• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Turkey invades northern Iraq

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
DOH! not good...

why? You claim Israel had every right to do it.

Go on cheer Turkey.
I'm waiting
Of course Turkey has the right, and a good reason, to go after the Kurdish rebels. However, that doesn't mean that this incursion is a good thing. My post was simple and to the point: that point being that this does not bode well for stability in the region.

wtf does Israel have to do with this situation? get a grip mr. hezbollah. sheesh...

& an incursion of Israel into Lebanon is stable for the region? You supported that 100%.

Hezbollah is an Islamic militant group.
Like I said you are nothing but a bigot.
Funny how when it comes to Muslims doing the same thing you aren't defending their actions with all you got, but when Israel does it you will defend it always.

I'm just pointing out your closed-minded thinking process.
oh christ... get a frickin grip dude.

For the record, I support ANYONE who goes after terrorists, regardless of their faith or ideology - that includes Turkey, Israel, India, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan (sometimes), etc.

I classify a terrorist as any fighter who intentionally targets innocent civilians. (Hamas, Hezbollah, some Kurdish rebels, AQ, etc).

There is more to add onto just targeting innocent civilians.

Terrorist is any fighter who intentionally targets innocent civilians, who does not wear the military uniform of their country therefore shielding themselves among the normal population and softening any repercussions their acts of war has on their home country.
I disagree. It is possible to commit acts of terror against innocent civilians while wearing a uniform (ie. ethnic cleansing).

The only difference is that it is a lot easier to find and destroy the terrorists who wear uniforms.
 
Finally we get the Jackalas definition of what a terrorist is-----Terrorist is any fighter who intentionally targets innocent civilians, who does not wear the military uniform of their country therefore shielding themselves among the normal population and softening any repercussions their acts of war has on their home country.

Some how I have to invoke the George Wallace and the tweedle dum and tweedle dee twins. "There is not a a dimes difference between the two." Wearing a uniform and inciting violence, if anything is the more craven of the two acts. In the final analysis, most terrorism is instigated by people who also wear or use uniforms.
 
Well that's good at least.

Interesting how everybody is now using the 'war on terrorism' to justify military actions though.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
That truth is essentially what separates the good guys from the bad guys. Intent is everything - and anyone who intentionally targets innocent civilians is a terrorist. period. (ie. crashing planes into office buildings, randomly lobbing rockets into cities, or blowing yourself up in a crowded market).

That is true but the point is that Israel was very careless with its attacks. They didn't try to kill Lebanese civilians but they also didn't try not to.
 
Originally posted by: Train
The entire report is bogus.

No Turkish troops have entered Iraq.

Turkish troops have been in Iraq for well over a decade. Many are stationed there. This is just an influx of more troops.
 
Originally posted by: Train
The entire report is bogus.

No Turkish troops have entered Iraq.

Maybe someone should tell the Turks.

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey denied a report on Wednesday it had launched a major incursion into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels, but a military source said troops had conducted a limited raid across the mountainous border.

Seems like the stage is being set . . .
Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters: "There is no incursion into any other country at the moment."
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Train
The entire report is bogus.

No Turkish troops have entered Iraq.

Maybe someone should tell the Turks.

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey denied a report on Wednesday it had launched a major incursion into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels, but a military source said troops had conducted a limited raid across the mountainous border.

Seems like the stage is being set . . .
Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters: "There is no incursion into any other country at the moment."

Yup that's what I thought too. Classic trial balloon to soften people for the real thing. Just like the steady warmongering against Iran is beginning to take effect. People here are now increasingly accepting the idea of war with Iran without a shed of proof for anything other than anonymous statements from "government officials" or various military officers claiming this or that.




 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Train
The entire report is bogus.

No Turkish troops have entered Iraq.

Maybe someone should tell the Turks.

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey denied a report on Wednesday it had launched a major incursion into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels, but a military source said troops had conducted a limited raid across the mountainous border.

Seems like the stage is being set . . .
Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters: "There is no incursion into any other country at the moment."

Yup that's what I thought too. Classic trial balloon to soften people for the real thing. Just like the steady warmongering against Iran is beginning to take effect. People here are now increasingly accepting the idea of war with Iran without a shed of proof for anything other than anonymous statements from "government officials" or various military officers claiming this or that.
What sort of "proof" do you require? One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Iran is doing anything other than supporting every single one of our enemies. Their shadowy involvement and support of our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan is a no-brainer, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone with half a clue... duh.

The world has asked them to stop developing nuclear technology and they essentially gave the world the finger... strike two.

All it will take is one more strike - something major - for Iran to hang themselves... and I pray for that moment every day of my life! However, my prayers involve the Iranian regime imploding without a single shot being fired by the US and our allies. I pray for a somewhat peaceful collapse of the Iranian regime. I pray that their President and mullahs die in their sleep.. all of them.

All of that is more preferable than the US having to fight them... we dont need another damn war anytime soon.

But, if the Iranian government forces our hand, we'll be forced to thrash them. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If invade is the wrong word, try incursion. Its still starts a dangerous trend and Turkey has not been a happy camper with the US occupation of Iraq. Initial US plans for the invasion of Iraq called for a Northern front using land routes through Turkish territory. And that was scrubbed because Turkey objected with US plans on the treatment of the Kurds.

Nope. THE TURKISH PARLIMENT voted against it because the plan called for 390,000 US soldiers being permenantly stationed in Southeastern Turkey. As a sovereign nation you don't have to allow that. Those small details are not made known to US Public in general, you are only told that Turkey rejects to help USA. That is not the point. Turkey has been a good ally of United States for the last 60 years. You have to stop and think for a moment WHY your offer was rejected.

 
THIS thread is about Turkey in Iraq NOT the abundant missteps by the US administration with regards to Iran. But since you cannot resist, I am compelled to correct your ignorance:

1) The US has few (if any) friends/allies in Iraq and Afghanistan so almost any group that Iranians 'support' is going to be a boon to our enemies. But until the USA stops supporting militant opposition groups in Iran . . . complaints about Iran are nothing more than *pot-kettle* Oh yeah, Karzai PRAISED the Iranians . . . in Gates face!

2) The world has asked the USA and Israel to do all kinds of things. Do we obey? If we believe it's in our interests, sure. If not, we give the world the finger . . . strike two.

3) All it takes is one more major conflict for our country to effectively hang ourselves. I await with pleasure the END of the Bush43 administration and hope upon hope that it is replaced with a considerate, intelligent, pro-active administration capable of leading the world to a better future instead of miring our country and others in perpetual fruitless conflict. Unfortunately, the Hagel/Powell ticket ain't gonna happen.

But I do pray some reasonable remnant in the Bush43 Junta prevents Bush43 from going 0-2-1 in wars. Iran IS a regional power. Their rise was inevitable with the collapse of Saddam. Iran will likely join the nuclear club (just like Israel, India, and Pakistan) . . . other nations that thumbed their noses at the world.

Turkey certainly has issues but that's no different from any other country, nobody is perfect. But they have a right to secure their border when their neighboring sovereign fails to do so . . . unlike the unfounded actions of say the USA in the region.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Finally we get the Jackalas definition of what a terrorist is-----Terrorist is any fighter who intentionally targets innocent civilians, who does not wear the military uniform of their country therefore shielding themselves among the normal population and softening any repercussions their acts of war has on their home country.

Some how I have to invoke the George Wallace and the tweedle dum and tweedle dee twins. "There is not a a dimes difference between the two." Wearing a uniform and inciting violence, if anything is the more craven of the two acts. In the final analysis, most terrorism is instigated by people who also wear or use uniforms.


???? you cant be serious.
 
more turkish occupation of kurdish lands...they should just setup a kurdish state. else they are a buncha hypocrites when they yap about the palestinians.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
DOH! not good...

why? You claim Israel had every right to do it.

Go on cheer Turkey.
I'm waiting

I'm all for it. The Kurdish Gorillas had it coming and the US was doing nothing.

the kurdish lands in northern iraq are a little more receptive to the US. with the sunnis and sh!tes blowing crap up all the time we kind of have are hands full. there isn't a need to tick off all three factions.
 
My dad has Kurdish heritage, mom has Eastern European heritage, I was born, raised, etc. in Turkey and I am 100% Turkish. I call myself a Turk. I am sick off the Kurds in Iraq. It's time to get this over with. If the U.S. won't do anything about the terrorist that do not hurt US, we'll do it ourselves.

Oh and it would be great help if the U.S. stops supplying Kurds with A4 explosives (with excuses such as "they stole our trucks!").

Cheers.
 
The big winners in Gulf war one and two has been the Kurds---and in terms of being always a bridesmaid and never a bride its also the Kurds--dating back to at least Lawrence of Arabia days. But with the advent of the Northern no fly zone, the Kurds had been able to thumb their noses at Saddam and are living right on top of a mountain of black gold.

And now the Kurds are sitting on the fence----will they join in a new democratic Iraq or decide to form their own independent State?---and the notion that the Kurds speak with one voice is also absurd. But I have to assume that some Kurds---and some of the PKK clearly favor the independent State option. And I would also have to assume that some of the more prudent ones do have well advanced contingency plans to turn some of that black gold into the heavy weapons needed to establish and maintain such a State.

I am not taking sides or advocating anything, I am just pointing out exactly how volatile the situation can become because the Kurds are a real sore spot with the Turks. And if the Turks do intervene, it could get other neighboring States intervening. And Iraq could get out of all control really fast.

The real dangerous illusion is that while we play partisan games in Washington, we will discover that we don't have infinite time to bicker---And Iraq can simply solve itself by ignited a regional war.
 
In 5 months time there's supposed to be a referendum on whether Kirkuk is to be included under Kurdish control. That region is responsible for a good chunk of Iraq's oil production, something like 1 million barrels a day, and such an inclusion would make viable an independent Kurdish state. Turkey, as you can imagine, is opposed to such a move, and would likely take action if such a measure passes, although any "invasion" would be tough going as the Peshmerga are among the most competent forces in the region, they being the reason that the violence in the rest of Iraq does not envelop them. The Kurds are pragmatists and have sold out the PKK before and would likely do so again to strike a deal with Turkey.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I classify a terrorist as any fighter who intentionally targets innocent civilians. (Hamas, Hezbollah, some Kurdish rebels, AQ, etc).

There is more to add onto just targeting innocent civilians.

Terrorist is any fighter who intentionally targets innocent civilians, who does not wear the military uniform of their country therefore shielding themselves among the normal population and softening any repercussions their acts of war has on their home country.
I disagree. It is possible to commit acts of terror against innocent civilians while wearing a uniform (ie. ethnic cleansing).

The only difference is that it is a lot easier to find and destroy the terrorists who wear uniforms.

I would call those war criminals, and war crimes of which there SHOULD BE NO DOUBT that the nation should be held accountable. Yet when those same fighters take off their uniform there are those among us who root for and support them in their actions and even go so far as to claim those fighters are victims themselves, as if we can excuse their actions.
 
Originally posted by: Turkish
Oh and it would be great help if the U.S. stops supplying Kurds with A4 explosives (with excuses such as "they stole our trucks!").

Cheers.

Could you add some details of what you are talking about here?
 
Back
Top