Welcome
Login:   Pass:     Register - Forgot Password - Resend Activation

Turkish Class Forums / News articles, events, announcements

News articles, events, announcements

Add reply to this discussion
Syria´s darkest day?chemical weapons?
(35 Messages in 4 pages - View all)
[1] 2 3 4
1.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 22 Aug 2013 Thu 11:19 am

 Opposition says up to 1,300 killed in‘chemical weapons attacks by Assad forces´ on Damascus..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrias-darkest-day-opposition-says-up-to-1300-killed-inchemical-weapons-attacks-by-assad-forces-on-damascus-8777527.html

.

The Syrian government has denied the allegations, describing them as "illogical and fabricated". The Syrian army said the opposition made up the claims to divert attention from the huge losses its forces had suffered recently...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23790335

..

.

 Hundreds of people are believed to have been killed in an apparent gas attack on rebel-held parts of eastern Damascus that is thought to be the most significant use of chemical weapons since thousands of Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein in Halabja 25 years ago.

..

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/syria-conflcit-chemical-weapons-hundreds-killed

..

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, displaying little doubt as to their authenticity. He added that the Turkish intelligence had provided officials with some additional videos of the attack, and urged the international community to react...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syria-chemical-attack-images-intolerable-fm-davutoglu-says-urging-international-action.aspx?pageID=238&nID=52950&NewsCatID=338

--------------

Though we are not sure who is the blame at this moment but this is a crime against humanity, a crime committed against all of us ..

Algahafy and TurkishSoapFan liked this message
2.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 24 Aug 2013 Sat 11:47 am

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/2013823181349586368.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23822440

The Pentagon is moving forces closer to Syria as the US weighs its options in the conflict there, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has suggested...

=================

I think this is the dilemma we keep facing: We dont like USA interfering with other countries internal affairs. That is fine. But what about if some countries are ruled by a dictator who is not afraid of killing his own people to stay in power? I think in the end, the world might end up with a rapid force given to UN or something similar to use in these type of situations.

 

3.       burakk
309 posts
 24 Aug 2013 Sat 04:55 pm

"

Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive “regime change” in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west’s oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures. Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

The plans, frighteningly frank in their discussion, were discovered in the private papers of Duncan Sandys, Mr Macmillan’s defence secretary, by Matthew Jones, a reader in international history at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.

Part of the “preferred plan” reads: “In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.”

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden’s disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as “a most formidable report”. Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency “to chatter”.

Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba’ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.

Driving the call for action was the CIA’s Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. The triumvirate had moved even closer to Nikita Khrushchev’s orbit after the previous year’s disastrous attempt by Britain and France, in collusion with Israel, to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez canal.

By 1957, despite America’s opposition to the Suez move, President Eisenhower felt he could no longer ignore the danger of Syria becoming a centre for Moscow to spread communism throughout the Middle East. He and Mr Macmillan feared Syria would destabilise pro-western neighbours by exporting terrorism and encouraging internal dissent. More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq’s oilfields to Turkey.

The “preferred plan”adds: “Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

“The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other’s activities… Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures.”

Sabotage

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.” That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of “sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities” to be blamed on Damascus.

The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee”, and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

The planners envisaged replacing the Ba’ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and “would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power”.

The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria’s Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. The following year, the Ba’athists moved against their Communist former allies and took Syria into a federation with Gen Nasser’s Egypt, which lasted until 1963."

4.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 25 Aug 2013 Sun 05:17 pm

Syria: Cameron and Obama threaten ´serious response´

..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23830590

------------------------

It looks like if they can prove the latest chemical attack was from Essad, USA and UK  will retailate.

But it is still not proved that it was the government. There are websites and people, they keep telling it is the opposition to trigger a western response..

Efi70 and TurkishSoapFan liked this message
5.       burakk
309 posts
 25 Aug 2013 Sun 07:25 pm

hey lets stop the killing of people by killing even more people! even if assad burned every single city with napalm he cant kill as much as a western invasion would



Edited (8/25/2013) by burakk

TurkishSoapFan liked this message
6.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 26 Aug 2013 Mon 11:41 pm

Syria chemical attack undeniable, says John Kerry

US Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned what he termed the "moral obscenity" of the Syrian government´s use of chemical weapons against its own people...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23844643

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23844652

 

http://haber.gazetevatan.com/rusyadan-flas-suriye-karari/564554/1/gundem (Turkish..-Russian Minister says that ´Russia has no intention to go war with anybody even there is a military intervention in Syria´

------------

I think an attack might be on its way..

7.       Kavaklidere
7 posts
 27 Aug 2013 Tue 12:43 am

 

Quoting burakk

hey lets stop the killing of people by killing even more people! even if assad burned every single city with napalm he cant kill as much as a western invasion would

 

Can I ask, what would you do? What do you think would be the best move? Sit and wait until all Syrians die? Let´s leave it on to them? Turn a blind eye while thousands of innocent children are being killed and millions forced to leave the country? 

You may remember at the very beginning, when it all has started. Civilians and the rebels were crying out for help from the west/UN. Why from them? Simply because these countries are in a position to provide help. Sadly, Russia and China kept vetoing all resolution. And now the conflict has just become so complicated that a western military intervention may not be sufficient to do any good. (I´m talking about western military intervention, not western invasion. By which I mean a similar military operation that was launched in Libya. No doubt, western military forces are not welcome in the region. We all know about Iraq. And also, how would they sell this idea at home? Thousands of soldiers died in a war that was not justified whatsoever, the wounds are so fresh, who wants more of that? For these reasons I doubt that an invasion would come up as a possible military action.)

I believe, Russia and China should have been disregarded long ago, and a military intervention should have been carried out long ago. And I completely understand the reasons why the western countries were not rushing for such move - see my thoughts above. Though it looks like their hesitation made the situation worse.

In Syria, by now both sides have become so desperate. It looks like Assad´s goal is to eliminate the opponents at any price. No matter what the tool is, no matter that these are their own people, just kill them all. Let me ask you, if they won this battle, what do you think, how would affect that your country? How would affect that the relationship between Turkey and Syria? Or Turkey and Iran perhaps?

Looking at the other side, perhaps a quick military intervention would have prevented that thousands of jihadists, al-qaeda guys and all that sort of extremists joined to the Syrian rebels. Obviously the rebels have taken anyone who were willing to fight on their side, but it looks like they sort of lost the control on these groups. So who could predict now what would be next if Assad was defeated? Perhaps the rebels would come on power with extremists hand in hand? You see, what could have been prevented, seems to be on its way. 

Not to mention that in the surrounding countries, particularly in Lebanon, this whole strife is not only looked at as an internal conflict, but as a sectarian fight as well. Where it all will end?

I believe it is past time that intervention is needed. My fear is that with or without intervention the result (will there be any resolution?) of this conflict will be far from satisfactory to the region. And to west too.

TurkishSoapFan liked this message
8.       burakk
309 posts
 27 Aug 2013 Tue 01:40 am

 

Quoting Kavaklidere

 

 

Can I ask, what would you do? What do you think would be the best move? Sit and wait until all Syrians die? Let´s leave it on to them? Turn a blind eye while thousands of innocent children are being killed and millions forced to leave the country? 

You may remember at the very beginning, when it all has started. Civilians and the rebels were crying out for help from the west/UN. Why from them? Simply because these countries are in a position to provide help. Sadly, Russia and China kept vetoing all resolution. And now the conflict has just become so complicated that a western military intervention may not be sufficient to do any good. (I´m talking about western military intervention, not western invasion. By which I mean a similar military operation that was launched in Libya. No doubt, western military forces are not welcome in the region. We all know about Iraq. And also, how would they sell this idea at home? Thousands of soldiers died in a war that was not justified whatsoever, the wounds are so fresh, who wants more of that? For these reasons I doubt that an invasion would come up as a possible military action.)

I believe, Russia and China should have been disregarded long ago, and a military intervention should have been carried out long ago. And I completely understand the reasons why the western countries were not rushing for such move - see my thoughts above. Though it looks like their hesitation made the situation worse.

In Syria, by now both sides have become so desperate. It looks like Assad´s goal is to eliminate the opponents at any price. No matter what the tool is, no matter that these are their own people, just kill them all. Let me ask you, if they won this battle, what do you think, how would affect that your country? How would affect that the relationship between Turkey and Syria? Or Turkey and Iran perhaps?

Looking at the other side, perhaps a quick military intervention would have prevented that thousands of jihadists, al-qaeda guys and all that sort of extremists joined to the Syrian rebels. Obviously the rebels have taken anyone who were willing to fight on their side, but it looks like they sort of lost the control on these groups. So who could predict now what would be next if Assad was defeated? Perhaps the rebels would come on power with extremists hand in hand? You see, what could have been prevented, seems to be on its way. 

Not to mention that in the surrounding countries, particularly in Lebanon, this whole strife is not only looked at as an internal conflict, but as a sectarian fight as well. Where it all will end?

I believe it is past time that intervention is needed. My fear is that with or without intervention the result (will there be any resolution?) of this conflict will be far from satisfactory to the region. And to west too.

 

the solution is to stop fueling terrorism in foreign countries. read my previous post

TurkishSoapFan liked this message
9.       TurkishSoapFan
23 posts
 27 Aug 2013 Tue 09:23 am

In the spirit of democracy, I think that the last word is for the Syrians to decide. It is no other country´s business to call the shots for Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. If Syrians want Assad, which in polls he has proven to have had a 75% majority, then Assad should stay. If they want him out, then out he should go. However, you cannot decide to "revolutionize" an entire country over a small percentage of opposition (that is if the Assad opposition is a small number). In the united states, the presidential elections are always a hair away usually standing right between that 48%-51% margin yet you do not see them throwing around revolutions. Anyway my point is that LET THE CITIZENS DECIDE AND LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES.

10.       ikicihan
1127 posts
 27 Aug 2013 Tue 10:42 am

Adana´da El Nusra operasyonu: 2 kilo sarin gazı bulundu

  

Adana Emniyet Müdürlüğü´nün, Reyhanlı katliamının ardından başlattığı El Kaide ve bu örgütle irtibatlı El Nusra Cephesi´ne yönelik operasyonda gözaltına alınan zanlılara ait adreslerde 2 kilogram da sarin gazı ele geçirildi.

 

30/05/2013

 

http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/adanada_el_nusra_operasyonu_2_kilo_sarin_gazi_bulundu-1135579

(35 Messages in 4 pages - View all)
[1] 2 3 4
Add reply to this discussion




Turkish Dictionary
Turkish Chat
Open mini chat
New in Forums
TLC servers hacked, all user emails & pass...
admin: We removed the user password data from the servers until the issue is ...
E-T: It´s one of the things on my bu...
gokuyum: No. It doesnt make sense. You can say ... yapmak istediğim bi...
T-E
og2009: DÜNYA TOPLUMU VE FELSEFE ... okul ... felsefe ... ....
Holidays in Turkey
: ...
24 HOUR FLASH SALE for learning Turkish e-...
qdemir: ...
Grammar Textbook
qdemir: ...
E-T: I see you have done this before?
harp00n: Bunu ... daha önce de ... Bu konuda iyi olduğun ç...
T-E
og2009: ...
T-E
og2009: ...
coronavirus
og2009: ...
OUR FRIENDS
og2009: ...
Coronavirus
harp00n: ...
Random Pictures of Turkey
Add thumbnails like this to your site
Most commented