I think he was saying that Turkish artillery used radar to identify their targets. Presumably, he was saying that Turkey attacked military installations.Erdogan said:
“This atrocious attack was immediately responded to adequately by our armed forces in the border region, in accordance with rules of engagement.” “Targets were shelled in locations identified by radar.”
Now last time I checked, mortars don’t require radar especially one indiscriminate mortar round.
It is not uncommon, in this modern age, for news articles to be rushed online after an initial report, only to be corrected shortly later as more reporting comes in.So, here are the facts:
Initial reports say Syrian artillery was “shelling” across the border, but that storyline is quickly changed to “a” mortar round.
I know the Syrian government was investigating the incident, but did they actually come to a conclusion that their military was not involved?Syria denies responsibility.
Stranger things have happened such as (to use the most cliched and obvious example from recent history) when the US entered the Second World War in 1941 on the side of Communist Russia. Parliamentary capitalist democracy and Communism weren’t exactly bosom buddies were they? ts a tricky and dirty business warfare, and as we all know alliances shift like the wind from one time to another.Maybe Vladimir Putin needs to warn Turkey, or else start arming the Kurds. Sick the way things escalate. but Turkey has historically been one of the world’s most anti-Christian nations, and I can’t think of much that would be more shameful than to enter a conflict on there side.
Actually NATO has worked pretty well. Continental Europe was not overrun by the Soviets. That’s ample proof that it did work.Yes, precisely the same sort of ridiculous pact that resulted in WW1. Nation upon nation declaring war on each other all because they had treaties with the two who started it. Such treaties didn’t serve their intended purpose as a deterrent to war then and they won’t today. The Syrian Regime has been backed into a corner and it will lash out with whatever its got until it can’t anymore. We need a tempered response and, so far, I think Turkey has been more than accommodating and patient. I hope they continue to be so.
From what I know of history, NATO did work well within the Cold War context in helping to shield Western Europe from Soviet threats. I don’t think that it can be easily compared to the very complex alliance system at work prior to WW1 which, certainly, was not as extensive as NATO nor founded upon the same core principles and shared values. Neither did the world prior to the Great War have to face the threat of a rapidly expanding Soviet superpower that had a penchant for consuming states and turning them into client “republics” under an ideology of state run atheistic, marxist dictatorship.Actually NATO has worked pretty well. Continental Europe was not overrun by the Soviets. That’s ample proof that it did work.
WW1 wasn’t just about pacts. Pacts alone would not have led to it. There were motives behind the alliances.
Oh by all means I was against the NATO Bombings. Lots of civilians including young children died there too at the hands of NATO. NATO should not have been used for that purpose. It was of course at the hands of German agitation and Bill Clinton wanted to show who’s boss. No Milosevic would tell him off.The same Albanians which NATO help to bring back into Kosovo, began a campaign of attacking Christians, including Monasteries who had originally helped save them during the war.
Jim
Turkey’s parliament has authorised troops to launch cross-border action against Syria, following Syria’s deadly shelling of a Turkish town.
The bill, passed by 320 to 129, also permits strikes against Syrian targets.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19830928But Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay insisted this was a deterrent and not a mandate for war.
The mortar landed in a rural area near the village of Guvecci, early on Saturday morning just minutes after intense fighting broke out between the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime and the rebels in the village of Harabjoz, in Syria’s Idlib province across the border, the private Dogan news agency reported.
washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/state-run-agency-turkish-artillery-return-fire-at-syria-for-fourth-day-after-mortar-lands/2012/10/06/1ba30c36-0f7a-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.htmlNo one was hurt by the mortar, which landed some 500 meters (yards) outside of the village. But Turkish artillery based at an army battalion near Guvecci immediately responded with “counter-fire,” the state-run Anadolu Agency said.
Well I’m not so sure I’d call Syria Christian Friendly, especially the rebels who are trying to take over, which are heavily supported by Iran and Al Qaeda. When they win, watch for Christian persecution as we’ve seen in Egypt.And if this conflict between Christian friendly Syria and anti-Christian Turkey escalates seriously, we can expect NATO to come in on the side of the anti-Christians, just as they did in Bosnia (yes I know there were a few Christians on there side), Kosovo, Macedonia, and Libya.
This has to be verified, however. RT news is not enough to convince me, since the Russians are decidely pro-Assad.On Russia Today news, they’re saying that the mortars are coming from an area taken over by Syrian rebels. So hopefully Turkey will get wise to this and not retaliate.
I agree with what you have said and the possible bias of RT news, however in view of your comments it would seem more likely to be the rebels - as it would seem ludicrous that Syria would wish to anger the Turks and start a war that would bring NATO against them.This has to be verified, however. RT news is not enough to convince me, since the Russians are decidely pro-Assad.
Not saying that this isn’t the case (the rebels may be launching the attacks) however I am not going to make up my own mind based on a biased news agency and neither can the Turkish state until there is clear proof of this evident rather than hearsay or supposition.
I do not think that Turkey is heedless enough to break into open warfare in Syria. What concerns me more is internal conflicts within Turkey, Iran and Syria which could imperil the Middle-east and plunge it into a wider conflict.
Yes, the Turkish government is hardly subtle in expressing its solidarity with the cause of the rebels. Undoubtedly, bases on its land are transferring arms to cross the Turko-Syrian border.
However the Turks desire international action on a diplomatic level, not a unilateral declaration of war. Turkey does not want to intervene militarily.
Do you not recall the muted reaction when its aircraft was brought down by Syrian air defence in the summer? Turkey’s response was as diplomatic, peaceable minded and cautionary as can be.
Prior to the troubles in Syria and the wider Arab world, Turkey had been cozying up to Iran and the Assad regime. It saw Iran, despite its Shi’ite population, as a growing regional power which could co-operate with broader Turkic aims. Erdogan’s more unabashedly Islamic party can be naturally expected to admire many elements of Iranian post-revolutionary society with its firm Muslim foundations.
To the shock of the government, the Turkish flag was burned in the first days of the uprising in Benghazi in Libya. Relations with Iraq have deteriorated badly with the Kurdish terrorist attacks from the Iraqi side of the border. Now the Syrian troubles are causing more difficulties even with public opinion in Turkey, which seems concerned rather than totally approving of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s calls for the removal of the Assad regime.
The Turks do not want war.
As previously stated, I am no fan of the Turkish state (far from it) but I know that neither the government nor the people want a war.
And neither is Syria looking to pick a fight with Turkey. That is the last thing, I would imagine, given that Turkey is a NATO member.
So we must wait, watch and pray that tensions will be cooled.
Yes, I do think its possible that the rebels could be complicit, however it is also possible that Assad’s regime might have fired the mortars. In the fog of war, sometimes rational thought can slip by the way side. Assad has his back pushed up against the wall. He knows that there are likely bases in Turkey from which arms are moving to the rebels. Might not a trigger-happy Syrian general have considered, “lets take these guys out and stop this flow of arms to the enemy”. I think it probable, at least as probable as it being the rebels.I agree with what you have said and the possible bias of RT news, however in view of your comments it would seem more likely to be the rebels - as it would seem ludicrous that Syria would wish to anger the Turks and start a war that would bring NATO against them.
Yes, Iran is supporting the government, not the rebels.Iran is NOT supporting the rebels in Syria, they are supporting the government, and the rebels have kidnapped a number of Iranians. Syria government has been very pro-Christian for many years. Assad’s top military commander Dawoud Rahija who was assassinated in July, was Greek Orthodox.
Yes, Tehran generally has supported Assads in Syria, but there is a split in the Iranian government over it. In fact, Iran has started inspecting plans to be sure they’\re not carrying arms to Syrian forces.Iran is NOT supporting the rebels in Syria, they are supporting the government, and the rebels have kidnapped a number of Iranians. Syria government has been very pro-Christian for many years. Assad’s top military commander Dawoud Rahija who was assassinated in July, was Greek Orthodox.