It looks like NATO is almost ready

I love how the Turks easily marked this as "provocation by the Syrian regime". It could as easily have been provocation by foreign terrorists designed to bring in NATO.

Embedded Link

Turkey strikes targets inside Syria after mortar attack
ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey's military struck targets inside Syria on Wednesday in response to a mortar bomb fired from Syrian territory which killed five Turkish civilians, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoga…

Google+: View post on Google+


  1. Ron Reis says:

    Ah crap. you're kidding me right??

  2. Peter Murphy says:

    Looks as if Mr George wants his 5 minutes of infamy, tell me are you working for the Syrians and trying to deflect the blame onto another country.
    Stick your head back in the sand, and think of the innocent lives cut short by your mates in Syria.

  3. Chris George says:

    Infamy for what? Seeing what is for what it is instead of believing propaganda? Or is propaganda only possible if the media instrument in question belongs to the enemy? And who gets to decide who the enemy is?

    I also never believed in the mythical WMD in Iraq and was quite vocal about it then. Many others were as well. None of them came to infamy. I didn't either or I would have heard of myself.

    As for having mates in Syria, the only guy I know personally from Syria is a doctor. He lives in Paris but what he is hearing from his mates is not what we are hearing from our media.

    How does viewing the craven actions of politicians, industrialists and bankers for what they are and how they are leading us to war again lead to infamy?

    Did the 6% of the German middle class who spoke out against the National Socialists live in infamy? Or did the "Good Germans"?

  4. risa bear says:

    I see not only are the aircraft carriers in place, but also the neocon trolls.

  5. Mohammad Ibraheem says:

    George is right. The recent car bombs in Aleppo by itself is a brutal terrorist crime.

  6. Tereza Martins says:

    Turkey was wrong in taking sides and the FSA is in my view a terrorist group of mercenaries paid by foreigners with interests in the region. NATO has been trying to get Syria at any cost, the media is one sided and there is no mention that it takes two to tango! Syria has to respond to bombings and executions.

  7. Tereza Martins says:

    Peter you are so misinformed.

  8. Charles Stewart says:

    Tenza, Chris –  Please tell me you are saying all this because you are trying to be provocative…. or being paid. I'll sleep easier knowing that.

  9. O Celebi says:

    What's in it for Turkey, NATO, US, Israel, etc, nothing. Only Russia has an interest in Syria, having a naval base there, and Iran, being Shia. Nobody else cares, especially the Turks who could cut the water to Syria with the flip of a switch. Turkey rather have trading partners, who were happy to trade with Assad not too long ago. Seems like people have very short memories, and start making up conspiracy theories about foreign funded terrorists. Terrorist kill and terrorize the general population, which is what Assad is doing, as his dad before him. there's nothing complicated here. It's a classic case of a loony dictator backed by Russia, not much different any Iron Curtain country back in the day.

  10. William Campbell says:

    These are no doubt the same liberals denying Iran's intentions to build a nuclear weapon. You can deny it all you want until one lands on your house. Nobody really wants to get involved in Syria. Nobody has the money. The UN is the real global problem.

  11. Chris George says:

    +William Campbell Define Liberal.

    Liberal as in political philosophy or liberal as in what?

    And why would a liberal deny that Iran would want to get a nuclear bomb? Odds are that they already have a bunch.

    The US wants Syria destabilized to remove an Iranian ally. Why is that so difficult to imagine?

  12. O Celebi says:

    "The US wants Syria destabilized to remove an Iranian ally. Why is that so difficult to imagine?" 

    Syria is not a threat to US, that's why. Any alternative to Assad is worse than the Russian lap dog he is. Predictability is an asset, and Syria is geopolitically important in that it could destabilize the region, read Turkey. Lib, Con, has nothing to with it. Moreover, Israel couldn't hope for a better ally, hence their silence on the subject. If US was a culprit, as you suggest, this would've been over by now.

  13. mead jones says:

    anything can happen in this world.  we are only surprised when we have ignored the alternative.  anything is terribly possible…

  14. Tereza Martins says:

    Charles I say what I believe!

  15. William Campbell says:

    Liberal as in the opposite of a conservative; those who seek reform to what is already a perfect sociological construct. Those are always the same people who are opposed to any and all conflicts, and tend to ignore the consequences of not being militarily active. Being passive is a mistake. With Syria I could give two shits less about them, but Turkey are fairly allied with us, and Israel is also being moderately threatened by Syria. They have chemical weapons that could also be leaked out to terrorists. If you think 9/11 was bad just wait until some talibum unleashes VX gas on a crowded new york street. I'm tired of the stupid conspiracy theories about warring for oil. It's getting ridiculous. 

  16. Nixar Osman says:

    Most contributors here appear to be more interested in playing their own trumpet rather than commenting on the subject in hand. Syrian forces attacked and killed five Turks; how can you Celebi, ask "What is in it for Turkey?".  Would you rather Turkey ignored such a deadly infringement? Additionally, Turkey shares a 900+ km border with Syria. Can you comprehend what else may happen if Turkey simply ignored such a provocative act by Syria? If your intention is to say that Turkey is behaving irresponsibly, let me ask yo a question: do you know that today Turkey is hosting 100,000 refugees in Turkey and feeding thousands more at its border with Syria without any contribution from any one else? Also, if Turkey wanted to act irresponsibly she would have turned Syria's water off just by a switch of a button. 

    BTW how do you feel about the 30,000+ people mostly children killed, and still more is being killed daily, by Syrian forces?

  17. Charles Stewart says:

    ….and then there is the Turkish jet shot down by Syria a few months ago. Turkish restraint stands in sharp relief against the Assad regims complete abandonment of restraint. 

    When has a government, ever,  behaved this ruthlessly, for this long, against its own people? Even the Chinese Cultural Revolution and Stalin  stopped short of leveling  their own cities with artillery. To equivocate about the clear and unambiguous brutality of the Assads is to align yourself with among the worst butchers that human history has produced. It is reprehensible. 

  18. Nixar Osman says:

    Thank you Charles. Unless and until we respond to such behaviour, such as the one taking place in Syria, it will only encourage the other so sickly minded people to do to their people more of the same. The fact that others support the murder of women, children and civilians simply for their own national interest is reprehensible.

  19. Tereza Martins says:

    Charles, please tell me that you are being payed or that you refuse to think, you seem to believe in the tooth fairy still and I fail to see it your way, so please tell me you are being payed for helping the spin.

  20. Mohammad Ibraheem says:

    "Murder of women, children and civilians" has already done by the fuzzy bearded FREE Army terrorists when they blew up 4 car bombs in Aleppo alone. The so-called Free Army is really FREE to do everything in Syria, without being condemned by the West!
    Also, many children & women are killed in Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, Bahrain & KSA by their regimes, but the UN & the US don`t care! Propaganda rules.

  21. MJ Ricard says:

    Any analyst with half a brain would know that it isn't in Assad's interests to provoke a conflict with Turkey and provide a pretext for the NATO killing machine to be let  loose on Syria. This mortar attack has false flag written all over it. The obviousness of this ploy shows how desperate the West is to escalate a conflagration. 

  22. Tereza Martins says:

    I agree MJ it smells.

  23. Tereza Martins says:

    So much shit and so little paper!

  24. William Campbell says:

    My points are on-topic. The point is, you can't ignore the world's problems and let them play out, expecting that they'll just disappear. When you have an infection, what happens when you ignore it? It spreads. It gets worse. You need to deal with the problem head-on and correct it now before it gets worse and has a broader effect on us. Just consider if someone was outside your house shooting at it. Would you just ignore it? It'll surely go away if you just pretend like it's not happening.

  25. Chris George says:

    +William Campbell Aggressive war is a crime. Defending yourself from aggressive war is not. Why is this so difficult to understand? If you are the invader, you are in the wrong, no matter what your media tells you to think. If someone was causing damage to my property or was trespassing on my property I would defend myself. If they are on their property, minding their own business, I would leave them alone.

    Bombs kill people. Mothers and fathers, brother and sisters. If our moneyed elites tell us that they are not human, that they are an infection, "to be wiped from the face of the earth", why do we we run to believe every drip and drop of spittle that comes from their mouths when reality is so very obviously otherwise?

     _Liberal as in the opposite of a conservative; those who seek reform to what is already a perfect sociological construct._

    The same could have been argued by the Loyalists in 1760. Without dissent, without people who are fed up, without that revolutionary spark and the willingness to stand in harms way, to go against the "perfect sociological construct" the human race could never improve. Nations would still be kissing the ring of a Pope or an Emperor. There are people who would take comfort in that. There are others who believe in personal liberty and a society that allows people the freedom to explore what it means to be human and even humane.

    Dissent is a requirement of a healthy society. Without looking objectively at both sides in any argument (and that is what war is) how can we hope to improve the lot of all people? Because they are different makes them no less human. Would we condone China funding foreign fighters to come in and "liberate" Montana from people we disagree with? If you wish to take a moral position on aggressive war can you ignore the principles behind it? People will tolerate tyranny within certain limits. Are we so arrogant as to decide for them what those limits are and then hoodwink our own people into spilling blood and wasting treasure? It would appear so.

    There are many ways to look at events. How we see things is mainly dictated by those who control our media. Grab an open mind and look at some of the other nations media and how their elites want their populations to see things. Then make up your own mind. Don't just parrot what you have been told to think. If you can't, if you simply "shoot the messenger" every time then you do not have control over your own mind. You have fully succumbed to the propaganda of your own government. And as a citizen I have a responsibility to not allow that to happen. Otherwise I end up party to atrocity. Turning people into pink mist with 4000lb bombs may look cool on TV, but they are dead by my hand and yours, as we allow our elites to make oodles more money off of yet another bloody conflict. Dead is dead and innocent blood is never the answer to any fantasy you might have about scraggly bands of men in caves coming across thousands of miles of ocean to do bad things to you. I am more concerned with the obscenity of the Western military travelling thousands of miles in the other direction to kill and maim in the name of "freedom", all the while lining their pockets and the pockets of those who unthinkingly support their every move.

  26. Charles Stewart says:


    As someone who has been accused as being both an analysts and someone with (sometimes only) half a brain – your point is well taken.
    However trying to ascribe clear motive or intent- ie some sort of 'grand plan' by NATO, by the Assads, etc –  to a situation this deteriorated is folly. Whoever shot those rounds into Turkey likely did so by mistake – with so many rounds being loosed by the Syrians it is not hard to imagine. It does not excuse this, or make the pain and suffering less, or make the Turks wrong for retaliating –  it is just the most likely explanation. It's like trying to look for design in a train wreck; its just a train wreck.

    So as far as the 'false flag' your are right to be suspicious – hard not to be, it is a little too convenient.  However NATO has had more that ample pretext for intervention in Syria if that was their intent. They have not because they simply have had all the intervention they can take or afford in Afghanistan for a long time to come (not to mention the even more mis-guided adventures in Iraq) . Once burned twice shy.

    The simple fact about the meta -conflict, is that the Assad's are emboldened because they believe that China and Russia have their backs as evidenced by those two nations blocking all sanctions in the UN against Syria.

    Without this support and implicit encouragement the Assads would have been forced to look for an exit months ago.

  27. Chris George says:

    +Charles Stewart Excellent analysis of Assad's motives. Syria's position vis a vis Russia and China is identical then to that of Israel vis a vis the United States. These are client states that rely on their patrons for veto power in the Security Council to keep UN sanctions at bay.

    The difference here is that we condemn Iran and Syria for supporting rebel fighters in Palestine and cheer as Al Caeda and other terror organizations use US money and weapons, Turkish cover and support and Saudi and Qatari "advisers" to destabilize a sovereign nation. (Notice what a difference the language makes when describing what is happening) 

  28. Patrick McNicholas says:

    @ William Campbell (0800) … If bullets fly at you from your neighbors yard, is the correct course of action to shoot the neighbor the next time you see them?
    @ Charles Stuart (0020)… I thought the jets turkish jets that did get shot down were spy planes violating Syrian airspace (maybe someone can fact check that).
    @ Nixar Osman (2354)… Your statement that Syrian forces fired the mortars in questionable. That statement being a key premise to your argument is questionable, so why should anyone accept your conclusion?
    Here is a good link that may cast a different light on the current events in Syria:

  29. Nixar Osman says:

    Patrick McNicholas: the link you had given refers to a document that is ten years old, and secondly, those were hypothesis, theoretical assumptions. What is happening today are real facts. Similarly, Syrians have already accepted that they had fired the mortars and are now investigating the matter. If you do not believe that Syrians had fired the mortars are you implying by drawing an analogy between what was assumed in the 1950s and today, Turks in fact may have killed their own women and children and then blamed Syria? If so, you need to think and research a lot deeper before you make such biased accusations in an international form.

  30. Tereza Martins says:

    Nixar it would be helpful if instead of repeating the western spin you researched other points of view and don’t take it personal if we disagree with your argument.

  31. Charles Stewart says:

    Tereza – I'm in Japan right now …and the NHK is saying the same thing:
     – Syrian Govt admits accidentally firing mortars into Turkey and apologizes for it.

    So that part at least I can verify a not being solely western spin ….it appears to be eastern spin as well.  😉

    Also – with respect – Nixar may be the most rational voice in this thread especially given his location. He is hardly taking this personally, he is merely disagreeing.

  32. Patrick McNicholas says:

    @ Nixar: Google "Straw Man".  No, Nix… I am not claiming the turks did a frame up and mortared their own. Perhaps the Turks are behaving reasonably in light of the admission of origin from the SA. I made no claim at all. However, I do not think that a high level intelligence report from the 50's should be written off as irrelevant just because its old. Thats like ignoring history and would be silly.  
    At the end of the day there is a civil war going on in Syria. People are dying, and its horrible. I don't want it to go on. On one side is the SA back by Iranians/Russians and on the other is the FSA backed by the West and others covertly. Both sides are responsible for the bloodshed. However, the media in the west is not about to tell it like it is and say it takes 2 to tango. 
    The US interest in the region has a mantle of spreading democracy and freedom, yet it seems in our selective policing of repressive regimes makes that laughable. This is about a 'geopolitical game' that I can't completely fathom. However, I do have a hunch that this 'game' has been going on for some time and that the motives have their roots in history. 
    I can't say that this in not a game worth playing, maybe the world would be far worse off if the west was hands off on this one. But, from my unqualified point of view the west is moving towards another military conflict that we might look back on with regret. I'd rather not see the untold innocents die and the  US economy tank out because of  another war draining the nations coffers, but maybe we have no choice. 

  33. Patrick McNicholas says:

    Nix, this just in. . . http://www.infowars.com/turkey-lied-about-syria-taking-responsibility-for-attack/ 
    So what is backing up your claim that the initial mortar attack originated from the Syrian Army?

  34. Patrick McNicholas says:

    @ Charles Stewart…
    Nixar is taking someone else's argument and stating it as something else. Again, Google 'Straw Man'. 

    Also Nixar is guilty of the logical fallacy of the 'False dilemma' when he supposes that If I don't accept that the Syrians fired the mortar that I must be claiming that the mortar was fired by the Turks at their own people. There is at least one other scenario that was suggested and is plausible: Chris George had initially suggested that the FSA fired the mortar to draw the Turks into the fight agains the SA. 

    Oh and perhaps also google 'appeal to the majority' which you are guilty of. implying that one should accept a claim because it is purported in Japanese media in addition to the US media. So the japanese have reported it too, how does that make a claim any more true? by that logic if enough people claim something, its got to be true, right? 

    I don't think that you or Nixar are behaving reasonably or arguing well. 

  35. Patrick McNicholas says:

    Besides all of that, Nixar. The Turks are facilitating a rebellion in their neighbors country. if some of the war spills over into Turkey they asked for it.

  36. Chris George says:

    +Patrick McNicholas The people of Turkey are pissed at their government for declaring that the armed forces can respond at will. There is very little appetite amongst the people for a war with Syria. Many see it as Western puppetry and to be resisted.

  37. Patrick McNicholas says:

    “Rockets and Mortar Fire – Turkey exacts vengeance for an attack from the Syrian side which took place yesterday afternoon. For weeks, Ankara has warned for any provocation in direction to Turkey. Until late at night, the fighting has taken place. Meanwhile, Syrian rebels have taken responsibility for this provocation.”

    Link to video:


  38. William Campbell says:

    Today, shells rained yet again out of Syria onto Turkey. I'm sure the Turkish people are thrilled that – at any given time – a mortar may land on their homes.

  39. Patrick McNicholas says:

    Yeah, well then why don't they stop taking the side of the rebels and facilitating arms flow? It's dubious that the war would be going on if not for the Turks blind eye towards the flow of arms over the border. Did they think that they could just stoke the flames next door and not have things get toasty on the border?

  40. Patrick McNicholas says:

    You are right about not getting the people of a country confused with the government of a country.  It does not do the Turkish People justice when I confuse them and the regime. I should be more specific. My earlier comments were directed at the turkish gov. Sorry for the confusion. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>