NATO vows to defend Turkey, as 25 more fighter jets deployed to border
20 replies, posted
[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/10/2012109113457809700.html[/url]
[quote=AJE][B]Turkey has confirmed it is deploying more fighter jets to an airbase close to the border with Syria, amid artillery exchanges along its tense southeastern border with Syria.[/B]
The announcement came amid reports of fierce fighting in the northern Idlib province on Tuesday where Syrian rebels are trying to take control of a strategic town.
"Assad ... is only able to stand up with crutches," Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, who was once a close ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, told a meeting of his ruling AK Party.
"He will be finished when the crutches fall away."
Erdogan, reacting to six consecutive days where shells fired from Syrian soil have landed on Turkish territory, has said Turkey will not shrink from war if forced to act.
But Turkey has also made clear it would be reluctant to mount any major operation on Syrian soil, and then only with international support.
At least 25 additional F-16 fighter jets were deployed at Turkey's Diyarbakir airbase late on Monday.
[B]NATO backing[/B]
Meanwhile, the NATO secretary-general said that Turkey can rely on the alliance, which has "all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary".
Anders Fogh Rasmussen cautioned against the dangers of the conflict in Syria escalating, saying alliance member Turkey had shown commendable restraint in response to the shelling of its border area.
"I would like to commend the Turkish government for the restraint it has shown in its response to the completely unacceptable Syrian attacks," he said as he went into a two-day NATO defence ministers meeting.
"Obviously Turkey has a right to defend herself within international law."
Rasmussen noted NATO has "all necessary plans in place to protect and to defend Turkey if necessary".
Turkey as an alliance member has the right to invoke military help in response to an attack on its territory under Article V of NATO's constitution but has so far invoked only Article IV, which involves consultations.
"We hope it won't be necessary, we hope that both countries will show restraint and avoid an escalation of the crisis," Rasmussen said.
Reports from Ankara on Tuesday said Turkey's top military commander, General Necdet Ozel, had inspected troops in southeastern Hatay province near the Syrian border, a day after a Syrian shell landed in a nearby town.
Syrian shells last week killed five people in a border village in Hatay, sparking a series of retaliatory strikes and a firm message of support from NATO for Turkey.
The Turkish parliament on Thursday gave the government the green light to use military force against Syria if necessary.
Officials said on Monday that the Syrian conflict was not on the defence ministers' agenda but that the issue was likely to be discussed informally.
[B]'Strategic' battle[/B]
Against this backdrop of escalating border tensions, Syrian rebels took control on Tuesday of Maarat al-Numan, a strategic town in Idlib on the highway linking Damascus with the country's second city, Aleppo, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).
"Regular forces pulled back from all of their checkpoints around Maarat al-Numan, except for one at the entrance of the town," the UK-based opposition network's Rami Abdel Rahman said.
"This is a strategic location on the route from Damascus to Aleppo. All the regime reinforcements headed to Aleppo must pass through Maarat al-Numan."
Opposition activists in Syria told Al Jazeera that rebel fighters had captured most of the army's checkpoints in the area, but that fighting was still under way for other government positions on Tuesday night.
Al Jazeera is unable to independently verify reports of violence, as the Syrian government has placed strict restrictions on reporting.
In another Syria-related development, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, urged the Assad government to declare an immediate truce to bring an end to the conflict that he said had left 20,000 dead over the last 19 months.
"It is unbearable for the [Syrian] people to continue like this," he said on Tuesday.
"That is why I have conveyed to the Syrian government [a] strong message that they should immediately declare a unilateral ceasefire."
Speaking in Paris alongside French President Francois Hollande, Ban said the reaction he had got from the Syrian government had been to ask what opposition forces would do if the regime called a truce.
"That is exactly what I have discussed and I am in the process of discussing with the member states of the [UN] Security Council and the countries in the region," Ban said.
He urged "the opposition forces to agree to this unilateral ceasefire when and if the Syrian government declares it", and he called on countries supplying arms to either side to stop in order to ease the suffering of the Syrian people.[/quote]
About time.
Yes, this is what we need.
NATO intervention in another Middle eastern nation.
That always works out so well.
Turkey, go ahead and shoot your arty, I don't mind that. Don't drag international forces into another country, though.
Syria is going to get it's ass kicked harder than it did in 1069
Guys, guys, what if rebels are the ones targeting Turkey? To get Turkey and NATO involved.
Well finally NATO has an excuse to fuck up another Middle Eastern country. Glad to see Western Imperialism is still alive and well.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37972690']Yes, this is what we need.
NATO intervention in another Middle eastern nation.
That always works out so well.
Turkey, go ahead and shoot your arty, I don't mind that. Don't drag international forces into another country, though.[/QUOTE]
Do you understand the concept of a military alliance
[editline]9th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37974854]Well finally NATO has an excuse to fuck up another Middle Eastern country. Glad to see Western Imperialism is still alive and well.[/QUOTE]
Oh my god is this a joke
[editline]9th October 2012[/editline]
Turkey, a member of NATO, is facing an unprovoked attack from Syria. What in the world do you expect to happen?
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;37974882]
Turkey, a member of NATO, is facing an unprovoked attack from Syria. What in the world do you expect to happen?[/QUOTE]
You know there are a bunch of politicians thinking that this is how they get to stick their foot through the door into bombing the shit out of the middle east again.
So many people on both sides believe this myth that NATO wants to intervene in Syria. There are people who say they are bloodthirsty and out on the hunt for any excuse to go in, and people who say NATO are heroes who want to save the Syrian people, but evil Russia and China are holding them back at the UN.
As much as I'd personally like the opposite to be true, NATO has time and time and time again said that they won't intervene, intervention wouldn't work, they are not discussing any proposals to intervene.
Here's what NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAB0jEbtAX8]had to say[/url] back in March.
[quote=Anders Fogh Rasmussen]After the successful Libya operation, we are now in the situation that I can't meet the media without getting the question, "When will NATO intervene in Syria?" ... [B]We have no intention to intervene in Syria, because it's quite another case than Libya.[/B] And it would be too lengthy to elaborate on that.[/quote]
And here's what [url=http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_90374.htm]he said[/url] on 1 October, just over a week ago.
[quote=Anders Fogh Rasmussen]On Syria, of course, we monitor the situation closely. The issue of chemical weapons is of course a matter of great concern. But our position remains the same as it has been; [B]we have no discussions on military options. We do believe that the right way forward as regards Syria is a political solution.[/B][/quote]
In France, Syria's former colonial rulers and generally strong believers in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect]responsibility to protect[/url], there is actually a fair amount of popular support for intervention, and the French government has [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/from-france-an-urge-to-intervene-in-syria/2012/09/10/4c83c936-fb24-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html]expressed a vague desire[/url] to intervene. But they have found little support amongst their fellow member states, and France could not pull off a Libya-style intervention unilaterally. Turkey on the other hand, encumbered by 96,000 refugees and counting, [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/28/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120828]advocates[/url] a 'buffer zone', wherein NATO forces would occupy the northern rim of Syria and build new refugee camps in the area.
On the buffer zone approach, France and Britain in a joint press conference [url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/uk-syria-crisis-un-idUKBRE87T17G20120830]said[/url] "We're ruling nothing out and we have contingency planning for a wide range of scenarios," but "anything like a safe zone requires military intervention and that of course is something that has to be weighed very carefully". Not steadfast opposition, but hardly an approval of the idea either.
For America's part, the closest they've come to advocating intervention is when President Obama [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qjxEfQfmI]said[/url] "a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." Other than that, to the best of my knowledge, the United States hasn't hinted at intervention.
If you support intervention in Syria, NATO is not on your side. If you oppose intervention in Syria, you do not need to worry about a NATO intervention in the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;37974882]
Turkey, a member of NATO, is facing an unprovoked attack from Syria. What in the world do you expect to happen?[/QUOTE]
Russia and China, both members of the UN, have said no to fucking up Syria.
Suddenly, by complete coincidence, Turkey, a member of NATO, over which the Russians and Chinese have no power, is 'under attack'.
Put two and two together, it's not some massive unbelievable conspiracy.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37975950]Russia and China, both members of the UN, have said no to fucking up Syria.
Suddenly, by complete coincidence, Turkey, a member of NATO, over which the Russians and Chinese have no power, is 'under attack'.
Put two and two together, it's not some massive unbelievable conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
you are unbelievably fucking retarded.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=RagamuffinIIII;37976050]you are unbelievably fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
I forgot, world politics has never shown that there's any ulterior motive behind what countries do.
[editline]9th October 2012[/editline]
It would make sense for the rebels to harass Turkey since if they don't they aren't getting any help.
[QUOTE=aydin690;37974810]Guys, guys, what if rebels are the ones targeting Turkey? To get Turkey and NATO involved.[/QUOTE]
turkey returns fire using radar to find where the shells are coming from: and know the exact positions, which are most likely syrian military positions.
I imagine if those in NATO really wanted to go, they'd already have gone. It's a giant fucking military alliance and these border clashes have been going on for a few months now. They don't need to wait for some bullshit excuse to throw themselves into the mix.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37972690']Yes, this is what we need.
NATO intervention in another Middle eastern nation.
That always works out so well.
Turkey, go ahead and shoot your arty, I don't mind that. Don't drag international forces into another country, though.[/QUOTE]
Nowhere in the article does it talk about NATO intervention unless "defense and protection of Turkey" somehow translates to military intervention of Syria.
Turkey is even being praised in the article for not having evoked a NATO intervention after the shit they've gone through, NATO obviously doesn't want to intervene but they will if they have to.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37974854]Well finally NATO has an excuse to fuck up another Middle Eastern country. Glad to see Western Imperialism is still alive and well.[/QUOTE]
Turkey? Part of 'the west'? What?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37977647]Turkey? Part of 'the west'? What?[/QUOTE]
Turkey can be considered one of those weird countries that's half European half Middle-Eastern/Asian. Kind of like Russia.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37977682]Turkey can be considered one of those weird countries that's half European half Middle-Eastern/Asian. Kind of like Russia.[/QUOTE]
Much of Turkey has been considered an 'Eastern' right after the fall of the Byzantines. The only reason why they appeared to be so westernized was because of the Sultan's attempts to mirror the military and economy to mimic that of Europeans.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37972690']Yes, this is what we need.
NATO intervention in another Middle eastern nation.
That always works out so well.
Turkey, go ahead and shoot your arty, I don't mind that. Don't drag international forces into another country, though.[/QUOTE]
NATO is a collective security group, one member is being quite seriously threatened by its neighbour. This sort of thing is why NATO exists, this is a legit reason to intervene.
Looks like someone is finally going to get it over with. I doesn't even matter who shells Turkey and why, it's all about putting an end to this endless bloody charade. Rebels killing people and using suicide bombers (to lose credibility, I guess), government forces killing people, rouge military killing people, and every side blames other sides.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37977682]Turkey can be considered one of those weird countries that's half European half Middle-Eastern/Asian. Kind of like Russia.[/QUOTE]
They dress western, but majority of their culture is eastern. Especially given that the homeland region of "turkish" people is in central Asia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.