, and kidnappings and enslavements has Assad ever done to you?

America doesn't seem to have very efficient intelligence officers. I have my doubts about their strategic ability as well.