Turkey's mindset and denial is doubly disgraceful, and has stood in the way of Kurds and Armenians getting their due for decades now.

And um, Syria?? You know the whole civil war...

Most likely they'll come out of it with a semi-autonomous state, like in Iraq. Turkey will prevent anything serious from happening though

Because of the Kurdish situation Turkey will probably have to intervene in Syria soon, especially if the rebels lose or retreat in Aleppo. They've tolerated an Iraqi Kurdistan because the United States was involved and made sure that there was no serious irredentism there. There's no chance of that happening in Syria. Just by existing outside of Syrian control the Kurdish area threatens Turkey's territorial integrity. Or at least, turkey wil think so.

And suppose Turkey does invade. What if Assad uses chemical weapons against Turkish troops, as he's threatened to do so? What will NATO (basically, America) have to do then? How will Iran respond to such a body blow to its closest Arab ally? How will the Russians respond?

The Syrian Civil War is incredibly important. It's going to be bad, and could be a real catastrophe.

Turkey (NATO ally) can go to war without NATO approval or support, but if attacked NATO must respond to defend Turkey... (i am not mistaken on this, right?)

And NO, Nato includes the French and the UK, totalling a huge number of professional soldiers, several aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons capability, and nuclear submarines... Even if the US was busy focusing somewhere else (like, oh i don't know, let's say the South China Sea) the NATO allies could take effective measures against Iran or Syria... At least outside of Iran (as it is the ability to project force we're talking about here, Iran could project force into syria, or provide soft support, while the UK and France combined could counter that much Iranian power, neither of them could project enougy force to invade Iran proper... They'd have to nuke Iran to guarentee surrender.

Meanwhile what Russian involvement might look like is totally up in the air. Gas prices, of cutting off supply to Europe once winter hits... They can defend their borders (as the georgia invasion proved) and they're willing to use force, but i think they'd only provide soft support and political pressure to keep NATO allies from creating new colonies/puppets...

@invictus, i thought you said 'syria is important, i could go to bed and it could be a real catastrophe' - excellent mis-aprehension...

"NATO allies could take effective measures against Iran or Syria"

Unfortunately, no. They ran out of missiles when attacking Libya. The British Navy is nearly gone. If NATO has to come to Turkey's aid, the only significant player will be the United States.


If Russia is involved in any physical way in the conflict we have a HUGE Cold War style crisis. Post-Soviet Russia has abandoned its no-first-use nuclear policy. All it takes is Turkey not letting Russian marines en route to Syria through the Turkish Straits and there's a real danger of escalation.

The Kurds hate the terrorists in the Turkish puppet Free Syrian Army. They also aren't a numerical majority in any region of Syria. I like how people around here just love advocating for the fragmentation and destruction of other countries without blinking.

http://ikjnews.com/?p=4614

The Kurds are just used as pawns by the US whenever they want to destroy a country. Otherwise they send their buddies the Turkish butchers after them.

Yeah, they must be terrorists if they dare oppose that loveable fuzzball Assad.

They are not limited to using cruise missiles. The brits put men on the ground in libya, in violation of UN resolutions, but both the French and UK could transport serious numbers to Turkey with a months notice, about 5,000 each as part of a rapid reaction force is ready to deploy in days...

Putin has a point though. Even in the Kurdish areas they don't make up a majority of the citizens. Thinking more about it, Turkey won't really care so long as it doesn't become independent, seeing that Syria was already a safe haven for the PKK. The Kurds will emerge stronger if they don't do anything to encourage ethnic cleansing from the Arabs. I believe the Kurds are Sunni, so they should be safe. But as I said earlier, "stronger" would equal more representation and rights, perhaps a semi-autonomous state. The Kurds were pretty well off in Syria to begin with, if I'm not mistaken.

And yes dissolution of countries would be the end of civilisation as we knkw it... Wait isn't that part of the communist ideal? A new world order without nation-states?

Why would they need to be a majority? They just need to militarily control the area.

Except we have nation-states, and then clients whose resources are privatized, whose minorities are persecuted, and who live under the thumb of NATO. Yeah, sorry for not getting on the pro-NATO bandwagon, seeing as it was an imperialist alliance of conquest aimed at crushing communism and national independence movements.

"The Kurds were pretty well off in Syria to begin with, if I'm not mistaken."

Yes, as are Christians and all religious minorities in general. But nevermind that, the warmongers want blood, death, and destruction followed by Islamism and ethnic cleansing.

"Why would they need to be a majority? They just need to militarily control the area."

Brilliant. Minority rule imposing separatism on the rest of the country via the gun.

"both the French and UK could transport serious numbers to Turkey with a months notice, about 5,000 each as part of a rapid reaction force is ready to deploy in days..."

If they're sending 5,000 men there it's likely become a general war in the Middle East with America sending ten times more at least.

Not that any of you care.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32127

But as of yet there is no evidence they're trying to assert themselves like that. Kurds are not terrorists. They are guerrilla fighters. But I just don't see if happening, Invictus. Should the Syrian military abandon the Kurdish area, it would fall to the Free Syrian Army.

You can't just take control of an area that isn't the majority of your ethnicity in that region. You either kick everyone else out or eventually succumb to the majority. Its a shame to see another secular regime falling in the area (though note, not a shame to see Assad falling. The two don't have to go hand in hand)

"Brilliant. Minority rule imposing separatism on the rest of the country via the gun."

You really misunderstood me. I meant that it doesn't matter if the Kurds aren't a majority someplace, they just need to militarily control a part of Syria in order for Turkey to think it needs to invade. It doesn't matter really that there are a lot of Kurds in a place, just that the Kurdish militias control it.

"Members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are not just tied to al-Qaeda, the CIA-funded fake Islamic terrorist group"

I'm sorry Putin. You go on such a role there for a while and I was agreeing with you, but then you post that link. I didn't take you for a conspiracy theorist.

The FSA is starved of ammunition. They're soon going to be crushed. Turkey's expansionist scheme is going to blow up in its face. Poetic justice.

"Kurds are not terrorists. They are guerrilla fighters. But I just don't see if happening, Invictus. Should the Syrian military abandon the Kurdish area, it would fall to the Free Syrian Army."

No, they're not terrorists. I don't think I said that. I just said that an area of Syria under Kurdish control would be seen as a threat by Turkey.

I don't know why you think the Kurds would join the Free Syrian Army should Assad really lose the Kurdish areas. These people want self-determination. Even if they'll settle for Iraq-style autonomy the way to do that is to negotiate with the new Syrian government from a position of strength, not by just being subsumed by the wider movement.

Not that there would likely be a new government all that soon. Syria could be the new Yugoslavia.

The point was FSA flies Al Qaeda flags, and Assange's report about 'chemical weapons' is a fake.

@Invictus - you didn't, but honestly that's the only way I could think of for them to control the area. They can't do it by armed force because 1) They are the minority and 2) The majority is probably just as well armed as they are. Should Kurds from Iraq or Turkey help them out....well, then Iraq and Turkey will put the hammer down and I don't think they want that happening.

And you're right, they want self-determination, but the fact of the matter is that they don't have the population to back it up. If they are part of the FSA, then they have a better chance, because the way things will shake down is "You keep what you kill" to put it in a Chronicles of Riddick way. Those who are in the FSA will hold the positions of power if Assad falls.

@Putin - There have been Al Qaeda flags flown, but I would say the vast majority of FSA fighters, while they are Islamists, are not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is present, I won't deny that, but since there is no centralized control of the FSA, they might only control a few cells. About the chemical weapons report....I never heard of this report from Assange. I have heard more recent stuff in the news outlets about Assad moving chemical weapons to prevent the FSA from taking them, and threatening their use, but nothing more.

goldfinger0303, they could control the area just by being the only people with guns. I'd be shocked if aid isn't pouring in to the Syrian Kurds from their brethren in Iraq and Turkey, regardless of what those governments may want. If the non-Kurds don't like it they'll leave. That's awful, but it's a reality of war.

I'm sticking firm that the joining the Free Syrian Army (still more of a tendency than a real entity) isn't in the Kurds' interest. Better for them to have their own independent force and the leverage that comes with it. Of course, in theory it would be better for the country if they all worked together and had a big South Africa kind of unity in the end, but that's probably not realistic.

'the WikiLeaks phenomena is also created and controlled by the US government and only “leaks” information that is useful to the US government’s agendas and strategies overseas.'

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Suddenly i realise that nothing on this website can be believed because it has little or no standard of quality control...

When the free syrian army is composed of former army generals who have defected, amd supported by the former prime minister, who defected and fled with his family, i suspect claims that they are entirely CIA trained operatives allowed by Turkey requires extraordinary proof.

Wikileaks may have lots of publicity, but assange is an asshole (according to everyone i've talked to who knows him) and wikileaks split into at least two other website, you can't even leak to them anymore because the splitters tool the technology with them. The CIA could do a much better job training a front man than Julliane Assange.

The syrian Free army have their own flag, that means anyone with the ability to make this flag is able to join, right?

"When the free syrian army is composed of former army generals who have defected, amd supported by the former prime minister, who defected and fled with his family"

Yes, because it is unfathomable that people within a government who the US with all its imperialist might wants to destroy, would want to save their own hides. Also it's unheard of for the US to co-opt or buy-off elements within a target government, like for example the military in Indonesia under Sukarno & Allende in Chile. And naturally, the CIA never worked with elements of the Iranian military to topple the Mossadegh government. Extraordinary claims indeed. Also, nevermind that at least one high level Syrian defector, Mustapha Tlass, is a known CIA asset.

Also, nobody has brought up the fact that even opposition polls indicate that a *sizeable majority of Syrians support the Assad government*. Even the western media was forced to admit that pro-Assad rallies are *very well attended*.

" i suspect claims that they are entirely CIA trained operatives allowed by Turkey requires extraordinary proof."

It's more accurate to say they're being trained by French & British intelligence, with the CIA supervising the supply of weapons.

"Not a single bullet enters Syria without US approval"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-polices-weapons-entry-to-syria-as-spooks-invade-turkey/story-fnb64oi6-1226448705909
http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/0501012-british-special-forces-syria.php

"The CIA could do a much better job training a front man than Julliane Assange."

He just happened to dump a huge number of files on Syria and Iran at a highly strategic time, when the US was pressuring the UN to allow it to destroy Syria.

Because wikileaks happens to be a political organisation. They want to make a big name for themselves, they might release documents deliver by the CIA, but they will attempt to make any releases to coincide with journalists crawling around looking for information.

I don't know where these leaks came from (could have been anywhere) but i do k ow wikileaks specifically wants to threaten ALL government secrecy, ALL corporate secrecy, and the bigger they are, the more times they are mentioned in the media and online, the more credible a threat they pose.

The claim that wikileaks is a mouth liece for the CIA is extraordinary. The claim that the free syrian army is ENTIRELY al quaeda/CIA operatives is extraordinary.

The fact that you can make These claims sound plausible is not anywhere close to proof.

Next you'll say that the entire Arab spring was planned by the democrats to get Obama his second and third terms...