Erdogan Vows Turkey Will Crush U.S. 'Terror Army' in Syria (Kurdish YPG)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
Yea.... kind of like America has been doing for decades in the Middle East now. At least in Turkey's case, they have a verifiable national interest involved. If Turkey can enforce stability so that people can live there again, all the better. I really would like to see America completely disengaged from this mess.

The only reason Turkey wanted to be involved in to conquering Afrin was to displace the Kurd's from their lands and towns and replace them with Turkeys allies (the Turkmen). Then like Alexandretta in 1938 (now Hatey Province in Turkey) they will make a "rigged" referendum in order to annex the Afrin region and make it a Turkey state.

There will be no stability in that region after Kurd's lost their cities from a Turkey invading army, they will continue fighting against Turkmen rebels and Turkey. There was stability in that region before the Turks started the invasion, i dont see how there will be stability now after this mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon

922px-French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon_map_en.svg.png
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
The only reason Turkey wanted to be involved in to conquering Afrin was to displace the Kurd's from their lands and towns and replace them with Turkeys allies (the Turkmen). Then like Alexandretta in 1938 (now Hatey Province in Turkey) they will make a "rigged" referendum in order to annex the Afrin region and make it a Turkey state.

There will be no stability in that region after Kurd's lost their cities from a Turkey invading army, they will continue fighting against Turkmen rebels and Turkey. There was stability in that region before the Turks started the invasion, i dont see how there will be stability now after this mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon

LoL, tell that to the citizens of Turkey who have been fighting a low grade civil war against Kurds for decades now. Nobody has clean hands over there, to pretend differently is a denial of reality.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
The only reason Turkey wanted to be involved in to conquering Afrin was to displace the Kurd's from their lands and towns and replace them with Turkeys allies (the Turkmen). Then like Alexandretta in 1938 (now Hatey Province in Turkey) they will make a "rigged" referendum in order to annex the Afrin region and make it a Turkey state.

There will be no stability in that region after Kurd's lost their cities from a Turkey invading army, they will continue fighting against Turkmen rebels and Turkey. There was stability in that region before the Turks started the invasion, i dont see how there will be stability now after this mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon

922px-French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon_map_en.svg.png

Did you know the word "Kurd" isn't even on this map?


You clearly don't know anything about the Middle East whatsoever if you think Aleppo is some Kurdish city that was "captured by the turks" lmao.



Where did you read these strange fan fictions?


Here is the actual reason those borders were drawn (from your own article):

The State of Aleppo was declared by the French General Henri Gouraud on 1 September 1920 as part of a French scheme to make Syria easier to control by dividing it into several smaller states. France became more hostile to the idea of a united Syria after the Battle of Maysaloun. The State of Aleppo included the Sanjak of Alexandretta and was governed by Kamil Pasha al-Qudsi.[1]

By separating Aleppo from Damascus, Gouraud wanted to capitalize on a traditional state of competition between the two cities and turn it into political division. The people in Aleppo were unhappy with the fact that Damascus was chosen as capital for the new nation of Syria. Gouraud sensed this sentiment and tried to manipulate it by making Aleppo the capital of a large and wealthier state with which it would have been hard for Damascus to compete. The State of Aleppo as drawn by France contained most of the fertile area of Syria—namely it contained the fertile country of Aleppo in addition to the entire fertile basin of river Euphrates. The state also had access to sea via the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta. On the other hand, Damascus, which is basically an oasis on the fringes of the Syrian Desert, had neither enough fertile land nor access to sea. Basically, Gouraud wanted to lure Aleppo by giving it control over most of the agricultural and mineral wealth of Syria so that it would never want to unite with Damascus again.

Again, not a word about the Kurds in there. It's almost like they weren't even there to begin with.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
LoL, tell that to the citizens of Turkey who have been fighting a low grade civil war against Kurds for decades now. Nobody has clean hands over there, to pretend differently is a denial of reality.

Kurds in Syria and those in Afrin didnt fight a civil war with Turkey. Afrin is a Syrian city and most of its inhabitants are Syrian Kurd's citizens not Turks.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
Did you know the word "Kurd" isn't even on this map?


You clearly don't know anything about the Middle East whatsoever if you think Aleppo is some Kurdish city that was "captured by the turks" lmao.



Where did you read these strange fan fictions?


Here is the actual reason those borders were drawn (from your own article):



Again, not a word about the Kurds in there. It's almost like they weren't even there to begin with.

There are Syrian Kurd's citizens leaving in the North of Syria. As there are Kurd's living in Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
The fact remains, Turkey invaded Syrian territory by attacking and occupying Afrin.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Kurds in Syria and those in Afrin didnt fight a civil war with Turkey. Afrin is a Syrian city and most of its inhabitants are Syrian Kurd's citizens not Turks.

That is an assertion. Prove it. Turkey claims otherwise. I find it difficult to believe that there is not reciprocity between Syrian/Turkish/Iraqi Kurds. They all seem to have more allegiance to their tribe than to their respective countries.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
That is an assertion. Prove it. Turkey claims otherwise. I find it difficult to believe that there is not reciprocity between Syrian/Turkish/Iraqi Kurds. They all seem to have more allegiance to their tribe than to their respective countries.

It was you who implied Turkey had a civil war with Syrian Kurd's and it is me who have to prove they haven't ??? just because Turkey says so ??? That's laughable beyond stupidity.

Turkey also doent recognize the Armenian Genocide but that is a Historical fact. I guess this an assertion too ???
Turkey invaded and occupies northern Cyprus since 1974, this is an assertion as well ??
Turkey doesnt have a good diplomatic relationship with any of its neighboring countries, not even with its NATO allies.

It is Turkey themselves that they need to prove what they are accusing those Syrian Kurd's for, not the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,504
7,559
136
Regarding the damage done by Turkey, to the Middle East.
Hundreds of thousands of new refugees, senior ISIS leadership has been saved from oblivion, and Turkey isn't nearly done. Afrin was just the beginning of the war as they have every intention of clearing the entirety of northern Syria and Iraq.

Without a clear mandate to fight Turkey / defend the Kurds - United States special forces better GTFO of the region. I do not want to hear reports of them still being on the ground when the Turks show up to bomb Manbij.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
Here is the actual reason those borders were drawn (from your own article):


Next time read more carefully, I was talking how Turkey annexed Alexandretta from Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon
Sanjak of Alexandretta

In 1938, the Turkish military went into the Syrian province and expelled most of its Arab and Armenian inhabitants.[34] Before this, Alawi Arabs and Armenians were the majority of Alexandretta's population.[34]

The allocation of seats in the sanjak assembly was based on the 1938 census held by the French authorities under international supervision. The assembly was appointed in the summer of 1938, and the French-Turkish treaty settling the status of the Sanjak was signed on 4 July 1938.

On 2 September 1938, the assembly proclaimed the Sanjak of Alexandretta as the Hatay State,[35] taking as an excuse that rioting had broken out between Turks and Arabs.[citation needed] The republic lasted for one year under joint French and Turkish military supervision. The name Hatay itself was proposed by Atatürk and the government was under Turkish control. In 1939, following a popular referendum, the Hatay State became a Turkish province.

Looks familiar ??? :rolleyes:
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
It was you who implied Turkey had a civil war with Syrian Kurd's and it is me who have to prove they haven't ??? just because Turkey says so ??? That's laughable beyond stupidity.

Turkey also doent recognize the Armenian Genocide but that is a Historical fact. I guess this an assertion too ???
Turkey invaded and occupies northern Cyprus since 1974, this is an assertion as well ??
Turkey doesnt have a good diplomatic relationship with any of its neighboring countries, not even with its NATO allies.

It is Turkey themselves that they need to prove what they are accusing those Syrian Kurd's for, not the other way around.

Fair enough, here is the link as reported by the New York Times:

The Kurdish fighters who are battling the Islamic State jihadists in Syria are regarded by the United States as its most reliable partners there. But to Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, these Kurds are terrorists.

The Kurdish group, known as the People’s Protection Units, or Y.P.G., is now facing an escalating battle with Turkish forces in northwestern Syria, complicating American policy.

The group has deep ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, also known as the P.K.K. Both Turkey and the United States consider the P.K.K. to be a terrorist organization for its violent separatist movement inside Turkey.

While Y.P.G. leaders play down their P.K.K. ties, areas they control are festooned with photos of the imprisoned P.K.K. leader, Abdullah Ocalan, viewed by Turks the same way Americans viewed Osama bin Laden.

Gee, 40,000 thousand dead in Turkey to this low grade civil war and right next door an army assembling that worships the leader of the terrorist organization that is the impetus of this low grade civil war. Consider the burden of proof satisfied. Turkey has the right to protect itself and America has no business whatsoever intervening.

Bottom line. If the Kurds want a state for themselves, they are going to have fight and die for it themselves. For damn sure they better not expect Americans to fight and die for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html?mtrref=www.google.com
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
Turkey has the right to protect itself

Turkey has the right to protect itself but they dont have the right to invade other countries and occupy foreign territories.
Just because some members of the PKK have joint the fight for defending Afrin against Turkey forces, doenst make all Kurds terrorists.

Erdogan found an excuse to attack Afrin by baptizing all the Kurds terrorists , because he wants his allies the Syrian Turkmen, to occupy the Syrian-Turkey boarders.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Turkey has the right to protect itself but they dont have the right to invade other countries and occupy foreign territories.
Just because some members of the PKK have joint the fight for defending Afrin against Turkey forces, doenst make all Kurds terrorists.

Erdogan found an excuse to attack Afrin by baptizing all the Kurds terrorists , because he wants his allies the Syrian Turkmen, to occupy the Syrian-Turkey boarders.

Not sure how you can say that with a straight face after the last three decades of American foreign policy. You are placing a much higher standard on Turkey than you have placed on America.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,114
5,589
146
Not sure how you can say that with a straight face after the last three decades of American foreign policy. You are placing a much higher standard on Turkey than you have placed on America.

Did he say anything about America? If he was defending America doing that, then sure you have a point. If not, then what does that have to do with this?

Furthermore, you're the one defending Turkey doing that, seems that you're doing the same thing you're complaining about by criticizing the US for it whilst defending Turkey.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,114
5,589
146
Fair enough, here is the link as reported by the New York Times:



Gee, 40,000 thousand dead in Turkey to this low grade civil war and right next door an army assembling that worships the leader of the terrorist organization that is the impetus of this low grade civil war. Consider the burden of proof satisfied. Turkey has the right to protect itself and America has no business whatsoever intervening.

Bottom line. If the Kurds want a state for themselves, they are going to have fight and die for it themselves. For damn sure they better not expect Americans to fight and die for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html?mtrref=www.google.com

You do realize that the US/NATO/EU, label the PKK as a terrorist group because Turkey does, right? Its one of the ways of appeasing them in order to get them as a NATO ally and EU member. But its becoming impossible to ignore their genocidal tendencies.

And how many of those 40,000 are ones that Turkey killed? That's a pretty important distinction, no? Easy for you to go "look at all those killed, see how horrible the Kurds are being?!?" and then ignore that most of the deaths were Kurds and that might just have something to do with the Kurds waging the civil war? Talk about saying things with a straight face, you want people to recognize the Kurds as terrorists but seemingly refuse to accept the history of atrocities/genocide/massacre that Turkey has been perpetrating off and on for all of the 20th century?

WTF, how is the burden of proof satisfied? You're throwing the number out and then not even admitting (possibly even realizing?) how most of them are Kurds killed by Turkey. That throws your whole argument on its head as it supports that its Turkey committing atrocities/genocide and less Kurds committing terrorism.

Uh, no. Especially not when they're going after allies, that helped devastate ISIS, and are even stating they're going to start going after regions where US troops are currently located. They're not protecting themselves, and they're actively working against peace in the region now. Turkey is the major aggressor in that region now, and that is going to undo the work done fighting ISIS. Your hardline stance on this is laughable considering they openly attacked American citizens in America too.

Hope you realize its too late for that, as Saddam's treatment of the Kurds is one of the reasons the US used for both Iraq wars.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,187
8,112
136
Not sure how you can say that with a straight face after the last three decades of American foreign policy. You are placing a much higher standard on Turkey than you have placed on America.

For most of my life the US has been a staunch ally of Turkey. You are talking as if the bad features of US foreign policy (which go back way further than three decades) and Turkey's somehow cancel each other out, when for the most part they've supported each other. They are still both in NATO, after all! The US has effectively endorsed Turkey's suppression of the Kurds for many decades.

The Kurds are one of the last peoples without a nation. I don't have a huge amount of faith in the US's ability to bring 'freedom' to anyone, but if circumstances are now accidentally and temporarily creating a coincidence of US and Kurdish interests, then I hope the Kurds can get some benefit from it while it lasts. I'm not holding my breath for it though. Worryingly it seems as if Russia and Turkey are drawing closer again, presumably partly due to their having leaders with the same personal fascistic style? And I have no idea where the US is going with it's middle-east policy (I'm not sure the US has much idea either). I think the Kurds would be foolish to put much faith in US idealism, but maybe self-interest might, for once, not pull the US in the wrong direction.

Assad's a murderous torturing autocrat but I don't know what the US (still less the Saudis) imagines it is going to put in his place. But at least one could envisage the Kurds getting out from under _all_ of the oppressive regimes in the region.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
You do realize that the US/NATO/EU, label the PKK as a terrorist group because Turkey does, right? Its one of the ways of appeasing them in order to get them as a NATO ally and EU member. But its becoming impossible to ignore their genocidal tendencies.

And how many of those 40,000 are ones that Turkey killed? That's a pretty important distinction, no? Easy for you to go "look at all those killed, see how horrible the Kurds are being?!?" and then ignore that most of the deaths were Kurds and that might just have something to do with the Kurds waging the civil war? Talk about saying things with a straight face, you want people to recognize the Kurds as terrorists but seemingly refuse to accept the history of atrocities/genocide/massacre that Turkey has been perpetrating off and on for all of the 20th century?

WTF, how is the burden of proof satisfied? You're throwing the number out and then not even admitting (possibly even realizing?) how most of them are Kurds killed by Turkey. That throws your whole argument on its head as it supports that its Turkey committing atrocities/genocide and less Kurds committing terrorism.

Uh, no. Especially not when they're going after allies, that helped devastate ISIS, and are even stating they're going to start going after regions where US troops are currently located. They're not protecting themselves, and they're actively working against peace in the region now. Turkey is the major aggressor in that region now, and that is going to undo the work done fighting ISIS. Your hardline stance on this is laughable considering they openly attacked American citizens in America too.

Hope you realize its too late for that, as Saddam's treatment of the Kurds is one of the reasons the US used for both Iraq wars.

Consider the following. If latino Americans militarized and started a small scale civil war for their own state within the United States (in a struggle lasting decades with tens of thousands of casualties) would you object to America attacking Mexicans just across the border IN CANADA who had massed a small army? I myself would not object under those conditions and I believe most Americans would agree. Given that, it would be a gross double standard on my part to not support Turkey under similar conditions.

Secondly anybody who pretends that American intervention couldn't have consequences far worse than expected has not been paying attention. Most of this shit storm originated with America supporting the Taliban against Russia forty years ago (that and the blossoming of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia). You will notice that much of the Middle East LOATHES the United States after 40 years of our "help". Funny that they don't hate China who never lifted a finger to "help" them in all that time. I consider the United State as one of the prime motivators for radical Islam. Every time we go in and butcher people, we generate more people that hate us. We humiliate them over and over and over in their own holy lands. Killing them at our own will and with little fanfare. Can you imagine how much impotent hatred that must be generating?
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,187
8,112
136
Consider the following. If latino Americans militarized and started a small scale civil war for their own state within the United States (in a struggle lasting decades with tens of thousands of casualties) would you object to America attacking Mexicans just across the border IN CANADA who had massed a small army? I myself would not object under those conditions and I believe most Americans would agree. Given that, it would be a gross double standard on my part to not support Turkey under similar conditions.

Secondly anybody who pretends that American intervention couldn't have consequences far worse than expected has not been paying attention. Most of this shit storm originated with America supporting the Taliban against Russia forty years ago (that and the blossoming of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia). You will notice that much of the Middle East LOATHES the United States after 40 years of our "help". Funny that they don't hate China who never lifted a finger to "help" them in all that time. I consider the United State as one of the prime motivators for radical Islam. Every time we go in and butcher people, we generate more people that hate us. We humiliate them over and over and over in their own holy lands. Killing them at our own will and with little fanfare. Can you imagine how much impotent hatred that must be generating?


How does that analogy even begin to work? Has the US been treating Latino Americans the way the Turks have historically treated the Kurds? Is the US, even in the age of Trump, on a par with Turkey in terms of democracy and human rights? Did latino Americans even come to be in the US in a way at all analogous to how the Kurds came to be present in Turkey?

The American Indians _did_ fight wars against the US - and personally I think they were justified in doing so. But that was some time ago. Would you have supported, then, the US invading Canada and Mexico, in order to try and crush the Indian population of the entire continent? Hell, one reason for the colonials gripe against their British overlords was that the Brits didn't let them disposses the Indians as comprehensively as they wished to. All-in-all that's possibly the worst analogy ever!

Your second paragraph I have more sympathy with (I entirely agree that some sort of major US attack on Turkey would not go well*), but you come over as someone who has only recently started to notice this stuff and hasn't yet grasped the full complexity of it (and it started a lot earlier than 40 years ago).

* edit - and I agree in general that Western/US interventions usually don't turn out according to plan...but that doesn't make the Turks the good guys.
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Your second paragraph I have more sympathy with (I entirely agree that some sort of major US attack on Turkey would not go well*), but you come over as someone who has only recently started to notice this stuff and hasn't yet grasped the full complexity of it (and it started a lot earlier than 40 years ago).

* edit - and I agree in general that Western/US interventions usually don't turn out according to plan...but that doesn't make the Turks the good guys.

LoL... agree on that part. Would you consider Israel being forced on them by European nations as the start or would go back even further... to when the English and French stabbed them in the back after WWI? The Western world has been kicking them around for pretty much centuries now I guess.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...war-set-stage-for-turbulent-century-1.1840067
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,504
7,559
136
Turkey and FSA forces close in on Tel Rifaat.
As the Turkish military and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are closing in on the strategic Syrian town of Tel Rifaat, local sources claimed on March 27 that Turkish and FSA forces have taken control of the town.

Tel Rifaat is some 20 kilometers southeast of Afrin and hosts the Minnag airport.

No clear picture on the fate of the hundred thousand plus refugees from Afrin. It would appear they have been pursued.
Meanwhile, this !@#$ storm is brewing:
  • Erdoğan vows to... take control of Tel Rifaat and then continue operations into Manbij.
  • The U.S., however, has suggested that it has no intention to leave Manbij.
So are we going to war VS Turkey or not? Is US leadership so incompetent as to leave our troops in place to be attacked?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,504
7,559
136
Manbij: A Syrian town, threatened by Turkey, counts on US backing
Manbij residents said the repeated threats by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have unnerved them — especially after the demoralizing defeat of the Kurds in Afrin. But many who spoke to the Associated Press during a recent visit also said they have faith the U.S. won't abandon them to face Turkish advances on their town.

Ouch. Read some gut wrenching tales in trusting the United States to have your back after making promises to do so.

US won’t withdraw from Manbij: Washington
“U.S. forces are located in Manbij. We have made it very clear with the Turkish government that we will continue to operate there,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said at a press conference on March 22.

And why shouldn't they trust us?

Trump says U.S. will leave Syria ‘very soon’
“By the way, we're knocking the hell out of ISIS,” Trump said. “We're coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon — very soon we're coming out.”

Oh...

Granted, it's the cheeto saying it. Won't know if it's true until our troops actually pull back. Yet it's to be expected right? Any sane policy has us avoiding conflict with Turkey. "Good" policy for us means war - death - destruction for our Kurdish "allies". Next time someone wants to be a US ally in the fight against terror, they better think twice.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Manbij:
Granted, it's the cheeto saying it. Won't know if it's true until our troops actually pull back. Yet it's to be expected right? Any sane policy has us avoiding conflict with Turkey. "Good" policy for us means war - death - destruction for our Kurdish "allies". Next time someone wants to be a US ally in the fight against terror, they better think twice.

I actively oppose the war on terror just as I oppose war on drugs. If the Muslim world wants Sharia law and theocracy, that is their business. Turkey is far more important to Europe than the Kurds. Start a war with Turkey and watch what happens in Europe when millions of muslim refugees pour in.

Jask, you must realize that you are witnessing the last spasms of dying super power. It is always foreign wars in the end. The threat to America at this point is the complete collapse of the working class and the complete and irrevocable fracturing of American society along race/ethnicity lines. Given the serious and existential problems America is suffering from, there is absolutely no conceivable reason to support all of this expensive meddling. China has checked us in the Pacific, eventually they may check us in the Middle East. That is quite possibly a good thing. It will give us a chance to clean up our own mess and cease creating messes in other countries.


https://medium.com/insurge-intellig...es-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf

An extraordinary new Pentagon study has concluded that the U.S.-backed international order established after World War 2 is “fraying” and may even be “collapsing”, leading the United States to lose its position of “primacy” in world affairs.

The solution proposed to protect U.S. power in this new “post-primacy” environment is, however, more of the same: more surveillance, more propaganda (“strategic manipulation of perceptions”) and more military expansionism.
 
Last edited: