• Syrian shells kills five in Turkey, Turkey retaliates with artillery in border conflict.
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE] [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63278000/jpg/_63278620_63278036.jpg[/IMG]\ [I]Akcakale has been fired on several times over the past few weeks.[/I] [B]Turkish armed forces have launched artillery attacks against Syria in response to a Syrian mortar strike, which has killed five members of the same family in southeastern Turkey.[/B] In a statement issued on Wednesday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said [B]the attacks, carried out following radar tracking, were within the rules of engagement.[/B] Western officials, from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, [B]NATO secretary-general, to Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, have condemned the attack that struck a house in the southeastern border town of Akcakale.[/B] [B]Clinton said the White House was "outraged" by the "very dangerous situation" created by the attack.[/B] Witnesses said policemen have also been injured in the shelling, which originated only kilometres away from the Syrian border. Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkish foreign minister, briefed Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, on the situation shortly word of the attack reached Ankara. Martin Nesirky, spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, issued a statement in response to the attack saying: "the secretary-general expressed his condolences at the tragic loss of life and encouraged the Minister to keep open all channels of communication with the Syrian authorities with a view to lessening any tension that could build up as a result of the incident". Davutoglualso spoke to Lakhdar Brahimi, joint UN-Arab League special representative, about the strike. [B]Aleppo[/B] [B]In syria, four blasts struck a government-controlled district close to a military officers' club in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, killing dozens and wounding more than 100, opposition activists say.[/B] "A medical source said that at least 40 people were killed and 90 injured," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. "Most of them were regime troops." Meanwhile, official television channel Al-Ikhbariya said 31 people were killed and dozens wounded. The attacks within minutes of each other struck the main Saadallah al-Jabiri Square near a military officers' club and a hotel. Syrian state television reported of "terrorist explosions" in the city. Al Jazeera's Rula Amin, reporting from Beirut in neighbouring Lebanon, said there was still no clear claim of responsibility for the attacks. "Fighting between the government forces and the rebels continue, but no one is making any progress. The civilians are paying the price for it." [B]'Gates of hell'[/B] "We heard two enormous explosions, as though the gates of hell were opening," Hassan, a 30-year-old man who works in a nearby hotel, said. "I saw thick smoke, and I helped a woman on the pavement whose arms and legs were completely dislocated," said Hassan. A shopowner whose store is located a block away from the officers' club said: "I pulled out from the rubble a child less than 10 years old who has lost a leg." [B]All government buildings in the area were closed, he added.[/B] [B]The northern city of Aleppo, Syria's commercial hub and largest city, has seen intensified fighting between regime forces and rebels trying to oust President Bashar Assad, especially after the fighters launched a new offensive last week.[/B] Aleppo-based activist Mohammad Saeed said the explosions went off minutes apart at one of the city's main squares. He said the blasts appear to have been caused by car bombs and were followed by clashes and heavy gunfire. In a statement, the SOHR said the explosions went off following a clash between guards at the military club and gunmen, suggesting the attacks may have been suicide bombings. Increase in car bombings Suicide and car bombings targeting security agencies and soldiers have become common in Syria, particularly in the capital, Damascus, during the course of the 18-month-uprising against Assad. But such bombings have been rare in Aleppo, which was spared the mayhem that struck other Syrian cities during the first year of the revolt. Then, in February, two suicide car bombers hit security compounds in Aleppo's industrial center, killing 28 people. Nationwide, at least 104 people were killed on Tuesday, 57 civilians, 26 soldiers and 21 rebels, the Observatory said. Among them were civilians hit by intense shelling from the army against rebel-held areas of Damascus. Syria peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is due back in the region this week to try to revive talks aimed at ending the bloodshed, officials said. Jan Eliasson, deputy to the UN chief, said he did not know if Brahimi would be able to enter Syria, but hoped to persuade the Assad regime to "go in the direction of a reduction of violence." [B]The uprising against Assad that erupted in March 2011 ago has gradually morphed into a bloody civil war. The conflict has killed more than 30,000 people, activists say, and has devastated entire neighborhoods in Syria's main cities, including Aleppo[/B].[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/10/2012103181110169706.html"]Aljazeera[/URL] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19822253"]bbc[/URL]
While the war surely is cruel, it's a good thing that Turkey doesn't just stand by as mortar shells destroy the buildings of the civilians living there. Yet I'm afraid that they might hit civilians in Syria in response.
And here we go.
World War 3 has ignited welp, fuck [highlight](User was banned for this post ("No it hasn't shut up, stop posting this in every conflict-newsthread" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
Damned shame.
[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;37898307]World War 3 has ignited welp, fuck[/QUOTE] um what i dont think anybody is going to have a problem with turkey returning fire except for syria
stop being vaginas turkey and END them
[quote]the attacks, carried out following radar tracking, were within the rules of engagement. [/quote] I think this is worth doubly pointing out. They were only firing upon those firing upon them, no one else.
[QUOTE=Amplar;37898342]stop being vaginas turkey and END them[/QUOTE] killing people is the number one way for people to stop killing people you heard it here first folks
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;37898343]I think this is worth doubly pointing out. They were only firing upon those firing upon them, no one else.[/QUOTE] Which is why I want casualty and damage confirmation. Did they hit what they were aiming at?
How is Syria firing into Turkey, are they doing it on purpose, why?
I doubt that government forces in Syria would fire into Turkey, they would want to avoid a conflict with them at all costs.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37898507]Isn't Turkey part of NATO? And when an external force attacks a fellow NATO member they are obligated to retaliate against the external force and support their own member? I thought it was a law or something.[/QUOTE] Turkey probably could ask them to, but they are not obligated to strike even if they do (I think) only provide assistance.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37898507]Isn't Turkey part of NATO? And when an external force attacks a fellow NATO member they are obligated to retaliate against the external force and support their own member? I thought it was a law or something.[/QUOTE] They are a part of NATO, but in this instance I think it would just be a matter of whether turkey would want the support or not.
I believe the intention is to deliberately get Turkey to retaliate against Syria, so that they'll help the rebels pull Al Assad out. It's a desperation tactic, but there's so much the rebels can do in a war that seems to have fared for too long and still has several months to go.
[QUOTE=Amplar;37898342]stop being vaginas turkey and END them[/QUOTE] As much as you may want it to be, this is not how the world works.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37898507]Isn't Turkey part of NATO? And when an external force attacks a fellow NATO member they are obligated to retaliate against the external force and support their own member? I thought it was a law or something.[/QUOTE] I don't believe they are explicitly mandated to help Turkey unless Turkey invokes Article 5, which is the collective defense bit. Even then, I [I]think[/I] member states have some discretion as to whether or not they want to help bomb Syria.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;37898343]I think this is worth doubly pointing out. They were only firing upon those fihring upon them, no one else.[/QUOTE] What people don't seem to realize is that the rebels have secure positions in Turkey, right outside Syria, and use it to plan their attacks and movements. Sometimes they even pass themselves off as refugees and use refugee camps to stay well behind civilian shields. Turkey has also allowed loads of foreign jihadists sympathetic to the rebels to cross from their land to Syria, and back in forth, so Turkey shouldn't play the offended virgin game. At best they've shown leniency towards the rebels; at worst they have actively aided them. And its quite likely the CIA has set up several supply lines for the Syrian rebels via Turkey. Its a gray world out there isn't it...
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;37898656]I don't believe they are explicitly mandated to help Turkey unless Turkey invokes Article 5, which is the collective defense bit. Even then, I [I]think[/I] member states have some discretion as to whether or not they want to help bomb Syria.[/QUOTE] Haven't got article 5 to hand right now but I think it allows not demands. It could theoretically allow NATO to attack Syria in self defense.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37898507]Isn't Turkey part of NATO? And when an external force attacks a fellow NATO member they are obligated to retaliate against the external force and support their own member? I thought it was a law or something.[/QUOTE] Syria hasn't formally launched an attack on Turkey. For all we know, this was a random command by some lowly Syrian officer without any legitimate authority to do so. Plus, allied NATO forces wouldn't be landing off Turkey's shores to support them the second the first Syrian mortar shell explodes.
[QUOTE=Jsm;37898707]Haven't got article 5 to hand right now but I think it allows not demands. It could theoretically allow NATO to attack Syria in self defense.[/QUOTE] The NATO website says member states may take actions they individually deem necessary to respond to an external threat, be it a full-scale invasion or material support to another member.
Al Jazeera are saying that the NATO meeting was called under Article 4, which means that Turkey fear for their countries security / independence.
[QUOTE=Jsm;37898757]Al Jazeera are saying that the NATO meeting was called under Article 4, which means that Turkey fear for their countries security / independence.[/QUOTE] That's what they did when their jet was shot down right? Yeah, I think it's going to take something more threatening then some mortar shelling to make Turkey call it's metaphorical banners.
All these incidents makes me think of: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler[/url]
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;37898802]That's what they did when their jet was shot down right? Yeah, I think it's going to take something more threatening then some mortar shelling to make Turkey call it's metaphorical banners.[/QUOTE] True, though invoking article five would give all of NATO fairly solid ground on which to act. Hard to politically challenge upholding one of the most important alliances on the planet. I'm not sure why Syria isn't more careful regarding Turkish borders. Seems stupid to poke that bear.
This is the best thing that could happen to the Syrian rebels, as sad as that is. The question: Who fired the shots?
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37898507]Isn't Turkey part of NATO? And when an external force attacks a fellow NATO member they are obligated to retaliate against the external force and support their own member? I thought it was a law or something.[/QUOTE] Nah, when Argentina annexed the Falklands, NATO didn't want to get involved.
Why do i get the feeling the rebels maybe fired the shots into Turkey to provoke a response
[QUOTE=Stalk;37898850]All these incidents makes me think of: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler[/url][/QUOTE] More like [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila[/url]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37899138]Nah, when Argentina annexed the Falklands, NATO didn't want to get involved.[/QUOTE] NATO didn't, but the Americans did agree to lend the British a carrier if their one was sunk. [QUOTE]The U.S. provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima's systems.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Position_of_third_party_countries[/url] That's off topic though. I think the US might use this as an excuse if they want to get involved, but I don't know if they do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.