The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
Syria and the Coup in Turkey

This week has been marked by two major events: the USA and Russia agreed to a common plan for military cooridination in Syria and the failed coup in Turkey has been followed by a massive purge of the Turkish elites.

Syria:

The Russians had really no option but to accept working with the USA in Syria. The way in which they did this was very elegant, however: Lavrov and Kerry have agreed to a joint long-term ceasefire whose exact terms are to remain secret, which indicates to me that the Russians forced the US into concessions which the latter don’t want to be made public. How do we know that it was Russians who forced concessions on the USA and not the other way around? Simple – there was no US “leak” to the media and the Russian bombers have resumed their operation with a new intensity. Besides, it is pretty obvious that in Syria at least Moscow holds all the cards now and Kerry has therefore no means to put pressure on Russia even if he wanted to.

But the main development for Syria is still the coup in Turkey.

Turkey:

What happened in Turkey is huge. So big, in fact, that I even suspect that the numerous rumors about an Erdogan-orchestrated false flag could have been started by the US propaganda machine (since when have mainstream media outlets even discussed false flags?). Not everybody bought into the false flag theory, not Sibel Edmonds and not M. K. Bhadrakumar. Not only did these two reject the false flag theory, they also explained in detail the role of the USA in this coup. To their testimony I can only add that I have been contacted by several well-informed readers from countries neighboring Turkey who have also told me that at least a “faction” inside the USA has had advance knowledge of the coup.

There are now reports that Russia also had advanced warning and that Putin personally warned Erdogan. I won’t repost the full FARS article here, but I strongly recommend reading it: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950430001452

If all of the above is true, that might also explain why some have sincerely felt that this might have been a false flag. If the Russians really did warn Erdogan, then his best move would have been to let the coup begin in order to unmask all the conspirators and their sympathizers and only then to crack down on them.

The magnitude of the purge in Turkey is nothing short of amazing: Erdogan is clearly engaged on a massive and brutal campaign to ruthlessly purge entire social classes which he perceives, probably correctly, as hostile to his rule. So while we can rejoice that a US-backed coup has failed, we should have no illusions about who is now in power in Turkey: a ruthless and unpredictable megalomaniac who should never, ever, be trusted.

There are, however, objective reasons to also welcome these developments.

First and foremost, the Turkish military is now being decapitated and it will be in no condition whatsoever to try to crush the Kurdish resistance or, even less so, to invade northern Syria.

Second, Erdogan and Daesh are apparently on a collision course (the official Turkish version is that they did the airport bombing) and that means that Daesh lost a key supporter.

Third, now that the Turkish threat has been neutralized for the foreseeable future (5 years at least), Russia is in a much better position to deal with the Takfiri crazies in Syria and with their Wahabi backers in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Fourth, there is a non-trivial possibility that Turkey will now openly declare the US/NATO/EU to be an enemy of the regime. Not only is the USA harboring the CIA-controlled Gulen, but it turns out that some of the aircraft involved in the coup took off from Incirlik. Considering that Incirlik is basically US-run, this means that the US fingerprints are all over the coup. Right now Erdogan is still too weak to take on the US and NATO, but if he succeeds in completely purging his enemies from the centers of power in Turkey, I would not put it past him to simply leave NATO completely. This is not likely, only possible, but should that happen that would be a formidable loss for the Empire.

Fifth, there are interesting conversations taking place in the public debate in Russia. Zhirinovsky, who is often used by the Kremlin to “test the waters” for various Kremlin-backed ideas, is now suggesting that Russia should form a trilateral military alliance with Iran and Turkey. Again, there are many formidable obstacles to overcome before anything like that happens but, again, this is now at least possible (maybe not an alliance, but some kind of cooperation is likely)

Sixth, for the Syrian government the failed coup is quite literally God-sent. Not that Assad and Erdogan will ever have a love-fest again, but Assad must now realize that his most formidable adversary has now been neutered and that this completely changes the strategic dynamic of the war for the liberation of Syria from the Takfiris. Add to this the agreement between Russia and the USA which, however insincere and temporary, at least precludes a direct US attack on Syria (as demanded by the 51 Neocon crazies at Foggy Bottom). Add to this the very real possibility that Trump will be in the White House next year and I would suggest that, all in all, things sure look much better today for Syria than they did just a couple of weeks ago.

ORDER IT NOW

Seventh, no matter what happens next, Turkey as a whole has been tremendously weakened by this coup and the subsequent purge. Not only that, but this one is far from over: Edmonds even speaks of a possible “2nd wave coup”. But even if that does not happen, and even if Erdogan remains in power, the Kurds will now be facing a much weakened enemy and might decide that it is “now or never” for them to try to free themselves form the Turkish yoke. So there is a very real possibility that Turkey will simply fall apart (again, “possibility” is not the same as “likelihood”). But since we are still far away from this possibility actually materializing, it would be premature to go there. However, even if Turkey does not break up, a much weakened Turkey is likely to have to agree to the kind of concessions which a powerful Turkey would never have accepted: this is not only true for the Kurds, but also for the Russians and Iranians. In other words, now is the ideal time to begin some very intense and far reaching negotiations to try to force Turkey to become a responsible and predictable actor in the region.

The biggest problem with all this is, of course, the rise of the kind of neo-Ottoman Islamism which Erdogan has promoted to come to power and which is now infecting large segments of the Turkish society. There is now a real risk for Turkey to go down the terrible path which Algeria had to take to deal with the FIS and, later the GIA (the big difference being that the FIS never really got to power). This is why the neo-Ottoman Islamists are now ruthlessly purging both the secular Kemalists and Islamist Gulenists (a weird de-facto alliance for sure).

Russia and Iran have to be extremely proactive in trying to “channel” Erdogan into some kind of semi-sane form of state Islamism which would not serve as a Petri dish for the kind of horrors which costs so many lives in Algeria. The good news is that Turkey certainly has the potential of finding a unique form of conservative Sunni Islam which does not have to find inspiration in the Wahabi crazies of Daesh or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Maybe Chechnia under Kadyrov could at least in some aspects inspire a modern form of modern Islamic traditionalism?

Again, the main problem is Erdogan himself. But since this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, all the countries neighboring Turkey have to accept this reality, however uncomfortable, and try to make the best of a radically new situation.

For the time being we reasonably can assume that Erdogan will prevail. If that is indeed what happens, he will be much too busy to deal with major international issues. What is certain is that Erdogan has imposed a three months long state of emergency and that he will be meeting with Putin in early August. Whether Putin “saved Erdogan” as some claim, or whether Russia just gave him advanced warning of the coup, it is pretty darn clear that Erdogan now vitally needs Putin’s support and that Putin knows that. Soon the world will find out what exactly Putin had in mind when, following the downing of the SU-24, he announced sanctions against Turkey and then added “Одними помидорами вы не отделаетесь” (you will not get away just with tomatoes). There will be a price to pay for Erdogan and Erdogan knows it. But Putin also knows that now is the time to negotiate with Erdogan, so the price will be substantial, but reasonable. At the end of the day, Russia and Turkey need each other, at least to prevent another, it would be the 13th, Russian-Turkish war.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Erdogan, Russia, Syria, Turkey 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  2. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  3. … the Kurds will now be facing a much weakened enemy and might decide that it is “now or never” for them to try to free themselves form the Turkish yoke.

    If Washington ever seriously gives up on the possibility of controlling Turkey as a whole, they will no doubt try and back a PKK insurgency to bog the Turks down, or even break up the country. That way, they could at least get their airbase back.

    The good news is that Turkey certainly has the potential of finding a unique form of conservative Sunni Islam which does not have to find inspiration in the Wahabi crazies of Daesh or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

    Good luck. The AKP is the Turkish chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Erdogan was a huge fan of the doomed Morsi regime in Egypt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [AKP is the Turkish chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood]

    Don't think so. The MB and the Gülen movement do have a family resemblance (not a direct dependence on each other) but as we can see, AKP and Gülen are not the same thing. A lot of the blaming of the MB for all jihadism originates with Saudi Arabia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/syria-and-the-coup-in-turkey/#comment-1502113
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. […] Escrito por TheSaker ; Originalmente apareceu em TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  5. @Seamus Padraig

    ... the Kurds will now be facing a much weakened enemy and might decide that it is “now or never” for them to try to free themselves form the Turkish yoke.
     
    If Washington ever seriously gives up on the possibility of controlling Turkey as a whole, they will no doubt try and back a PKK insurgency to bog the Turks down, or even break up the country. That way, they could at least get their airbase back.

    The good news is that Turkey certainly has the potential of finding a unique form of conservative Sunni Islam which does not have to find inspiration in the Wahabi crazies of Daesh or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
     
    Good luck. The AKP is the Turkish chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Erdogan was a huge fan of the doomed Morsi regime in Egypt.

    [AKP is the Turkish chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood]

    Don’t think so. The MB and the Gülen movement do have a family resemblance (not a direct dependence on each other) but as we can see, AKP and Gülen are not the same thing. A lot of the blaming of the MB for all jihadism originates with Saudi Arabia.

    Read More
  6. There will be a price to pay for Erdogan and Erdogan knows it. But Putin also knows that now is the time to negotiate with Erdogan, so the price will be substantial, but reasonable. At the end of the day, Russia and Turkey need each other, at least to prevent another, it would be the 13th, Russian-Turkish war.

    I think as far as Putin is concerned, Erdogan has paid that price. That was established with the Turkish apology a month ago, which has been overshadowed by the coup news recently.

    Turkey faces a choice between opposing Assad and opposing the Kurds. That’s the situation Erdogan’s opportunism and adventurism since 2011 has put the country in. The question is, which way will Erdogan go?

    I think recent events (the apology, and the coup) suggest Turkey will drop the regime change attempt in Syria in order to concentrate on the real and existential threat to Turkey, which is obviously the Kurds. That will cost Erdogan with some of his islamist backers, but with the coup out of the way and defeated he will probably have the strength to ignore them. If so, then that will be the real meat of the meeting with Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {.... in order to concentrate on the real and existential threat to Turkey, which is obviously the Kurds. }

    You have it backwards. Turks are an existential threat to Kurds.
    Kurds are indigenous to the area at large (...not where they are now, but nearer to Iran).
    Turks are nomads from East and Central Asia.
    Turks were and are an existential threat to all indigenous peoples of the region.

    Turks have been trying to erase Kurds and Kurd identity for decades.
    Look up Dersim Massacre 1937/1938, where Turks murdered 10s of 1000s Alevi and Zaza Kurds.
    Up until very recently Turks pretended Kurd ethnicity did not exist, calling Kurds "Mountain Turks".
    Up until very recently Turkey jailed Kurds for speaking Kurdish.

    If Turks could, they would "solve" the Kurdish "problem" the way they have always done: genocide. But fortunately for Kurds, they grew too numerous very fast.
    And, yes, Kurds will eventually separate from the present State of Turkey.
    But it will be no "existential threat": Kurds want to live as Kurds in their own country, speak Kurdish, preserve their ways - without the threat of jail or death. Like everybody else.

    The unnatural, criminal, genocidal State called Turkey will be cut down to size, but it will continue to exist. Unfortunately.
    Those who want to be 'Turk' can live in the new Turkistan.
    And Kurds who want to remain Kurd, will live in Kurdistan.
  7. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  8. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It’s amazing to me that, to this very day, Turkey has not demanded that US stop calling it ‘Turkey’.

    It is pronounced ‘Turkieh’.

    But it goes on as ‘turkey’. What a turkey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Or Americans change turkey to hindi or indyk or krocan or moriak . Geographically and linguistically challenged Anglo-Americans always got it wrong.
    , @tbraton
    That leads me to ask what the proper pronunciation of "Erdogan" is. When the coup was underway, suddenly the MSM started reporting on Turkey and invariably pronounced the name "Erdowan." Then I heard John McLaughlin on his Group pronounce it with the "g" sound its spelling indicates, i.e., "Erdogan." Either I hadn't heard it pronounced before or I heard it pronounced so infrequently that I wasn't paying close enough attention. So, what is the proper pronunciation of "Erdogan"?
    , @Seamus Padraig
    We don't call Germany 'Deutschland' or Japan 'Nippon' either. That's not a diplomatic slight; it's because we speak English in the US. So what's your point?
  9. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I don’t think Gulen was involved in the coup.

    I think he was going for the ‘long march through the institutions’ by exploiting protection of Turkish laws.

    Erdogan couldn’t do much about it cuz Gulenists didn’t break any law, just like the Alinskyites broke no laws by gaining power thru the institutions.

    But this coup gave Erdogan the opportunity to blame the Gulenists and purge them outright.

    Never let a crisis go to waste.

    It’s like US exploited 9/11 to blame Iraq and destroy that country.

    And US used Ukraine crisis to isolate and harm Russia.

    Gul’s out for summer. Gul’s out forever.

    Read More
  10. How exactly are the Kurds a threat to Turkey? Is it like Hamas is a threat to Israel? Or Venezuela is a threat to the United States? Or Tibet is a threat to China?

    Read More
  11. @Randal

    There will be a price to pay for Erdogan and Erdogan knows it. But Putin also knows that now is the time to negotiate with Erdogan, so the price will be substantial, but reasonable. At the end of the day, Russia and Turkey need each other, at least to prevent another, it would be the 13th, Russian-Turkish war.
     
    I think as far as Putin is concerned, Erdogan has paid that price. That was established with the Turkish apology a month ago, which has been overshadowed by the coup news recently.

    Turkey faces a choice between opposing Assad and opposing the Kurds. That's the situation Erdogan's opportunism and adventurism since 2011 has put the country in. The question is, which way will Erdogan go?

    I think recent events (the apology, and the coup) suggest Turkey will drop the regime change attempt in Syria in order to concentrate on the real and existential threat to Turkey, which is obviously the Kurds. That will cost Erdogan with some of his islamist backers, but with the coup out of the way and defeated he will probably have the strength to ignore them. If so, then that will be the real meat of the meeting with Putin.

    {…. in order to concentrate on the real and existential threat to Turkey, which is obviously the Kurds. }

    You have it backwards. Turks are an existential threat to Kurds.
    Kurds are indigenous to the area at large (…not where they are now, but nearer to Iran).
    Turks are nomads from East and Central Asia.
    Turks were and are an existential threat to all indigenous peoples of the region.

    Turks have been trying to erase Kurds and Kurd identity for decades.
    Look up Dersim Massacre 1937/1938, where Turks murdered 10s of 1000s Alevi and Zaza Kurds.
    Up until very recently Turks pretended Kurd ethnicity did not exist, calling Kurds “Mountain Turks”.
    Up until very recently Turkey jailed Kurds for speaking Kurdish.

    If Turks could, they would “solve” the Kurdish “problem” the way they have always done: genocide. But fortunately for Kurds, they grew too numerous very fast.
    And, yes, Kurds will eventually separate from the present State of Turkey.
    But it will be no “existential threat”: Kurds want to live as Kurds in their own country, speak Kurdish, preserve their ways – without the threat of jail or death. Like everybody else.

    The unnatural, criminal, genocidal State called Turkey will be cut down to size, but it will continue to exist. Unfortunately.
    Those who want to be ‘Turk’ can live in the new Turkistan.
    And Kurds who want to remain Kurd, will live in Kurdistan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    You're a Ziofascist. Reading you is like reading nutanyahoo or Lieberman. Go take a nap!
    , @Simon in London
    Obviously, Kurdish aspirations to independence threaten to tear off a large chunk of Turkey. That's the existential threat - to national integrity. And national integrity is what the Turks really care about.
  12. @Priss Factor
    It's amazing to me that, to this very day, Turkey has not demanded that US stop calling it 'Turkey'.

    It is pronounced 'Turkieh'.

    But it goes on as 'turkey'. What a turkey.

    Or Americans change turkey to hindi or indyk or krocan or moriak . Geographically and linguistically challenged Anglo-Americans always got it wrong.

    Read More
  13. @Priss Factor
    It's amazing to me that, to this very day, Turkey has not demanded that US stop calling it 'Turkey'.

    It is pronounced 'Turkieh'.

    But it goes on as 'turkey'. What a turkey.

    That leads me to ask what the proper pronunciation of “Erdogan” is. When the coup was underway, suddenly the MSM started reporting on Turkey and invariably pronounced the name “Erdowan.” Then I heard John McLaughlin on his Group pronounce it with the “g” sound its spelling indicates, i.e., “Erdogan.” Either I hadn’t heard it pronounced before or I heard it pronounced so infrequently that I wasn’t paying close enough attention. So, what is the proper pronunciation of “Erdogan”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Note: The name is properly spelled "Erdoğan" (see the diacritic?), and pronounced roughly "Erdowan". See Turkish alphabet - Wikipedia.
  14. You start off your column discussing the Russian-U.S. agreement re operations in Syria and state: ” How do we know that it was Russians who forced concessions on the USA and not the other way around? Simple – there was no US “leak” to the media and the Russian bombers have resumed their operation with a new intensity. Besides, it is pretty obvious that in Syria at least Moscow holds all the cards now and Kerry has therefore no means to put pressure on Russia even if he wanted to.”

    I buy your explanation why it looks like Russia forced the concessions, but I never understood your point made in your prior column that Russia had no choice but to walk into the trap set by the U.S. Now it appears that Russia did have a choice and has negotiated changes to the agreement more suitable to it. What I didn’t understand was why Russia had no leverage in the arrangement with the U.S. as a result of the UN Security Council resolution passed last November, which seemed to give the Russians and Syria plenty of protections. I don’t think the U.S. would want to be seen in blatant violation of a Security Council resolution it readily agreed to in the wake of the Paris attacks last fall.

    Read More
  15. @Avery
    {.... in order to concentrate on the real and existential threat to Turkey, which is obviously the Kurds. }

    You have it backwards. Turks are an existential threat to Kurds.
    Kurds are indigenous to the area at large (...not where they are now, but nearer to Iran).
    Turks are nomads from East and Central Asia.
    Turks were and are an existential threat to all indigenous peoples of the region.

    Turks have been trying to erase Kurds and Kurd identity for decades.
    Look up Dersim Massacre 1937/1938, where Turks murdered 10s of 1000s Alevi and Zaza Kurds.
    Up until very recently Turks pretended Kurd ethnicity did not exist, calling Kurds "Mountain Turks".
    Up until very recently Turkey jailed Kurds for speaking Kurdish.

    If Turks could, they would "solve" the Kurdish "problem" the way they have always done: genocide. But fortunately for Kurds, they grew too numerous very fast.
    And, yes, Kurds will eventually separate from the present State of Turkey.
    But it will be no "existential threat": Kurds want to live as Kurds in their own country, speak Kurdish, preserve their ways - without the threat of jail or death. Like everybody else.

    The unnatural, criminal, genocidal State called Turkey will be cut down to size, but it will continue to exist. Unfortunately.
    Those who want to be 'Turk' can live in the new Turkistan.
    And Kurds who want to remain Kurd, will live in Kurdistan.

    You’re a Ziofascist. Reading you is like reading nutanyahoo or Lieberman. Go take a nap!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Your eloquent praise of my prose was deeply moving.
    , @tbraton
    Huh?
  16. @Druid
    You're a Ziofascist. Reading you is like reading nutanyahoo or Lieberman. Go take a nap!

    Your eloquent praise of my prose was deeply moving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Konga
    I think your text is worth a reading and a thought.
  17. Good analysis. Erdogan may have had a couple hours’ advance notice at most, certainly not enough to stop the coup. Probably someone (Russia?) simply picked up communications from the coup plotters putting it into motion, and told Erdogan as it was starting.

    I agree that the outcome looks to be very positive, except for westernised Turkish secularists (who unfortunately act as a sort of unwitting 5th column into the West). When I heard that Erdogan was blaming the shoot down of the Russian jet on the coup plotters, giving him space to disavow his prior failed policies, I realised that things were really looking bright.

    I agree it’s hilarious seeing the Western media call the coup a false flag when they dismiss obvious in-plain-sight plots as ‘Conspiracy Theory’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's the coup organizers who are usually the best informed about the coup
    , @SAINT NICHOLAS
    The first claims about the false flag event I encountered at the time of the coup in real time. They were made by a man (I took him to be a native of Turkey) days before Westerners began using this argument. His argument was very sound and was based on his own life experience in Turkey. I was convinced by his reasons in support of the false flag conclusion, at the time so much so, that I still strongly consider this possibility.
  18. @Avery
    {.... in order to concentrate on the real and existential threat to Turkey, which is obviously the Kurds. }

    You have it backwards. Turks are an existential threat to Kurds.
    Kurds are indigenous to the area at large (...not where they are now, but nearer to Iran).
    Turks are nomads from East and Central Asia.
    Turks were and are an existential threat to all indigenous peoples of the region.

    Turks have been trying to erase Kurds and Kurd identity for decades.
    Look up Dersim Massacre 1937/1938, where Turks murdered 10s of 1000s Alevi and Zaza Kurds.
    Up until very recently Turks pretended Kurd ethnicity did not exist, calling Kurds "Mountain Turks".
    Up until very recently Turkey jailed Kurds for speaking Kurdish.

    If Turks could, they would "solve" the Kurdish "problem" the way they have always done: genocide. But fortunately for Kurds, they grew too numerous very fast.
    And, yes, Kurds will eventually separate from the present State of Turkey.
    But it will be no "existential threat": Kurds want to live as Kurds in their own country, speak Kurdish, preserve their ways - without the threat of jail or death. Like everybody else.

    The unnatural, criminal, genocidal State called Turkey will be cut down to size, but it will continue to exist. Unfortunately.
    Those who want to be 'Turk' can live in the new Turkistan.
    And Kurds who want to remain Kurd, will live in Kurdistan.

    Obviously, Kurdish aspirations to independence threaten to tear off a large chunk of Turkey. That’s the existential threat – to national integrity. And national integrity is what the Turks really care about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {That’s the existential threat – to national integrity.}

    I think you meant territorial integrity.
    In any case, losing a chunk of a country's area does not constitute an "existential" threat.


    {..what the Turks really care about.}

    Who cares what Turks really care about?
    Their unnatural, criminal, genocidal state is built on the land of others whom they subjected to genocide.
    Nomad Turks are squatters in Asia Minor.
    Their homeland is in Uyguristan.
    Kurds are indigenous.
    Turks are the existential threat to all indigenous peoples in the region.
    And like I wrote before: 'Turks' will continue to exist as people in Asia Minor.
    Unfortunately.
    Losing a chunk of territory does not mean the end of existence of a particular people.
    Germany lost about 25% of its pre-war territory of 1937 after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Germans obviously exist today, and are thriving.

    Everybody - including Turks - will be better off if Turkey is broken up into 2-3 pieces. Turkey has no more right to its alleged "territorial integrity" than Nazi Germany did.

    , @Avery
    btw: Simon in London.

    Any concern for the territorial integrity of Republic of Cyrus that your Turk kin invaded and are still occupying 40% of?
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I don’t get Germany. Turks are among the better Muslims, but they haven’t done much for Germany.

    So, does it make sense to take in less promising Muslims?

    Btw, look at this.

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/german.women.facing.threat.from.muslim.migrants.get.help.from.neo.nazi.group.amid.government.inaction/76489.htm

    So, neo-nazis care more about German women than the German government does. Wow. This is what globalism does to a nation. How did Germany come to this where women must seek security from Neo-Nazis because the government has gone totally Rotherham on them?

    German women don’t deserve to be rotherhammed.

    But then, maybe they do. After all, European women overwhelmingly vote for the PROGLOB.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Original George
    First; that article that you linked to begins by describing the defenders of the German women as 'identitarian" and later slides into the usual "neo-nazi" rhetoric.You didn't see an actual Nazi flag being waved, did you? You need to understand that, in Germany as well as any European country today, any group expressing nationalist sentiment and historic-ethnic ties to their old countries are instantly and automatically branded "neo-nazi" and/or racist. In Germany it is now a crime to even criticize "refugees", and anyone professing to have actual National Socialist ("nazi", if you like) sentiment is rounded up and sent to prison. Just recently an elderly German woman who questioned the Holocaust was sent to prison.
    Please understand that any European who expresses longings for his/her traditional homeland and folk ways and wishes to return to their national identity is automatically branded with the Nazi label. It has been a very effective tactic used by the neo-con globalists. These people are not Nazis. They are Germans trying to save their women and what's left of their heritage and nation.
  20. I suspect that Erdogan’s showdown with the US is part of hardball negotiations over America’s future involvement in Kurdistan, since it seems that the plan now is to reconstitute Syria back within its old borders (and perhaps have a Round 2 in a decade or two).

    Highly doubt Erdogan has any plans to actually leave NATO. It is extremely useful, since it doesn’t care much about democracy/human rights like the EU, and in light of Turkey’s regional isolation.

    The Saker’s Islamophilia regardless, a Russian alliance with Iran and Turkey – two highly unpredictable countries with plenty of their own conflicts and who would in practice only consume Russian security resources – would be completely insanity. Zhirinovsky must be just doing his own thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed it occurred to me too that NATO wouldn't be abandoned unless Erdogan was completely barmy. It would leave him at Russia's mercy and even to begin sharing Israel's concern about Iranian nukes. Also he would be weakened in his necessary concentration against the Kurds if they began to seize an apparent opportubity for separate statehood.

    Separate question to all. Why has the US always been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided? To the extent that Israel's preference counted would that be consistent with Israel's wishes? Specifically why wouldn't the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?
    , @Priss Factor
    "a Russian alliance with Iran and Turkey – two highly unpredictable countries with plenty of their own conflicts and who would in practice only consume Russian security resources – would be completely insanity."

    An alliance only means consciousness of common interest and common enemy.

    US and China grew closer in the cold war against the USSR.

    US and Saudis are allies because Anglo-Zionist US, Israel, and Saudis have the same enemy in Iran.

    Alliance doesn't mean Russia has to support or join in all the conflicts of Turkey and Iran.
    It only means Russia will coordinate with the two countries against the US empire.
  21. @Avery
    Your eloquent praise of my prose was deeply moving.

    I think your text is worth a reading and a thought.

    Read More
  22. @Simon in London
    Obviously, Kurdish aspirations to independence threaten to tear off a large chunk of Turkey. That's the existential threat - to national integrity. And national integrity is what the Turks really care about.

    {That’s the existential threat – to national integrity.}

    I think you meant territorial integrity.
    In any case, losing a chunk of a country’s area does not constitute an “existential” threat.


    {..what the Turks really care about.}

    Who cares what Turks really care about?
    Their unnatural, criminal, genocidal state is built on the land of others whom they subjected to genocide.
    Nomad Turks are squatters in Asia Minor.
    Their homeland is in Uyguristan.
    Kurds are indigenous.
    Turks are the existential threat to all indigenous peoples in the region.
    And like I wrote before: ‘Turks’ will continue to exist as people in Asia Minor.
    Unfortunately.
    Losing a chunk of territory does not mean the end of existence of a particular people.
    Germany lost about 25% of its pre-war territory of 1937 after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Germans obviously exist today, and are thriving.

    Everybody – including Turks – will be better off if Turkey is broken up into 2-3 pieces. Turkey has no more right to its alleged “territorial integrity” than Nazi Germany did.

    Read More
  23. @Simon in London
    Obviously, Kurdish aspirations to independence threaten to tear off a large chunk of Turkey. That's the existential threat - to national integrity. And national integrity is what the Turks really care about.

    btw: Simon in London.

    Any concern for the territorial integrity of Republic of Cyrus that your Turk kin invaded and are still occupying 40% of?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Any concern for the territorial integrity of 5,000-year-old Palestine that your Jew kin invaded and are still occupying 78% of?

    Muslim Arabs conquered Cyprus during Caliph Usman in 649. In Islamic history the island was known as Qubris. In Cyprus, like Greece, India, Spain, Balakans, etc. – Muslim tolerance toward non-Muslims kept them in minority even after centuries of their rule. By 1974 – Muslims made only 18% of the total population of Cyprus.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/09/26/cyprus-the-victim-of-western-double-standard/
  24. @Druid
    You're a Ziofascist. Reading you is like reading nutanyahoo or Lieberman. Go take a nap!

    Huh?

    Read More
  25. @Anatoly Karlin
    I suspect that Erdogan's showdown with the US is part of hardball negotiations over America's future involvement in Kurdistan, since it seems that the plan now is to reconstitute Syria back within its old borders (and perhaps have a Round 2 in a decade or two).

    Highly doubt Erdogan has any plans to actually leave NATO. It is extremely useful, since it doesn't care much about democracy/human rights like the EU, and in light of Turkey's regional isolation.

    The Saker's Islamophilia regardless, a Russian alliance with Iran and Turkey - two highly unpredictable countries with plenty of their own conflicts and who would in practice only consume Russian security resources - would be completely insanity. Zhirinovsky must be just doing his own thing.

    Indeed it occurred to me too that NATO wouldn’t be abandoned unless Erdogan was completely barmy. It would leave him at Russia’s mercy and even to begin sharing Israel’s concern about Iranian nukes. Also he would be weakened in his necessary concentration against the Kurds if they began to seize an apparent opportubity for separate statehood.

    Separate question to all. Why has the US always been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided? To the extent that Israel’s preference counted would that be consistent with Israel’s wishes? Specifically why wouldn’t the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "To the extent that Israel’s preference counted would that be consistent with Israel’s wishes? Specifically why wouldn’t the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?"

    That was the position of Joe Biden. Biden, of course, is the Roman Catholic politician who has proclaimed himself to be really deep down an Israeli. Biden was also the guy who was caught plagiarizing in law school, a much more serious offense than Melania's "theft" last week of Michelle Obama's words, dealing with generalized life experiences. (It's not as if Melania was describing a unique experience or using words which were notable for their brilliance. Don't politicians "borrow" language from other successful politicians all the time?) So, if the brilliant Joe Biden supported the breakup of Iraq into three parts, I don't understand how anybody could challenge his view. A history of nearly 100 years as a unified state hardly counts against Biden's insight. Of course, Biden was influenced in his views by the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, who managed to secure a lucrative oil deal with the Kurds, which, I am sure, had no effect at all on his views. The real question is why the U.S. is involved at all in Iraq.
    , @Rabbitnexus
    Erdogan would be crazy to continue with NATO. For him there are no benefits unless you presume as you seem to that Russia ia a threat. It is not. Erdogan recently got the realisation that NATO was of little use to his plans, so I don't think he sees its loss as much anymore.

    Your question is nonsense. The USA has not been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided. they always sought it's dissolution as a state. Indeed that was part of the wording of the Plan for a New American Century in which the events unfolding were laid out. The USA does Israel's bidding as we know but neither of them can control the outcome always. Since Iraqis are resisting the breakup so far, they are both failing. Indeed it hasn't been a very good year for Israel or the USA. Izzy's problems haven't begun just yet but the set backs to their expansionist plans have begun to mount.
  26. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Kurds are good at Public Relations. Everywhere I went in Turkey as an obvious foreigner I had friendly people approaching me to shake my hand and introduce themselves very pointedly as Kurds.

    Read More
  27. @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed it occurred to me too that NATO wouldn't be abandoned unless Erdogan was completely barmy. It would leave him at Russia's mercy and even to begin sharing Israel's concern about Iranian nukes. Also he would be weakened in his necessary concentration against the Kurds if they began to seize an apparent opportubity for separate statehood.

    Separate question to all. Why has the US always been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided? To the extent that Israel's preference counted would that be consistent with Israel's wishes? Specifically why wouldn't the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?

    “To the extent that Israel’s preference counted would that be consistent with Israel’s wishes? Specifically why wouldn’t the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?”

    That was the position of Joe Biden. Biden, of course, is the Roman Catholic politician who has proclaimed himself to be really deep down an Israeli. Biden was also the guy who was caught plagiarizing in law school, a much more serious offense than Melania’s “theft” last week of Michelle Obama’s words, dealing with generalized life experiences. (It’s not as if Melania was describing a unique experience or using words which were notable for their brilliance. Don’t politicians “borrow” language from other successful politicians all the time?) So, if the brilliant Joe Biden supported the breakup of Iraq into three parts, I don’t understand how anybody could challenge his view. A history of nearly 100 years as a unified state hardly counts against Biden’s insight. Of course, Biden was influenced in his views by the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, who managed to secure a lucrative oil deal with the Kurds, which, I am sure, had no effect at all on his views. The real question is why the U.S. is involved at all in Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks, it's good to get a civil response in these comments and with some interesting facts.

    Yes a unified country for 100 years has to count for nearly all the major players who don't want to encourage breakups though the US would be less worried about that than most. (Still keeping the EU together and the UK are US policies). If Israel was keen on a breakup it would be easy to argue that Iraq was just one of the artificial Sykes-Picot creations out of Ottoman remnants.

    Now it occurs to me that, on balance, a legally united Iraq might suit Israel because its internal divisions would make for a weaker enemy than a solidly Shia ally of Iran or solidly Sunni ally of an emerging Sunni Syria. Maybe.

    When the 2003 invasion took place the case for America having nothing to do with Iraq was not quite as strong as it appears now because it could (just) have been argued - as it was - that America benefited in a major way from Iraq's oil coming into the market again. Since then the fracking revolution has taken nearly all the substance out of that argument.

    As for Melania's (speechwriter's) plagiarism I am tempted to use language akin to that which I generally find reprehensible in the comments. The word "idiotic" comes to mind for the performance of those who either wrote the speech or failed to see how stupid - not dishonest like plagiarism in law school - using Michele Obama's speech without acknowledgment was.

    (Come to think of it I can see the possibility of Biden's type of plagiarism being stupid rather than dishonest. After all he could have decided that he wasn't going to seek a position where the quality of his law degree was going to matter, that he was going to have no trouble meeting the requirements of a bare degree without any honours or distinctions, and so he wasn't hurting anyone by saving his time for other activities. Except for hurting himself because, like Teddy Kennedy, he could be described as a cheat.)

  28. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ah, the era of globalism.

    The McTerrorist.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705084/Horror-witnesses-living-nightmare-Munich-rampage-Killer-lured-teens-death-promise-free-burgers-recruiting-victims-Facebook.html

    Modern day Hansel and Gretel story with Grimm results.

    Come kids… free burgers… comes with side serving of bullets.

    But Diversity is our strength.

    The mantra:

    Non-white Immigrants are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I’ve ever known in my life.

    Read More
  29. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I suspect that Erdogan's showdown with the US is part of hardball negotiations over America's future involvement in Kurdistan, since it seems that the plan now is to reconstitute Syria back within its old borders (and perhaps have a Round 2 in a decade or two).

    Highly doubt Erdogan has any plans to actually leave NATO. It is extremely useful, since it doesn't care much about democracy/human rights like the EU, and in light of Turkey's regional isolation.

    The Saker's Islamophilia regardless, a Russian alliance with Iran and Turkey - two highly unpredictable countries with plenty of their own conflicts and who would in practice only consume Russian security resources - would be completely insanity. Zhirinovsky must be just doing his own thing.

    “a Russian alliance with Iran and Turkey – two highly unpredictable countries with plenty of their own conflicts and who would in practice only consume Russian security resources – would be completely insanity.”

    An alliance only means consciousness of common interest and common enemy.

    US and China grew closer in the cold war against the USSR.

    US and Saudis are allies because Anglo-Zionist US, Israel, and Saudis have the same enemy in Iran.

    Alliance doesn’t mean Russia has to support or join in all the conflicts of Turkey and Iran.
    It only means Russia will coordinate with the two countries against the US empire.

    Read More
  30. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @tbraton
    That leads me to ask what the proper pronunciation of "Erdogan" is. When the coup was underway, suddenly the MSM started reporting on Turkey and invariably pronounced the name "Erdowan." Then I heard John McLaughlin on his Group pronounce it with the "g" sound its spelling indicates, i.e., "Erdogan." Either I hadn't heard it pronounced before or I heard it pronounced so infrequently that I wasn't paying close enough attention. So, what is the proper pronunciation of "Erdogan"?

    Note: The name is properly spelled “Erdoğan” (see the diacritic?), and pronounced roughly “Erdowan”. See Turkish alphabet – Wikipedia.

    Read More
  31. “The Russians had really no option but to accept working with the USA in Syria.”

    You’re 101% right Saker – because both Soviet Union and America played the part of surrogate mother for the Zionist entity in 1948. The US provided money and Russia provided one million Russian Jews to change demographic landscape of once a Muslim-majority Palestine until 1947.

    Both Putin and Obama have never stopped assuring Netanyahu that they will defend the Zionist entity against regional threats by all means.

    In February 2016, when the US and Russia agreed to implement a ceasefire between the foreign insurgency and Syrian army, I knew US-Israel are losing war against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad based on Western military adventures in the past, such as, the Iraq-Iran, Bosnia-Serbia, and 34-day Israel-Hizbullah war in 2006.

    When I heard that ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and rest of the throat-cutters armed, trained, and financed by the US, Israel, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. have agreed to cease their war on Syrian people for next two weeks starting from Saturday – I smelled skunk.

    A few hours ago, I saw a skunk. CNN’s Pentagon mole, Barbara Starr (a Zionist Jew) claimed “Russia is using the ceasefire process to seize key Syrian territory.” In other words, Russia is taking-over Syrian territory that was seized earlier by ISIS aiming to Balkanize Syria for Israel…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/26/syria-us-russia-use-ceasefire-to-break-up-syria/

    Read More
  32. @Anonymous
    Note: The name is properly spelled "Erdoğan" (see the diacritic?), and pronounced roughly "Erdowan". See Turkish alphabet - Wikipedia.

    Thanks.

    Read More
  33. @tbraton
    "To the extent that Israel’s preference counted would that be consistent with Israel’s wishes? Specifically why wouldn’t the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?"

    That was the position of Joe Biden. Biden, of course, is the Roman Catholic politician who has proclaimed himself to be really deep down an Israeli. Biden was also the guy who was caught plagiarizing in law school, a much more serious offense than Melania's "theft" last week of Michelle Obama's words, dealing with generalized life experiences. (It's not as if Melania was describing a unique experience or using words which were notable for their brilliance. Don't politicians "borrow" language from other successful politicians all the time?) So, if the brilliant Joe Biden supported the breakup of Iraq into three parts, I don't understand how anybody could challenge his view. A history of nearly 100 years as a unified state hardly counts against Biden's insight. Of course, Biden was influenced in his views by the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, who managed to secure a lucrative oil deal with the Kurds, which, I am sure, had no effect at all on his views. The real question is why the U.S. is involved at all in Iraq.

    Thanks, it’s good to get a civil response in these comments and with some interesting facts.

    Yes a unified country for 100 years has to count for nearly all the major players who don’t want to encourage breakups though the US would be less worried about that than most. (Still keeping the EU together and the UK are US policies). If Israel was keen on a breakup it would be easy to argue that Iraq was just one of the artificial Sykes-Picot creations out of Ottoman remnants.

    Now it occurs to me that, on balance, a legally united Iraq might suit Israel because its internal divisions would make for a weaker enemy than a solidly Shia ally of Iran or solidly Sunni ally of an emerging Sunni Syria. Maybe.

    When the 2003 invasion took place the case for America having nothing to do with Iraq was not quite as strong as it appears now because it could (just) have been argued – as it was – that America benefited in a major way from Iraq’s oil coming into the market again. Since then the fracking revolution has taken nearly all the substance out of that argument.

    As for Melania’s (speechwriter’s) plagiarism I am tempted to use language akin to that which I generally find reprehensible in the comments. The word “idiotic” comes to mind for the performance of those who either wrote the speech or failed to see how stupid – not dishonest like plagiarism in law school – using Michele Obama’s speech without acknowledgment was.

    (Come to think of it I can see the possibility of Biden’s type of plagiarism being stupid rather than dishonest. After all he could have decided that he wasn’t going to seek a position where the quality of his law degree was going to matter, that he was going to have no trouble meeting the requirements of a bare degree without any honours or distinctions, and so he wasn’t hurting anyone by saving his time for other activities. Except for hurting himself because, like Teddy Kennedy, he could be described as a cheat.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    YES - Moshe, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel are artificial state created by the Zionist-controlled British and French colonial powers by breaking Greater Syria, and Ottoman wilayat.

    Syria is not controlled by Shi'ites but the Ba'athist Socialist party, which has members from Sunnis, Alawite Shi'ites, Christians and Druze.

    On February 15, 2016, former British ambassador to Syria and Bahrain, Peter Ford blamed David Cameron’s ME policy for prolonging five-year Syrians’ agony by joining the US-led coalition to bring an anti-Iran regime change in Damascus.

    “Assad is not going to be overthrown. This becomes more clear with every day passes. Western analysts have been indulging in wishful thinking for five years; it’s time to get real, we owe it to Syrian people to be much more realistic and hard headed about this. The West has to stop propping the so-called moderate opposition, which is not moderate at all by the way, and it has to allow Syrian Army backed possibly by the Russian to deal with ISIS,” Ford said at BBC’s The Big Questions, hosted by Nicky Campbell, an Islamophobe. (watch a video below).

    The US-Israel-Saudi Arabia supported anti-government rebels have been losing territory rapidly under an intensified campaign by Assad’s troops backed by Hizbullah fighters, Iranian military advisers and Russian air strikes in recent weeks, allowing Kurdish forces to seize more territory.

    “Western intervention is just prolonging the agony. We should have backed off, we should not have tried to overthrow the regime. Despite the failures of this in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, like a dog returning to its vomit we go back,” said Ford.

    Peter Ford also accused the Foreign Secretary Dr. Philip Hammond, an Israel-Firster, of undermining a ceasefire agreed in Munich last week.

    It’s no secret that ISIS like the so-called Arab Spring is a US-Israel creation. Its Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (born Elliot Shimon) is French Jew and was trained by Israeli Mossad .....

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/06/ex-uk-ambassador-no-regime-change-in-syria/
    , @krollchem
    Agreed on Melania's speechwriter plagiarizing Michel(l)e's speech. What about Michelle's plagiarizing parts from earlier speeches by other presenters?

    I do not buy your limp excuse for Biden's plagiarism. Given his poor academic record, the best one could say in his defense is that he was just stupid.

    As my usual practice I provide links to other idiots in politics:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KHSNKpmdg

    and in Journalism:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA

    Enjoy...
  34. @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks, it's good to get a civil response in these comments and with some interesting facts.

    Yes a unified country for 100 years has to count for nearly all the major players who don't want to encourage breakups though the US would be less worried about that than most. (Still keeping the EU together and the UK are US policies). If Israel was keen on a breakup it would be easy to argue that Iraq was just one of the artificial Sykes-Picot creations out of Ottoman remnants.

    Now it occurs to me that, on balance, a legally united Iraq might suit Israel because its internal divisions would make for a weaker enemy than a solidly Shia ally of Iran or solidly Sunni ally of an emerging Sunni Syria. Maybe.

    When the 2003 invasion took place the case for America having nothing to do with Iraq was not quite as strong as it appears now because it could (just) have been argued - as it was - that America benefited in a major way from Iraq's oil coming into the market again. Since then the fracking revolution has taken nearly all the substance out of that argument.

    As for Melania's (speechwriter's) plagiarism I am tempted to use language akin to that which I generally find reprehensible in the comments. The word "idiotic" comes to mind for the performance of those who either wrote the speech or failed to see how stupid - not dishonest like plagiarism in law school - using Michele Obama's speech without acknowledgment was.

    (Come to think of it I can see the possibility of Biden's type of plagiarism being stupid rather than dishonest. After all he could have decided that he wasn't going to seek a position where the quality of his law degree was going to matter, that he was going to have no trouble meeting the requirements of a bare degree without any honours or distinctions, and so he wasn't hurting anyone by saving his time for other activities. Except for hurting himself because, like Teddy Kennedy, he could be described as a cheat.)

    YES – Moshe, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel are artificial state created by the Zionist-controlled British and French colonial powers by breaking Greater Syria, and Ottoman wilayat.

    Syria is not controlled by Shi’ites but the Ba’athist Socialist party, which has members from Sunnis, Alawite Shi’ites, Christians and Druze.

    On February 15, 2016, former British ambassador to Syria and Bahrain, Peter Ford blamed David Cameron’s ME policy for prolonging five-year Syrians’ agony by joining the US-led coalition to bring an anti-Iran regime change in Damascus.

    “Assad is not going to be overthrown. This becomes more clear with every day passes. Western analysts have been indulging in wishful thinking for five years; it’s time to get real, we owe it to Syrian people to be much more realistic and hard headed about this. The West has to stop propping the so-called moderate opposition, which is not moderate at all by the way, and it has to allow Syrian Army backed possibly by the Russian to deal with ISIS,” Ford said at BBC’s The Big Questions, hosted by Nicky Campbell, an Islamophobe. (watch a video below).

    The US-Israel-Saudi Arabia supported anti-government rebels have been losing territory rapidly under an intensified campaign by Assad’s troops backed by Hizbullah fighters, Iranian military advisers and Russian air strikes in recent weeks, allowing Kurdish forces to seize more territory.

    “Western intervention is just prolonging the agony. We should have backed off, we should not have tried to overthrow the regime. Despite the failures of this in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, like a dog returning to its vomit we go back,” said Ford.

    Peter Ford also accused the Foreign Secretary Dr. Philip Hammond, an Israel-Firster, of undermining a ceasefire agreed in Munich last week.

    It’s no secret that ISIS like the so-called Arab Spring is a US-Israel creation. Its Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (born Elliot Shimon) is French Jew and was trained by Israeli Mossad …..

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/06/ex-uk-ambassador-no-regime-change-in-syria/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Anyone know if that bit about al-Baghdadi being born a French Jew is correcr?
  35. Obviously, the lovely Melania’s delivering a speech which “borrowed” from Michelle Obama’s earlier speech was a bad move that should have been avoided because it stupidly detracted from her fine appearance, but let’s be honest. Melania’s thoughts were rather mundane and ordinary, and there are only so many ways you can express those ordinary thoughts in fresh, new language. That’s why we often resort to stock phrases (often from the Bible or Shakespeare) and trite expressions and cliches because coining fresh phrases is such hard, time-consuming work. (Incidentally, this passage from an article on Biden made me laugh: “Back in 1987, Biden called these scandals a “Tempest in a Teapot.” “) BTW here are some of the offending passages from Melania’s speech:

    ““From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect.

    They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

    As USA Today conceded in the article where I found those excerpts: “It’s not entirely a verbatim match, but the two sections bear considerable similarity in wording, construction and themes.” It’s not as if Melania was stealing some secret code for a new nuclear weapon. She was restating ordinary life experiences which millions of Americans would probably state in very similar language, such as working hard for what you want, your word is your bond, you do what you say and you treat people with respect. Hardly, world shattering thoughts. I’m sure that, if anyone did a fact check on Michelle’s speech, they might find numerous examples of others saying basically the same thing. If she did, big deal. It’s not as if she had a phrase “four score and seven years ago” or started off her speech by saying “Call me Michelle” or “you don’t know about me, without you have read a book by the name of ‘The Adventures of Barack Obama,’ but that ain’t no matter.”

    That’s a big difference from what Biden did in law school to satisfy a course requirement. Here is what the NY Times said about the incident back in 1987:

    “Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign, today acknowledged ”a mistake” in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. . . The file distributed by the Senator included a law school faculty report, dated Dec. 1, 1965, that concluded that Mr. Biden had ”used five pages from a published law review article without quotation or attribution” and that he ought to be failed in the legal methods course for which he had submitted the 15-page paper. The plagiarized article, ”Tortious Acts as a Basis for Jurisdiction in Products Liability Cases,” was published in the Fordham Law Review of May 1965. Mr. Biden drew large chunks of heavy legal prose directly from it, including such sentences as: ”The trend of judicial opinion in various jurisdictions has been that the breach of an implied warranty of fitness is actionable without privity, because it is a tortious wrong upon which suit may be brought by a non-contracting party.” ” http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all

    I am struck by the complete difference between the ordinary observations of Melania and the “heavy legal prose” dealing with a relatively complicated legal problem which Biden stole as a law student. After all, he had already attended four years of college, and, back then, I believe colleges were still emphasizing the evils of plagiarism, so he was not encountering strange new requirements in law school.

    BTW Biden was also caught greatly exaggerating his educational accomplishments in law school: “It [the report] disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism.” It looks to me that Biden has a problem with the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    All this fuss about nothing, and still the only memory guys will have of that night at the convention is "I'd rather do Melania in a broom cupboard, than Michelle in a presidential suite."
  36. @tbraton
    Obviously, the lovely Melania's delivering a speech which "borrowed" from Michelle Obama's earlier speech was a bad move that should have been avoided because it stupidly detracted from her fine appearance, but let's be honest. Melania's thoughts were rather mundane and ordinary, and there are only so many ways you can express those ordinary thoughts in fresh, new language. That's why we often resort to stock phrases (often from the Bible or Shakespeare) and trite expressions and cliches because coining fresh phrases is such hard, time-consuming work. (Incidentally, this passage from an article on Biden made me laugh: "Back in 1987, Biden called these scandals a “Tempest in a Teapot.” ") BTW here are some of the offending passages from Melania's speech:

    "“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect.

    They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

    As USA Today conceded in the article where I found those excerpts: "It's not entirely a verbatim match, but the two sections bear considerable similarity in wording, construction and themes." It's not as if Melania was stealing some secret code for a new nuclear weapon. She was restating ordinary life experiences which millions of Americans would probably state in very similar language, such as working hard for what you want, your word is your bond, you do what you say and you treat people with respect. Hardly, world shattering thoughts. I'm sure that, if anyone did a fact check on Michelle's speech, they might find numerous examples of others saying basically the same thing. If she did, big deal. It's not as if she had a phrase "four score and seven years ago" or started off her speech by saying "Call me Michelle" or "you don't know about me, without you have read a book by the name of 'The Adventures of Barack Obama,' but that ain't no matter."

    That's a big difference from what Biden did in law school to satisfy a course requirement. Here is what the NY Times said about the incident back in 1987:

    "Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign, today acknowledged ''a mistake'' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. . . The file distributed by the Senator included a law school faculty report, dated Dec. 1, 1965, that concluded that Mr. Biden had ''used five pages from a published law review article without quotation or attribution'' and that he ought to be failed in the legal methods course for which he had submitted the 15-page paper. The plagiarized article, ''Tortious Acts as a Basis for Jurisdiction in Products Liability Cases,'' was published in the Fordham Law Review of May 1965. Mr. Biden drew large chunks of heavy legal prose directly from it, including such sentences as: ''The trend of judicial opinion in various jurisdictions has been that the breach of an implied warranty of fitness is actionable without privity, because it is a tortious wrong upon which suit may be brought by a non-contracting party.'' " http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all

    I am struck by the complete difference between the ordinary observations of Melania and the "heavy legal prose" dealing with a relatively complicated legal problem which Biden stole as a law student. After all, he had already attended four years of college, and, back then, I believe colleges were still emphasizing the evils of plagiarism, so he was not encountering strange new requirements in law school.

    BTW Biden was also caught greatly exaggerating his educational accomplishments in law school: "It [the report] disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism." It looks to me that Biden has a problem with the truth.

    All this fuss about nothing, and still the only memory guys will have of that night at the convention is “I’d rather do Melania in a broom cupboard, than Michelle in a presidential suite.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    LOL. I really can't argue with the second part of your sentence. BTW, with the resignation of DWS today, it looks like the Democrats may have a more disruptive convention than the Repubs. Now, if only Ted Cruz would make a special appearance or BLM would stage a reenactment of their Seattle moment when Bernie delivers his speech.
  37. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    IMO kurds are really doomed. They made the wrong choice joining the Yankees. They will be left out in the cold for sure and will live as nationless dwellers for the centuries to come. With the geopolitical tectonic moves occurring in the middle east, Russia emerging as a super power, Iran as an influential regional power in Iraq and Syria and now Turkey joining the group almost certainly, Kurds will be surrounded on all sides. Don’t forget Arabs, Persians and Turks all cannot stand any Kurdish autonomy and won’t allow anything such as an independent Kurdish entity in the middle of their existentialist lebensraum. From the beginning, Kurds are used as foot soldiers for the greater Israel. Throughout their history Kurds always made the wrong choices and it has cost them dearly. It is no different today. They are again doomed to remain the largest minority group in the world without any land.

    Read More
  38. @5371
    All this fuss about nothing, and still the only memory guys will have of that night at the convention is "I'd rather do Melania in a broom cupboard, than Michelle in a presidential suite."

    LOL. I really can’t argue with the second part of your sentence. BTW, with the resignation of DWS today, it looks like the Democrats may have a more disruptive convention than the Repubs. Now, if only Ted Cruz would make a special appearance or BLM would stage a reenactment of their Seattle moment when Bernie delivers his speech.

    Read More
  39. @Priss Factor
    I don't get Germany. Turks are among the better Muslims, but they haven't done much for Germany.

    So, does it make sense to take in less promising Muslims?

    Btw, look at this.

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/german.women.facing.threat.from.muslim.migrants.get.help.from.neo.nazi.group.amid.government.inaction/76489.htm

    So, neo-nazis care more about German women than the German government does. Wow. This is what globalism does to a nation. How did Germany come to this where women must seek security from Neo-Nazis because the government has gone totally Rotherham on them?

    German women don't deserve to be rotherhammed.

    But then, maybe they do. After all, European women overwhelmingly vote for the PROGLOB.

    First; that article that you linked to begins by describing the defenders of the German women as ‘identitarian” and later slides into the usual “neo-nazi” rhetoric.You didn’t see an actual Nazi flag being waved, did you? You need to understand that, in Germany as well as any European country today, any group expressing nationalist sentiment and historic-ethnic ties to their old countries are instantly and automatically branded “neo-nazi” and/or racist. In Germany it is now a crime to even criticize “refugees”, and anyone professing to have actual National Socialist (“nazi”, if you like) sentiment is rounded up and sent to prison. Just recently an elderly German woman who questioned the Holocaust was sent to prison.
    Please understand that any European who expresses longings for his/her traditional homeland and folk ways and wishes to return to their national identity is automatically branded with the Nazi label. It has been a very effective tactic used by the neo-con globalists. These people are not Nazis. They are Germans trying to save their women and what’s left of their heritage and nation.

    Read More
  40. @Priss Factor
    It's amazing to me that, to this very day, Turkey has not demanded that US stop calling it 'Turkey'.

    It is pronounced 'Turkieh'.

    But it goes on as 'turkey'. What a turkey.

    We don’t call Germany ‘Deutschland’ or Japan ‘Nippon’ either. That’s not a diplomatic slight; it’s because we speak English in the US. So what’s your point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    But turkey is this.

    http://animal-dream.com/data_images/turkey/turkey8.jpg
    , @utu
    In English for strange reason turkey is called turkey because they thought it was a type of quinea fowl (from Africa) that was know in Europe via Turkey. In Turkey Turks have etymologically a more correct name for turkey. It is hindi indicating that it has something to do with Indians from America.
  41. I think you get a solid C+ on this one. Kevin Barrett offered the most reasonable analysis, by far.

    The coup was attempted by the zionist “Young Turks” faction which has basically ruled Turkey since it’s been called Turkey. They had a lot of help from their zionist pals in the west, as they always do.

    It was a desperate attempt to save the Great Israel Project in Syria, having been decimated by Putin. Yes, Turkey has always been supplying the zionists, but that wasn’t Erdogan driving the trucks. He seems to have been doing his level best to ignore the situation or use it to his own advantage, but for different reasons. But a coup against him was just a little more than he was gonna turn a blind eye to.

    The zionists had hoped to conquer the military and use it for their own purposes, against Assad. But Turks caught on in time.

    Yeah, Erdogan and Turks don’t much like Syria, but that’s the old Shiite / Sunni problem. Try getting Catholics and Protestants to get along and you’ll get the idea. Ditto with the Kurds, but they’re irrelevant to the coup as near as I can tell.

    The zionists left their Talmuds all over the crime scene. Shutting down the social media at the start….. clearly NOT done by a bunch of disgruntled Muslims. The operation had some shekels and outside help behind it, that much is undeniable.

    Not entirely sure about Gulen, but CIA he most definitely IS, so this “exiled Muslim radical cleric” stuff just ain’t washing.

    When Erdogan made a public apology to Putin for shooting down Russia’s plane, the gloves came off for the zio’s. The shoot-down was clearly a manufactured provocation, by Jewish elements in Turkey, to start a war with Putin. I’m sure there were phone calls between intelligence agencies made, but a public apology to Zionist Enemy #1, Putin, was more than the zionists could tolerate.

    Basically, as Barrett more-or-less says, the Jewish subjugation of Byzantium just ain’t holding.

    Long Live Byzantium.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DaveE
    Proof (or not) lies in who, exactly, is being rounded up, arrested, or exiled by Erdogan's boys.

    From where I sit, that looks to be the "western" (Jewish) elements who took over 100 years ago.

    BTW There's a great old newsreel from the '50's floating around which describes how Kemal Attaturk basically took over, outlawed all Islamic culture and turned Byzantium into Israel North.

    Quite humorous, in light of today's events, if you're a fan of karma, as I am.
    , @Seraphim
    The estranged parts of Byzantium (Russia and Turkey) had come together once in the past. It was known as the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 1833. Turkey has appealed to Russia to help check the invasion of Syria and Anatolia by the Khedive of Egypt, Mehmet Ali. The treaty was barring 'foreign' warships (read British or French) to enter the Black Sea while allowing Russian warships to pass to the Mediterana. Britain and France were so pissed off that they jumped to 'protect' the integrity of the Ottoman Empire 'threatened to become a Russian protectorate' and to keep the 'Russian aggression' in check. The delayed result was the Crimean War (and the rest).
  42. @DaveE
    I think you get a solid C+ on this one. Kevin Barrett offered the most reasonable analysis, by far.

    The coup was attempted by the zionist "Young Turks" faction which has basically ruled Turkey since it's been called Turkey. They had a lot of help from their zionist pals in the west, as they always do.

    It was a desperate attempt to save the Great Israel Project in Syria, having been decimated by Putin. Yes, Turkey has always been supplying the zionists, but that wasn't Erdogan driving the trucks. He seems to have been doing his level best to ignore the situation or use it to his own advantage, but for different reasons. But a coup against him was just a little more than he was gonna turn a blind eye to.

    The zionists had hoped to conquer the military and use it for their own purposes, against Assad. But Turks caught on in time.

    Yeah, Erdogan and Turks don't much like Syria, but that's the old Shiite / Sunni problem. Try getting Catholics and Protestants to get along and you'll get the idea. Ditto with the Kurds, but they're irrelevant to the coup as near as I can tell.

    The zionists left their Talmuds all over the crime scene. Shutting down the social media at the start..... clearly NOT done by a bunch of disgruntled Muslims. The operation had some shekels and outside help behind it, that much is undeniable.

    Not entirely sure about Gulen, but CIA he most definitely IS, so this "exiled Muslim radical cleric" stuff just ain't washing.

    When Erdogan made a public apology to Putin for shooting down Russia's plane, the gloves came off for the zio's. The shoot-down was clearly a manufactured provocation, by Jewish elements in Turkey, to start a war with Putin. I'm sure there were phone calls between intelligence agencies made, but a public apology to Zionist Enemy #1, Putin, was more than the zionists could tolerate.

    Basically, as Barrett more-or-less says, the Jewish subjugation of Byzantium just ain't holding.

    Long Live Byzantium.

    Proof (or not) lies in who, exactly, is being rounded up, arrested, or exiled by Erdogan’s boys.

    From where I sit, that looks to be the “western” (Jewish) elements who took over 100 years ago.

    BTW There’s a great old newsreel from the ’50′s floating around which describes how Kemal Attaturk basically took over, outlawed all Islamic culture and turned Byzantium into Israel North.

    Quite humorous, in light of today’s events, if you’re a fan of karma, as I am.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "BTW There’s a great old newsreel from the ’50′s floating around which describes how Kemal Attaturk basically took over, outlawed all Islamic culture and turned Byzantium into Israel North. "

    I hope you realize that Attaturk assumed power in the 20's after the demise of the Ottoman Empire and he created the modern state of Turkey long before the State of Israel was created in 1948. He sought to make Turkey a secular country modeled after the successful European countries and not modelled on Israel, a country which did not even exist back then.
  43. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Seamus Padraig
    We don't call Germany 'Deutschland' or Japan 'Nippon' either. That's not a diplomatic slight; it's because we speak English in the US. So what's your point?
    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    I have some suggestions for new, improved names for Turkey.
    Much more accurate and descriptive.
    And will avoid confusion with the delicious bird.

    Turkistan.
    Turkoğlaristan.
    Uyguristan West.
    Uyguroğlaristan
    Nomadistan.
    Genocideistan.

  44. @Seamus Padraig
    We don't call Germany 'Deutschland' or Japan 'Nippon' either. That's not a diplomatic slight; it's because we speak English in the US. So what's your point?

    In English for strange reason turkey is called turkey because they thought it was a type of quinea fowl (from Africa) that was know in Europe via Turkey. In Turkey Turks have etymologically a more correct name for turkey. It is hindi indicating that it has something to do with Indians from America.

    Read More
  45. @DaveE
    I think you get a solid C+ on this one. Kevin Barrett offered the most reasonable analysis, by far.

    The coup was attempted by the zionist "Young Turks" faction which has basically ruled Turkey since it's been called Turkey. They had a lot of help from their zionist pals in the west, as they always do.

    It was a desperate attempt to save the Great Israel Project in Syria, having been decimated by Putin. Yes, Turkey has always been supplying the zionists, but that wasn't Erdogan driving the trucks. He seems to have been doing his level best to ignore the situation or use it to his own advantage, but for different reasons. But a coup against him was just a little more than he was gonna turn a blind eye to.

    The zionists had hoped to conquer the military and use it for their own purposes, against Assad. But Turks caught on in time.

    Yeah, Erdogan and Turks don't much like Syria, but that's the old Shiite / Sunni problem. Try getting Catholics and Protestants to get along and you'll get the idea. Ditto with the Kurds, but they're irrelevant to the coup as near as I can tell.

    The zionists left their Talmuds all over the crime scene. Shutting down the social media at the start..... clearly NOT done by a bunch of disgruntled Muslims. The operation had some shekels and outside help behind it, that much is undeniable.

    Not entirely sure about Gulen, but CIA he most definitely IS, so this "exiled Muslim radical cleric" stuff just ain't washing.

    When Erdogan made a public apology to Putin for shooting down Russia's plane, the gloves came off for the zio's. The shoot-down was clearly a manufactured provocation, by Jewish elements in Turkey, to start a war with Putin. I'm sure there were phone calls between intelligence agencies made, but a public apology to Zionist Enemy #1, Putin, was more than the zionists could tolerate.

    Basically, as Barrett more-or-less says, the Jewish subjugation of Byzantium just ain't holding.

    Long Live Byzantium.

    The estranged parts of Byzantium (Russia and Turkey) had come together once in the past. It was known as the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 1833. Turkey has appealed to Russia to help check the invasion of Syria and Anatolia by the Khedive of Egypt, Mehmet Ali. The treaty was barring ‘foreign’ warships (read British or French) to enter the Black Sea while allowing Russian warships to pass to the Mediterana. Britain and France were so pissed off that they jumped to ‘protect’ the integrity of the Ottoman Empire ‘threatened to become a Russian protectorate’ and to keep the ‘Russian aggression’ in check. The delayed result was the Crimean War (and the rest).

    Read More
  46. Thank you Saker for including Vladimir Putin’s extremely colorful comment in Russian,
    “Одними помидорами вы не отделаетесь”. I am always amazed by the sheer richness and the inherent flexibility of the Russian language.
    Here on the Irkutsk market Turkish cherries appeared, after the Tashkent ones went out of season, and I have to say that we gained nothing from the change. They are tasteless and spoil within a day. In fact we would have been better off food wise had the embargo on Turkish products remained in place. Anyway our own delicious Siberian tomatoes are now ripening on the vine.
    Thanks for your article, and we can indeed cheer the fact that Turkey is effectively neutralized for the foreseeable future.
    Удачи!

    Read More
  47. The writer doesn’t know much about Iran. Iran has been fighting with the barbarian Turks for a thousand years and Russia for about 400 years.
    Iran regards both those countries as heridatary enemies which they are. There is no reason for Iran to ally with the barbarians. Iran can take care of itself.

    Read More
  48. @Priss Factor
    But turkey is this.

    http://animal-dream.com/data_images/turkey/turkey8.jpg

    I have some suggestions for new, improved names for Turkey.
    Much more accurate and descriptive.
    And will avoid confusion with the delicious bird.

    Turkistan.
    Turkoğlaristan.
    Uyguristan West.
    Uyguroğlaristan
    Nomadistan.
    Genocideistan.

    Read More
  49. @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed it occurred to me too that NATO wouldn't be abandoned unless Erdogan was completely barmy. It would leave him at Russia's mercy and even to begin sharing Israel's concern about Iranian nukes. Also he would be weakened in his necessary concentration against the Kurds if they began to seize an apparent opportubity for separate statehood.

    Separate question to all. Why has the US always been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided? To the extent that Israel's preference counted would that be consistent with Israel's wishes? Specifically why wouldn't the US have supported a three way breakup into Shia south, Sunni centre and Kursish north?

    Erdogan would be crazy to continue with NATO. For him there are no benefits unless you presume as you seem to that Russia ia a threat. It is not. Erdogan recently got the realisation that NATO was of little use to his plans, so I don’t think he sees its loss as much anymore.

    Your question is nonsense. The USA has not been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided. they always sought it’s dissolution as a state. Indeed that was part of the wording of the Plan for a New American Century in which the events unfolding were laid out. The USA does Israel’s bidding as we know but neither of them can control the outcome always. Since Iraqis are resisting the breakup so far, they are both failing. Indeed it hasn’t been a very good year for Israel or the USA. Izzy’s problems haven’t begun just yet but the set backs to their expansionist plans have begun to mount.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As you are evidently one of those commenters who knows something about what he writes about may I ask you to go a bit beyond winging it from memory and firm up the relevant detail. My starting point for slight doubt is that you call the Project fo a New American Century the Plan for etc. and then claim that its "wording" proposed the dissolution of Iraq. Whiĺe it is true that the PNAC people were advocating war on Iraq that is far from being a proposal to break up the country geographically - or can you quote the wording which unambiguously does constitute such a proposal?

    Indeed, in so far as the project was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy the US might simply have decided that running one colony or protectorate would be easier and cheaper than running three. I can imagine the highly sceptical Israeli view of the US's deluded behaviour but it could afford to wait as long ss America was doing the fighting and spending the money.

    As to Erdogan and NATO why do you think Erdogan should positively seek to get out of NATO?

    As to whether Russia is sufficiently specifically threatening to Turkey to justify Turkey clinging to NATO that is surely the wrong question. Latge neighbours, especially those with a history of belligerence, are always a potential threat and require strategic forethought by the neighbours. And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons. Isn"t it better to have a strong ally bound by treaty than stand naked in your neighbourhood where there is already a nuclear armed state (Russia) with over twice the population?

    On your reasoning wouldn't Australia give up the ANZUS treaty alliance and all NATO countries in Europe, bar the Baltic states, drop out of NATO?

  50. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Simon in London
    Good analysis. Erdogan may have had a couple hours' advance notice at most, certainly not enough to stop the coup. Probably someone (Russia?) simply picked up communications from the coup plotters putting it into motion, and told Erdogan as it was starting.

    I agree that the outcome looks to be very positive, except for westernised Turkish secularists (who unfortunately act as a sort of unwitting 5th column into the West). When I heard that Erdogan was blaming the shoot down of the Russian jet on the coup plotters, giving him space to disavow his prior failed policies, I realised that things were really looking bright.

    I agree it's hilarious seeing the Western media call the coup a false flag when they dismiss obvious in-plain-sight plots as 'Conspiracy Theory'.

    It’s the coup organizers who are usually the best informed about the coup

    Read More
  51. @Rehmat
    YES - Moshe, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel are artificial state created by the Zionist-controlled British and French colonial powers by breaking Greater Syria, and Ottoman wilayat.

    Syria is not controlled by Shi'ites but the Ba'athist Socialist party, which has members from Sunnis, Alawite Shi'ites, Christians and Druze.

    On February 15, 2016, former British ambassador to Syria and Bahrain, Peter Ford blamed David Cameron’s ME policy for prolonging five-year Syrians’ agony by joining the US-led coalition to bring an anti-Iran regime change in Damascus.

    “Assad is not going to be overthrown. This becomes more clear with every day passes. Western analysts have been indulging in wishful thinking for five years; it’s time to get real, we owe it to Syrian people to be much more realistic and hard headed about this. The West has to stop propping the so-called moderate opposition, which is not moderate at all by the way, and it has to allow Syrian Army backed possibly by the Russian to deal with ISIS,” Ford said at BBC’s The Big Questions, hosted by Nicky Campbell, an Islamophobe. (watch a video below).

    The US-Israel-Saudi Arabia supported anti-government rebels have been losing territory rapidly under an intensified campaign by Assad’s troops backed by Hizbullah fighters, Iranian military advisers and Russian air strikes in recent weeks, allowing Kurdish forces to seize more territory.

    “Western intervention is just prolonging the agony. We should have backed off, we should not have tried to overthrow the regime. Despite the failures of this in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, like a dog returning to its vomit we go back,” said Ford.

    Peter Ford also accused the Foreign Secretary Dr. Philip Hammond, an Israel-Firster, of undermining a ceasefire agreed in Munich last week.

    It’s no secret that ISIS like the so-called Arab Spring is a US-Israel creation. Its Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (born Elliot Shimon) is French Jew and was trained by Israeli Mossad .....

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/06/ex-uk-ambassador-no-regime-change-in-syria/

    Anyone know if that bit about al-Baghdadi being born a French Jew is correcr?

    Read More
  52. @Rabbitnexus
    Erdogan would be crazy to continue with NATO. For him there are no benefits unless you presume as you seem to that Russia ia a threat. It is not. Erdogan recently got the realisation that NATO was of little use to his plans, so I don't think he sees its loss as much anymore.

    Your question is nonsense. The USA has not been in favour of keeping Iraq undivided. they always sought it's dissolution as a state. Indeed that was part of the wording of the Plan for a New American Century in which the events unfolding were laid out. The USA does Israel's bidding as we know but neither of them can control the outcome always. Since Iraqis are resisting the breakup so far, they are both failing. Indeed it hasn't been a very good year for Israel or the USA. Izzy's problems haven't begun just yet but the set backs to their expansionist plans have begun to mount.

    As you are evidently one of those commenters who knows something about what he writes about may I ask you to go a bit beyond winging it from memory and firm up the relevant detail. My starting point for slight doubt is that you call the Project fo a New American Century the Plan for etc. and then claim that its “wording” proposed the dissolution of Iraq. Whiĺe it is true that the PNAC people were advocating war on Iraq that is far from being a proposal to break up the country geographically – or can you quote the wording which unambiguously does constitute such a proposal?

    Indeed, in so far as the project was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy the US might simply have decided that running one colony or protectorate would be easier and cheaper than running three. I can imagine the highly sceptical Israeli view of the US’s deluded behaviour but it could afford to wait as long ss America was doing the fighting and spending the money.

    As to Erdogan and NATO why do you think Erdogan should positively seek to get out of NATO?

    As to whether Russia is sufficiently specifically threatening to Turkey to justify Turkey clinging to NATO that is surely the wrong question. Latge neighbours, especially those with a history of belligerence, are always a potential threat and require strategic forethought by the neighbours. And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons. Isn”t it better to have a strong ally bound by treaty than stand naked in your neighbourhood where there is already a nuclear armed state (Russia) with over twice the population?

    On your reasoning wouldn’t Australia give up the ANZUS treaty alliance and all NATO countries in Europe, bar the Baltic states, drop out of NATO?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    WoO: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) "was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy... And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons."
    An amazing example of persistence of ziocons' propaganda. Facts are of no relevance of course. Everything is justified in the name of a sweet dream of Eretz Israel.
    , @bunga
    "nd recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons."
    Actually Iran has already developed the bomb that keeps the food on Israeli tables in a very effective discreet and hidden way
  53. @Avery
    btw: Simon in London.

    Any concern for the territorial integrity of Republic of Cyrus that your Turk kin invaded and are still occupying 40% of?

    Any concern for the territorial integrity of 5,000-year-old Palestine that your Jew kin invaded and are still occupying 78% of?

    Muslim Arabs conquered Cyprus during Caliph Usman in 649. In Islamic history the island was known as Qubris. In Cyprus, like Greece, India, Spain, Balakans, etc. – Muslim tolerance toward non-Muslims kept them in minority even after centuries of their rule. By 1974 – Muslims made only 18% of the total population of Cyprus.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/09/26/cyprus-the-victim-of-western-double-standard/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Any concern for the territorial integrity of 5,000-year-old Palestine that your Jew kin invaded and are still occupying 78% of?}


    No concern at all, Mohammad.
    First: Jews are not my kin,
    Second: there are ~300 million Arabs; let them worry about their Arab kin.

    Not only you are an idiot, an ingrate IslamoFascist parasite squatting in Christian Canada, but you are senile. As noted numerous times before, my ancestral kin are Armenians. Therefore my concern is invadonomad IslamoFascist Turks who are squatting on the lands of my Armenian ancestors. Also, the clear and present existential threat invadonomad Uyguroğlar Turks present to Armenia and NKR/Artsakh.

    As to your other usual hallucinations about the alleged wonders of Islam: why are you not living in your wonderful Islamistan Pakistan, instead of squatting in a Christian country and living off of Christians in Christian Canada.

    , @Marcus
    It was only conquered by the Turks in the 16th (or 17th?) century. Before that it was Byzantine and then Venetian.
  54. @Rehmat
    Any concern for the territorial integrity of 5,000-year-old Palestine that your Jew kin invaded and are still occupying 78% of?

    Muslim Arabs conquered Cyprus during Caliph Usman in 649. In Islamic history the island was known as Qubris. In Cyprus, like Greece, India, Spain, Balakans, etc. – Muslim tolerance toward non-Muslims kept them in minority even after centuries of their rule. By 1974 – Muslims made only 18% of the total population of Cyprus.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/09/26/cyprus-the-victim-of-western-double-standard/

    {Any concern for the territorial integrity of 5,000-year-old Palestine that your Jew kin invaded and are still occupying 78% of?}

    No concern at all, Mohammad.
    First: Jews are not my kin,
    Second: there are ~300 million Arabs; let them worry about their Arab kin.

    Not only you are an idiot, an ingrate IslamoFascist parasite squatting in Christian Canada, but you are senile. As noted numerous times before, my ancestral kin are Armenians. Therefore my concern is invadonomad IslamoFascist Turks who are squatting on the lands of my Armenian ancestors. Also, the clear and present existential threat invadonomad Uyguroğlar Turks present to Armenia and NKR/Artsakh.

    As to your other usual hallucinations about the alleged wonders of Islam: why are you not living in your wonderful Islamistan Pakistan, instead of squatting in a Christian country and living off of Christians in Christian Canada.

    Read More
  55. @Wizard of Oz
    As you are evidently one of those commenters who knows something about what he writes about may I ask you to go a bit beyond winging it from memory and firm up the relevant detail. My starting point for slight doubt is that you call the Project fo a New American Century the Plan for etc. and then claim that its "wording" proposed the dissolution of Iraq. Whiĺe it is true that the PNAC people were advocating war on Iraq that is far from being a proposal to break up the country geographically - or can you quote the wording which unambiguously does constitute such a proposal?

    Indeed, in so far as the project was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy the US might simply have decided that running one colony or protectorate would be easier and cheaper than running three. I can imagine the highly sceptical Israeli view of the US's deluded behaviour but it could afford to wait as long ss America was doing the fighting and spending the money.

    As to Erdogan and NATO why do you think Erdogan should positively seek to get out of NATO?

    As to whether Russia is sufficiently specifically threatening to Turkey to justify Turkey clinging to NATO that is surely the wrong question. Latge neighbours, especially those with a history of belligerence, are always a potential threat and require strategic forethought by the neighbours. And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons. Isn"t it better to have a strong ally bound by treaty than stand naked in your neighbourhood where there is already a nuclear armed state (Russia) with over twice the population?

    On your reasoning wouldn't Australia give up the ANZUS treaty alliance and all NATO countries in Europe, bar the Baltic states, drop out of NATO?

    WoO: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) “was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy… And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons.”
    An amazing example of persistence of ziocons’ propaganda. Facts are of no relevance of course. Everything is justified in the name of a sweet dream of Eretz Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Are you being deliberately simple minded or just too lazy to bother about context? I was making a distinction, inter alia, between wanting e.g. to destroy the Iraqi state, and wanting to break it into three or more states. I suppose it would be too much to expect an apology on this website from someone who hasn't been scrupulously careful before criticising. They are preciously rare.

    Did you think I was actually asserting that the misbegotten Iraq war was started so liberal democracy could be established in Iraq? Oh dear what appalling American literalism (thank G I didn't try irony).

    , @Wizard of Oz
    What is more you can't even be bothered to quote properly. It might be OK in grubby politics to omit words so you cannot immediately be seen by third parties to be misrepresenting one's opponents but on UR it is both disgraceful and foolish.

    I am of course giving you credit for knowing what you were doing in omitting my *explicitly* qualifying words "in so far as". That being the case I do not expect an apology from someone capable of such blatant thuggery.
  56. @Simon in London
    Good analysis. Erdogan may have had a couple hours' advance notice at most, certainly not enough to stop the coup. Probably someone (Russia?) simply picked up communications from the coup plotters putting it into motion, and told Erdogan as it was starting.

    I agree that the outcome looks to be very positive, except for westernised Turkish secularists (who unfortunately act as a sort of unwitting 5th column into the West). When I heard that Erdogan was blaming the shoot down of the Russian jet on the coup plotters, giving him space to disavow his prior failed policies, I realised that things were really looking bright.

    I agree it's hilarious seeing the Western media call the coup a false flag when they dismiss obvious in-plain-sight plots as 'Conspiracy Theory'.

    The first claims about the false flag event I encountered at the time of the coup in real time. They were made by a man (I took him to be a native of Turkey) days before Westerners began using this argument. His argument was very sound and was based on his own life experience in Turkey. I was convinced by his reasons in support of the false flag conclusion, at the time so much so, that I still strongly consider this possibility.

    Read More
  57. @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks, it's good to get a civil response in these comments and with some interesting facts.

    Yes a unified country for 100 years has to count for nearly all the major players who don't want to encourage breakups though the US would be less worried about that than most. (Still keeping the EU together and the UK are US policies). If Israel was keen on a breakup it would be easy to argue that Iraq was just one of the artificial Sykes-Picot creations out of Ottoman remnants.

    Now it occurs to me that, on balance, a legally united Iraq might suit Israel because its internal divisions would make for a weaker enemy than a solidly Shia ally of Iran or solidly Sunni ally of an emerging Sunni Syria. Maybe.

    When the 2003 invasion took place the case for America having nothing to do with Iraq was not quite as strong as it appears now because it could (just) have been argued - as it was - that America benefited in a major way from Iraq's oil coming into the market again. Since then the fracking revolution has taken nearly all the substance out of that argument.

    As for Melania's (speechwriter's) plagiarism I am tempted to use language akin to that which I generally find reprehensible in the comments. The word "idiotic" comes to mind for the performance of those who either wrote the speech or failed to see how stupid - not dishonest like plagiarism in law school - using Michele Obama's speech without acknowledgment was.

    (Come to think of it I can see the possibility of Biden's type of plagiarism being stupid rather than dishonest. After all he could have decided that he wasn't going to seek a position where the quality of his law degree was going to matter, that he was going to have no trouble meeting the requirements of a bare degree without any honours or distinctions, and so he wasn't hurting anyone by saving his time for other activities. Except for hurting himself because, like Teddy Kennedy, he could be described as a cheat.)

    Agreed on Melania’s speechwriter plagiarizing Michel(l)e’s speech. What about Michelle’s plagiarizing parts from earlier speeches by other presenters?

    I do not buy your limp excuse for Biden’s plagiarism. Given his poor academic record, the best one could say in his defense is that he was just stupid.

    As my usual practice I provide links to other idiots in politics:

    and in Journalism:

    Enjoy…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Do you always have to win regardless [missing smiley face sends me back to repeat]. I say Biden may have been stupid rather than dishonest and you say I am excusing him because he really was...stupid

    Thanks for the links:-)

  58. @DaveE
    Proof (or not) lies in who, exactly, is being rounded up, arrested, or exiled by Erdogan's boys.

    From where I sit, that looks to be the "western" (Jewish) elements who took over 100 years ago.

    BTW There's a great old newsreel from the '50's floating around which describes how Kemal Attaturk basically took over, outlawed all Islamic culture and turned Byzantium into Israel North.

    Quite humorous, in light of today's events, if you're a fan of karma, as I am.

    “BTW There’s a great old newsreel from the ’50′s floating around which describes how Kemal Attaturk basically took over, outlawed all Islamic culture and turned Byzantium into Israel North. ”

    I hope you realize that Attaturk assumed power in the 20′s after the demise of the Ottoman Empire and he created the modern state of Turkey long before the State of Israel was created in 1948. He sought to make Turkey a secular country modeled after the successful European countries and not modelled on Israel, a country which did not even exist back then.

    Read More
  59. @annamaria
    WoO: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) "was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy... And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons."
    An amazing example of persistence of ziocons' propaganda. Facts are of no relevance of course. Everything is justified in the name of a sweet dream of Eretz Israel.

    Are you being deliberately simple minded or just too lazy to bother about context? I was making a distinction, inter alia, between wanting e.g. to destroy the Iraqi state, and wanting to break it into three or more states. I suppose it would be too much to expect an apology on this website from someone who hasn’t been scrupulously careful before criticising. They are preciously rare.

    Did you think I was actually asserting that the misbegotten Iraq war was started so liberal democracy could be established in Iraq? Oh dear what appalling American literalism (thank G I didn’t try irony).

    Read More
  60. @krollchem
    Agreed on Melania's speechwriter plagiarizing Michel(l)e's speech. What about Michelle's plagiarizing parts from earlier speeches by other presenters?

    I do not buy your limp excuse for Biden's plagiarism. Given his poor academic record, the best one could say in his defense is that he was just stupid.

    As my usual practice I provide links to other idiots in politics:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KHSNKpmdg

    and in Journalism:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA

    Enjoy...

    Do you always have to win regardless [missing smiley face sends me back to repeat]. I say Biden may have been stupid rather than dishonest and you say I am excusing him because he really was…stupid

    Thanks for the links:-)

    Read More
  61. @annamaria
    WoO: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) "was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy... And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons."
    An amazing example of persistence of ziocons' propaganda. Facts are of no relevance of course. Everything is justified in the name of a sweet dream of Eretz Israel.

    What is more you can’t even be bothered to quote properly. It might be OK in grubby politics to omit words so you cannot immediately be seen by third parties to be misrepresenting one’s opponents but on UR it is both disgraceful and foolish.

    I am of course giving you credit for knowing what you were doing in omitting my *explicitly* qualifying words “in so far as”. That being the case I do not expect an apology from someone capable of such blatant thuggery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "US-Israel relationship questioned in I-83 billboard:
    http://abc27.com/2016/05/20/us-israel-relationship-questioned-in-i-83-billboard/

    "The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty — Paul Craig Roberts:"
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/26/the-israeli-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-paul-craig-roberts/
    The assault on the Liberty is well documented. With no warning, the Liberty was attacked by successive waves of unmarked jets using cannon, rockets and napalm. The attacking jets jammed all of the US communications frequencies, an indication they knew the Liberty was an American ship.
    The air attack failed to sink the Liberty. About 30 minutes into the attack three torpedo boats appeared flying the Star of David. The Israeli boats were not on a rescue mission. They attacked the Liberty with cannon, machineguns and torpedoes. One torpedo struck the Liberty mid-ship, instantly killing 25 Americans while flooding the lower decks. The Israeli torpedo boats destroyed the life rafts the Liberty launched when the crew prepared to abandon ship, sending the message there would be no survivors.
    At approximately 3:15 two French-built Israeli helicopters carrying armed Israeli troops appeared over the Liberty. Phil Tourney could see their faces only 50/60 feet away. He gave them the finger. Surviving crewmembers are convinced the Israelis were sent to board and kill all survivors.
    The Israeli jets destroyed the Liberty‘s communication antennas. While under attack from the jets, crewmembers strung lines that permitted the ship to send a call for help. The USS Saratoga and the USS America launched fighters to drive off the attacking aircraft, but the rescue mission was aborted by direct orders from Washington."
  62. The major consequence right now is that the rebels in Syria are starting to collapse without Turkish aid. IS will last longer because of its larger territories and revenues though.

    Read More
  63. @Rehmat
    Any concern for the territorial integrity of 5,000-year-old Palestine that your Jew kin invaded and are still occupying 78% of?

    Muslim Arabs conquered Cyprus during Caliph Usman in 649. In Islamic history the island was known as Qubris. In Cyprus, like Greece, India, Spain, Balakans, etc. – Muslim tolerance toward non-Muslims kept them in minority even after centuries of their rule. By 1974 – Muslims made only 18% of the total population of Cyprus.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/09/26/cyprus-the-victim-of-western-double-standard/

    It was only conquered by the Turks in the 16th (or 17th?) century. Before that it was Byzantine and then Venetian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I assume you are referring to Cyprus, which was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1570-71. One of the more grisly tales to arise from the siege and conquest of Famagusta was the brutal treatment of Marcantonio Bragadin, the Venetian who had bravely led the defense of Famagusta beyond what was thought humanly possible but who ultimately surrendered to the Turks under a promise of leniency. I first learned of this grisly episode when I first read read many years ago Lawrence Durrell's very fine account of his years on Cyprus during the early 50's as Cyprus was attempting to throw off British colonial rule, "Bitter Lemons." According to Wikipedia:

    "Death and legacy
    Famagusta's defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city's defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander generously agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general, after initially receiving him with every courtesy, began behaving erratically, accusing him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin's right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose. There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was "dragged round the walls with sacks of earth and stone on his back; next, tied to a chair, he was hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship and exposed to the taunts of the sailors. Finally he was taken to the place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive."[4] Bragadin's quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II."

    It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.
  64. @Marcus
    It was only conquered by the Turks in the 16th (or 17th?) century. Before that it was Byzantine and then Venetian.

    I assume you are referring to Cyprus, which was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1570-71. One of the more grisly tales to arise from the siege and conquest of Famagusta was the brutal treatment of Marcantonio Bragadin, the Venetian who had bravely led the defense of Famagusta beyond what was thought humanly possible but who ultimately surrendered to the Turks under a promise of leniency. I first learned of this grisly episode when I first read read many years ago Lawrence Durrell’s very fine account of his years on Cyprus during the early 50′s as Cyprus was attempting to throw off British colonial rule, “Bitter Lemons.” According to Wikipedia:

    “Death and legacy
    Famagusta’s defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city’s defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander generously agreed that, in return for the city’s surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general, after initially receiving him with every courtesy, began behaving erratically, accusing him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin’s right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose. There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was “dragged round the walls with sacks of earth and stone on his back; next, tied to a chair, he was hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship and exposed to the taunts of the sailors. Finally he was taken to the place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive.”[4] Bragadin’s quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II.”

    It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    I agree, but it might be helpful for newcomers to the site unfamiliar with his m.o. The great sieges in Crete, Cyprus, and Malta probably bought invaluable time as the Turks were forced to recoup their losses; sadly they're are unfortunately overlooked compared to the two attempts on Vienna.
    , @Avery
    {It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.}

    tbraton:

    Mohammad (aka Rehmat) does not just play fast and loose with historical facts: he deliberately spreads Islamophile, anti-Christian, anti-Western disinformation.

    As to Mohammad's blatant lies: "so it seems like a complete waste of time.."

    Oftentimes I feel the same way.
    However, a lie left unchallenged oftentimes becomes 'fact' in the mind of the uninformed. Most posters @UNZ.com are clearly highly informed. However, for every poster there are probably 100s if not 1000s of readers. If we leave a lie unchallenged, over time it will gel and become 'fact'. Given that, I have made the choice: challenge and debunk posters like Mohammad (aka Rehmat) as much as I can.
  65. @tbraton
    I assume you are referring to Cyprus, which was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1570-71. One of the more grisly tales to arise from the siege and conquest of Famagusta was the brutal treatment of Marcantonio Bragadin, the Venetian who had bravely led the defense of Famagusta beyond what was thought humanly possible but who ultimately surrendered to the Turks under a promise of leniency. I first learned of this grisly episode when I first read read many years ago Lawrence Durrell's very fine account of his years on Cyprus during the early 50's as Cyprus was attempting to throw off British colonial rule, "Bitter Lemons." According to Wikipedia:

    "Death and legacy
    Famagusta's defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city's defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander generously agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general, after initially receiving him with every courtesy, began behaving erratically, accusing him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin's right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose. There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was "dragged round the walls with sacks of earth and stone on his back; next, tied to a chair, he was hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship and exposed to the taunts of the sailors. Finally he was taken to the place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive."[4] Bragadin's quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II."

    It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.

    I agree, but it might be helpful for newcomers to the site unfamiliar with his m.o. The great sieges in Crete, Cyprus, and Malta probably bought invaluable time as the Turks were forced to recoup their losses; sadly they’re are unfortunately overlooked compared to the two attempts on Vienna.

    Read More
  66. @tbraton
    I assume you are referring to Cyprus, which was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1570-71. One of the more grisly tales to arise from the siege and conquest of Famagusta was the brutal treatment of Marcantonio Bragadin, the Venetian who had bravely led the defense of Famagusta beyond what was thought humanly possible but who ultimately surrendered to the Turks under a promise of leniency. I first learned of this grisly episode when I first read read many years ago Lawrence Durrell's very fine account of his years on Cyprus during the early 50's as Cyprus was attempting to throw off British colonial rule, "Bitter Lemons." According to Wikipedia:

    "Death and legacy
    Famagusta's defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city's defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander generously agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general, after initially receiving him with every courtesy, began behaving erratically, accusing him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin's right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose. There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was "dragged round the walls with sacks of earth and stone on his back; next, tied to a chair, he was hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship and exposed to the taunts of the sailors. Finally he was taken to the place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive."[4] Bragadin's quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II."

    It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.

    {It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.}

    tbraton:

    Mohammad (aka Rehmat) does not just play fast and loose with historical facts: he deliberately spreads Islamophile, anti-Christian, anti-Western disinformation.

    As to Mohammad’s blatant lies: “so it seems like a complete waste of time..”

    Oftentimes I feel the same way.
    However, a lie left unchallenged oftentimes becomes ‘fact’ in the mind of the uninformed. Most posters @UNZ.com are clearly highly informed. However, for every poster there are probably 100s if not 1000s of readers. If we leave a lie unchallenged, over time it will gel and become ‘fact’. Given that, I have made the choice: challenge and debunk posters like Mohammad (aka Rehmat) as much as I can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Avery, as I stated, it's a real dilemma. I am not questioning your choice. I must say he's a very poor advertisement for Islam.
  67. @Avery
    {It has been obvious for a long time that poster Rehmat plays fast and loose with historical facts, which is why I no longer respond to his messages. However, I can understand the temptation to respond to correct the blatant lies he often posts lest the record stand unchallenged. I have yet to catch Rehmat acknowledging error, so it seems like a complete waste of time.}

    tbraton:

    Mohammad (aka Rehmat) does not just play fast and loose with historical facts: he deliberately spreads Islamophile, anti-Christian, anti-Western disinformation.

    As to Mohammad's blatant lies: "so it seems like a complete waste of time.."

    Oftentimes I feel the same way.
    However, a lie left unchallenged oftentimes becomes 'fact' in the mind of the uninformed. Most posters @UNZ.com are clearly highly informed. However, for every poster there are probably 100s if not 1000s of readers. If we leave a lie unchallenged, over time it will gel and become 'fact'. Given that, I have made the choice: challenge and debunk posters like Mohammad (aka Rehmat) as much as I can.

    Avery, as I stated, it’s a real dilemma. I am not questioning your choice. I must say he’s a very poor advertisement for Islam.

    Read More
  68. @Wizard of Oz
    What is more you can't even be bothered to quote properly. It might be OK in grubby politics to omit words so you cannot immediately be seen by third parties to be misrepresenting one's opponents but on UR it is both disgraceful and foolish.

    I am of course giving you credit for knowing what you were doing in omitting my *explicitly* qualifying words "in so far as". That being the case I do not expect an apology from someone capable of such blatant thuggery.

    “US-Israel relationship questioned in I-83 billboard:

    http://abc27.com/2016/05/20/us-israel-relationship-questioned-in-i-83-billboard/

    “The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty — Paul Craig Roberts:”

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/26/the-israeli-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-paul-craig-roberts/

    The assault on the Liberty is well documented. With no warning, the Liberty was attacked by successive waves of unmarked jets using cannon, rockets and napalm. The attacking jets jammed all of the US communications frequencies, an indication they knew the Liberty was an American ship.
    The air attack failed to sink the Liberty. About 30 minutes into the attack three torpedo boats appeared flying the Star of David. The Israeli boats were not on a rescue mission. They attacked the Liberty with cannon, machineguns and torpedoes. One torpedo struck the Liberty mid-ship, instantly killing 25 Americans while flooding the lower decks. The Israeli torpedo boats destroyed the life rafts the Liberty launched when the crew prepared to abandon ship, sending the message there would be no survivors.
    At approximately 3:15 two French-built Israeli helicopters carrying armed Israeli troops appeared over the Liberty. Phil Tourney could see their faces only 50/60 feet away. He gave them the finger. Surviving crewmembers are convinced the Israelis were sent to board and kill all survivors.
    The Israeli jets destroyed the Liberty‘s communication antennas. While under attack from the jets, crewmembers strung lines that permitted the ship to send a call for help. The USS Saratoga and the USS America launched fighters to drive off the attacking aircraft, but the rescue mission was aborted by direct orders from Washington.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for the info though I wouldn't be inclined to treat PCR as a source that didn't need sceptical double checking if one was in doubt about a contentious point. However since I first heard discussion of the attack on Libety I have never heard a serious argument that it was some unfortunate mistake like a case of mistaken identity. Did you think I might hold a different view?

    Why, btw, is this a reply to my questioning who would want to keep Iraq geogtaphically undivided, and why?

  69. @annamaria
    "US-Israel relationship questioned in I-83 billboard:
    http://abc27.com/2016/05/20/us-israel-relationship-questioned-in-i-83-billboard/

    "The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty — Paul Craig Roberts:"
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/26/the-israeli-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-paul-craig-roberts/
    The assault on the Liberty is well documented. With no warning, the Liberty was attacked by successive waves of unmarked jets using cannon, rockets and napalm. The attacking jets jammed all of the US communications frequencies, an indication they knew the Liberty was an American ship.
    The air attack failed to sink the Liberty. About 30 minutes into the attack three torpedo boats appeared flying the Star of David. The Israeli boats were not on a rescue mission. They attacked the Liberty with cannon, machineguns and torpedoes. One torpedo struck the Liberty mid-ship, instantly killing 25 Americans while flooding the lower decks. The Israeli torpedo boats destroyed the life rafts the Liberty launched when the crew prepared to abandon ship, sending the message there would be no survivors.
    At approximately 3:15 two French-built Israeli helicopters carrying armed Israeli troops appeared over the Liberty. Phil Tourney could see their faces only 50/60 feet away. He gave them the finger. Surviving crewmembers are convinced the Israelis were sent to board and kill all survivors.
    The Israeli jets destroyed the Liberty‘s communication antennas. While under attack from the jets, crewmembers strung lines that permitted the ship to send a call for help. The USS Saratoga and the USS America launched fighters to drive off the attacking aircraft, but the rescue mission was aborted by direct orders from Washington."

    Thank you for the info though I wouldn’t be inclined to treat PCR as a source that didn’t need sceptical double checking if one was in doubt about a contentious point. However since I first heard discussion of the attack on Libety I have never heard a serious argument that it was some unfortunate mistake like a case of mistaken identity. Did you think I might hold a different view?

    Why, btw, is this a reply to my questioning who would want to keep Iraq geogtaphically undivided, and why?

    Read More
  70. @Wizard of Oz
    As you are evidently one of those commenters who knows something about what he writes about may I ask you to go a bit beyond winging it from memory and firm up the relevant detail. My starting point for slight doubt is that you call the Project fo a New American Century the Plan for etc. and then claim that its "wording" proposed the dissolution of Iraq. Whiĺe it is true that the PNAC people were advocating war on Iraq that is far from being a proposal to break up the country geographically - or can you quote the wording which unambiguously does constitute such a proposal?

    Indeed, in so far as the project was to get rid of Saddam and effectively control Iraq until it became a nice modern liberal democracy the US might simply have decided that running one colony or protectorate would be easier and cheaper than running three. I can imagine the highly sceptical Israeli view of the US's deluded behaviour but it could afford to wait as long ss America was doing the fighting and spending the money.

    As to Erdogan and NATO why do you think Erdogan should positively seek to get out of NATO?

    As to whether Russia is sufficiently specifically threatening to Turkey to justify Turkey clinging to NATO that is surely the wrong question. Latge neighbours, especially those with a history of belligerence, are always a potential threat and require strategic forethought by the neighbours. And recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons. Isn"t it better to have a strong ally bound by treaty than stand naked in your neighbourhood where there is already a nuclear armed state (Russia) with over twice the population?

    On your reasoning wouldn't Australia give up the ANZUS treaty alliance and all NATO countries in Europe, bar the Baltic states, drop out of NATO?

    “nd recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons.”
    Actually Iran has already developed the bomb that keeps the food on Israeli tables in a very effective discreet and hidden way

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Are you referring metaphorically to more than the American taxpayers' subsidies to Israel?
  71. @bunga
    "nd recall that Iran is Shiite and possibly develooing nuclear weapons."
    Actually Iran has already developed the bomb that keeps the food on Israeli tables in a very effective discreet and hidden way

    Are you referring metaphorically to more than the American taxpayers’ subsidies to Israel?

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.