February 14, 2016 at 4:25 am #47268
I saw a reference to that article elsewhere saying it was a hoax. However, things are getting pretty ugly over there and sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. WWIII could be just one miscalculation away, but probably that specific scenario is not how it will play out.February 14, 2016 at 5:07 am #47269
If it’s a hoax, it’s one with more dovetailing related facts supplied beforehand, than any I ever saw before. See what Russia Today has to say about it.
Cry, "Treason!"February 14, 2016 at 9:58 am #47271
At this point , I would believe the Russians over our media , not that theirs is not also slanted . The Turks need their @ss kicked , and kicked out of NATO . They are scum , they always have been . Kick them out of Syria , kick them out of Cypress , and every other place they are brutalizing people . I would let it be known , that if Putin attacks them in self defense , they are on their own , no help . They are banking on NATO ( the US is NATO for all intents and purposes ) to bail them out , otherwise they would not be so aggressive . If they understood they were on their own , they would be much more diplomatic .February 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm #47272
Stratfor, hardly a tabloid source, has the following “freebie” on its subscription web page:
Turkey has shelled Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in northern Syria and demanded the group retreat from territory it has seized, [Turkish] Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Feb. 13, BBC reported.
“Davutoglu confirms Turkish retaliation to shelling” is the headline in Turkey’s own Anadolu Agency news outlet.February 14, 2016 at 2:28 pm #47273
Something I learned over the years with family history research, both mine and others, is that all family oral traditions are incorrect but all have at least a grain of truth in them. In the case of these articles, there is no doubt but that the situation in Syria is getting worse and at this point all hell may break loose at any time. A fire only simmers for so long before it bursts into flame.
Looking at the specific claims through my own lens, what gives me pause is the specificity of the claims as concerns the amount of equipment and troops being deployed and the timeframe. Total fabrications are usually not so specific, especially as concerns timeframes. The converse to that is the amount of equipment. Saudi and its allies in the Muslim world would be hard pressed to deploy that much hardware. The other thing is that Saudi and its allies are far from being partnered in a way to have a coordinated attack of this magnitude. The only way to amass that volume of troops and equipment would be if it were a NATO or US led effort. If NATO, it still means mostly US troops and equipment which would be almost impossible to keep under wraps. I’m still thinking hoax and in a couple weeks there will be a followup article pushing the timeframe out, that or they let the story just fade away.
One final thought, what are the odds that the folks putting out the story are the ones with such close contacts so as to get info this detailed? Something of this magnitude should have corroboration from others not associated with the original authors.
Tolik, I’m with you. Turkey needs to be booted out of NATO and never allowed in the European Union. They seem hellbent to start a war with Russia.
February 14, 2016 at 2:56 pm #47277
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by MountainBiker.
They need NATO , otherwise , they would get the snot kicked out of them , resulting in unconditional surrender . Russia would get valuable access to ports , etc . As to not being allowed into the EU , that would probably be a blessing in disguise for the Turks .February 14, 2016 at 3:11 pm #47278
I don’t believe it is all hyperbole, there are to many reports with the same basic info.
Saudi Arabia confirms plans to send troops to SyriaFebruary 14, 2016 at 4:11 pm #47279
74, it is the magnitude of the offensive described in the original “limited nuke war” article that I am struggling with. Where does Saudi come up with 20,000 tanks?February 14, 2016 at 4:52 pm #47280
I dont think WE even have 20,000 tanks . I dont think Russia has 20,000 tanks lol . Unless you are producing WW2 style technology tanks , you could produce that number…………………..in several years . The modern tank is not a simple , or easy piece of equipment to produce . Here is another thing about tanks . Tanks need a crew , and that is what ? 4-5 people , but its not just the tank , for every one tank , you need not a small number of support to keep it going . You have to have X number of fuel trucks , X number of other support vehicles and logistics . That takes man power . What is the Saudi population ? Last I knew , imported foreign labor outnumbered the population of Saudi citizens already . Then how many infantry could be called up ? Its a struggle for us to come up with , and sustain large numbers of troops . I would question the numbers also .February 14, 2016 at 4:52 pm #47281
different view of what is happening in syria
i think bigger problem is the tension between turkey and russian yesterdays shelling of syria is going to bring conflict then only question is russia response and if nato will back turkey or not.
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/886 protecting supply lines of isisFebruary 15, 2016 at 3:29 am #47285
I find it odd that Pravda, though technically a private on line site, is not talking about the massive buildups we’re seeing elsewhere. (Nor is RT, by the way.) In their latest story on the Syria/Turkey/Saudi situation, Pravda reports that, “20 Turkish tanks, more than 20 self-propelled guns and 30 field artillery guns of various calibers appeared near the border on Syria during February 7-10.” And, “Noteworthy, Advisor to the Defence Minister of Saudi Arabia, Ahmad Asiri, stated that Saudi Arabia would launch a ground operation in Syria as soon as the US-led international coalition makes such a decision. Earlier, the head of the Saudi Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Adel Al-Jubeir, announced a possibility to send Saudi special forces to Syria as part of the US-led coalition to fight the Islamic State terrorist group.”
I would expect that if the numbers we’re seeing elsewhere were even remotely close to accurate, Russia would be trumpeting that around the world! Not so. Thus, I tend to agree with MB – the stories are generally accurate in basics, but very questionable in details. Russia is not even accusing Turkey of directly and intentionally targeting Russian troops, thus I further suspect that part of the other reports is likely not true. That there may be collateral damage with Turkey attacking Kurd positions, given the proximity of Russian troops (apparently), would not be surprising. But that’s much different than intentional, targeted hits on the Russians by Turkish forces.
That something is going on is clear. But what, is another story.
Of great interest to me was the hidden gem I found while researching this story. Rather than hijack this thread, I’ve put the story in its own new thread:
Did anyone hear about Henry the K’s visit to Russia just over a week ago? And how about the seemingly out-of-the-blue references to him in the Democrat debate last Thursday night, just 8 days later? What was THAT all about? Why even bring up Kissinger? For possible insights into what’s going on behind the scenes, including answers to that question, see the above new thread. And as you read it, think about Reagan’s inauguration day. Remember when Iran suddenly released our embassy hostages even as Reagan was being sworn in? Only an imbecile couldn’t figure out that Reagan’s “people” had already been involved with Iran’s “people” well prior to the inauguration, and the Iranians decided it was in their best interest to release the hostages before Reagan had time to ACT as President (which also slapped Jimmah big time!). Well, it appears Team-Billary is already doing its own negotiating well in advance of their coronation in 341 days – in the form of Henry the K meeting personally and directly with Putin. Either the fix is already in for the election in November, or Billary has VERY high expectations, and Obama is very much a part of it (note not only the US news blackout on K’s visit to Putin, but a lack of any denouncing of K’s visit to Putin himself as unauthorized by the President, or interference with Obama’s foreign policy). If Obama was in any way opposed to it, he’d go ballistic that anyone would dare interfere with HIS foreign policy.
Silence and news items that aren’t reported, mean things….February 15, 2016 at 4:38 am #47287
The Richie Allen show audio is very intriguing, at minimum. I always put on instant caution when I hear clearly biased reporting, as evidenced by such terms as “occupied Palestine, otherwise known as Israel,” “NATO terrorists,” and “Rothschild-Zionist plans,” etc. The question that comes to mind immediately is, “Is she merely a propagandist, or is she mixing her own legitimate horror with otherwise objective reporting?”
I’ve kept my opinion to myself with everyone except my wife to this point, but a part of me (and only a part) has been skeptical about Assad’s alleged brutality against his own people. I watched the extended interview he did with a major US media “news” person (can’t remember who/which network that was off the top of my head), perhaps a year ago. There was something about that interview that simply wasn’t tracking for me when put up next to the reports in the media about Assad and all he’s reportedly done to his people. Was I duped? No, because I haven’t made up my mind. But when a US Senator (McCain) sneaks across the Turkish border into Syria in support of supposedly anti-Assad forces, he’s violating sovereign borders and laws! That’s not the role of a sitting US senator. And I don’t trust McCain anyway, so it causes me to wonder what ELSE is going on there, and why he’s so strongly supporting supposedly moderate versions of the same folks that took down the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon (Al Qaeda). Tie all that in with what really happened in Benghazi on 11 September 2012, with the visit by the Turkish Consul General to that little remote site, rather than the official US Embassy in Tripoli, combined with the arms gathering and shipping from Benghazi to Turkey and most presumably straight into Turkey – and one HAS to wonder what’s going on. With the fact that Hillary won’t discuss that information at all, and the Benghazi hearings were entirely silent on the visit by the Turkish Consul General, and the wondering ramps up further. Clearly, if the US was successful in killing or running off Assad, we’d just chalk up another Libya/Iraq total disaster zone (thank you Hillary and Company).
So my personal mental jury is still out, but after listening to the Richie Allen interview, the votes continue to trend toward stuff that the government would have everyone believe ONLY comes from the demented brains of hard core domestic right wing whacko terrorists. ‘Cept I ain’t one! But then I already know I meet their publicly listed criteria 100% anyway…. I just know I don’t like the answers I’m getting. I only wish this forum was an appropriate place to discuss what else I know. The line below my signature gives a tiny, tiny clue, for those ears that are trained to hear that side of the story. It would be fascinating beyond belief just as simply an exercise in study and discussioin, except that it’s so very relevant to what’s happening in the US and around the world. In the meantime, I’ll confine myself to the social/political aspects of it all.February 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm #47458February 22, 2016 at 7:32 pm #47459
Thanks Tolik that was an interesting piece.February 22, 2016 at 8:18 pm #47461
So, Professor Cohen asks, “If the religious leaders who have had a spiritual war, cold war, for 1000 years — ’cause this was a historic meeting – if they can meet, why can’t Obama go meet Putin and work this out on our terms, militarily, against the Islamic State?” (please pardon any mis-transcription) Good question.
Answer: Because, unlike the heads of the two churches, they’re on diametrically opposite sides of that specific issue. Putin wants to help Assad stay in power, perhaps, partly to protect Christians, but mainly to protect his Mediterranean naval base. Obama wants to depose Assad,partly to remove any protection the Christians may have, but mainly to grow the Caliphate, and to strip Russia of its naval base, to (attempt to) dominate Russia, for the NATO/Bankster coalition he fronts for. The “Islamic State” is his Foreign Legion.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by L Tecolote.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.