Should we be fighting in Syria?

Well it's Blackpool for hols in future. I've seen some good digs on four in a bed and I wont get a wedgy when I go through security!

Soul Kitchen wrote:Well it's Blackpool for hols in future. I've seen some good digs on four in a bed and I wont get a wedgy when I go through security!

Sounds like a good idea for next year that SK!

Latest breaking news:

Several people treated for gunshot wounds in 'ongoing hostage situation' in French town of Roubaix near Belgian border, say medical services

here

I don't get it. What's a Brit celebrating on Thursday?

xmiles wrote:Two points WL.

First this action is typical of Turkish priorities. Turkey under its present regime is constantly seeking to undermine any Kurdish success in Syria and it is also far more hostile to Assad than it is to ISIS. Look at its refusal to let Kurds cross the border to defend Kobane whilst doing nothing to stop loonies crossing to join ISIS. Similarly in its recent attacks on terrorists it has devoted virtually all its efforts against Kurds and only made token attacks on ISIS.

Secondly Erdogan is constantly undermining Turkey's secular constitution. The longer he stays in power the worse the situation will get in Turkey.

Part of the problem in Syria is the West's fantasy that you can simultaneously oppose Assad and ISIS. The non-ISIS opposition to Assad is unfortunately militarily weak and American efforts to supply it with arms have proved to be a sick joke as all the weapons were promptly handed over to ISIS.

Turkey certainly does have problems but they are desperate to please the West and in particular Europe as they have been applying to join the EU for almost 20 years and have made concession after concession to do so. 

The Turks have suffered far more at the hands of ISIS than France and the UK so I don't know where you get this "token" business from. Two synagogues were bombed in Istanbul on Saturday (23 dead and rising) and only a month ago 106 were killed in the Ankara peace rally bombings. In July 33 were killed in separate incidents and that's just the recent ISIS attacks on Turkey. 

Add to that the fact that they are taking the brunt of the refugee crisis having taken 1.7 million Syrian refugees - more than any other country in the world - and you can surely realise the vested interest Turkey has in putting an end to ISIS.

I know Turkey has a long way to go and they have problems to overcome, but they are making a monumental effort and should not be discouraged.

Their refusal to give the Kurds a large tract of their land in which an independent Kurd republic can be created has parallels to the Brits refusing to hand over Northern Ireland to the republicans - except that the Turkish land in question was never owned or inhabited by the Kurds so can you really blame them for taking action against Kurdish extremists who bomb innocent people in their cities just as the IRA did in England in the 70s? Whether you do or don't it has little to do with Turkish attitudes towards ISIS.
The Kurdish republicans were Turkey's priority once, but ISIS are their main problem now.

WL I don't disagree with some of the points you make but there are others that I think are wrong.

There is very little evidence that Turkey is doing much to combat ISIS. They have taken no military action at all. They have arrested far more Kurds than suspected ISIS members. They have done very little to stop the flow of recruits to ISIS through Turkey in contrast to the way they stop Kurds trying to cross into Syria. And of course they have just shot down a Russian jet.

As for your statement that "the Turkish land in question was never owned or inhabited by the Kurds" I think it is demonstrably wrong to say that the Kurds don't inhabit this land. In most of south eastern Turkey Kurds are the largest ethnic group. Historically they have not had an independent state but then you could say that about many states that have only become independent in recent times such as South Sudan.

wanderlust wrote:

xmiles wrote:Two points WL.

First this action is typical of Turkish priorities. Turkey under its present regime is constantly seeking to undermine any Kurdish success in Syria and it is also far more hostile to Assad than it is to ISIS. Look at its refusal to let Kurds cross the border to defend Kobane whilst doing nothing to stop loonies crossing to join ISIS. Similarly in its recent attacks on terrorists it has devoted virtually all its efforts against Kurds and only made token attacks on ISIS.

Secondly Erdogan is constantly undermining Turkey's secular constitution. The longer he stays in power the worse the situation will get in Turkey.

Part of the problem in Syria is the West's fantasy that you can simultaneously oppose Assad and ISIS. The non-ISIS opposition to Assad is unfortunately militarily weak and American efforts to supply it with arms have proved to be a sick joke as all the weapons were promptly handed over to ISIS.

Turkey certainly does have problems but they are desperate to please the West and in particular Europe as they have been applying to join the EU for almost 20 years and have made concession after concession to do so. 

I went to a lecture at the House of Commons last year (I'm a rockstar I know) regarding Turkish politics, this was just after ISIS took Kobane so the timing was quite perfect and was followed by a protest from British Kurds urging the government to act to save Kobane.

One of the academics spoke about Erdogan and his obsession with being allowed into Europe, he said on their last rejection from the EU the frustruation grew too much and he instead tried to position Turkey as a leader in the Islamic world/Middle East. Spending on Islam has grown massively over the last 5 years, new mosques are springing up all over Istanbul and rather than pursue Western allies Turkey turned to Arabic states.

This is greatly at odds with the secular state Ataturk prided himself on building and greatly divides the country. It's a confusing blend in Turkey between liberal, secular values and strong nationalism. Erdogan is massively popular with the conservative islamic side (which make up a majority) but equally unpopular with the left wing - for which the pro-Kurdish party HDP are prominent.

Wanderlust wrote:Their refusal to give the Kurds a large tract of their land in which an independent Kurd republic can be created has parallels to the Brits refusing to hand over Northern Ireland to the republicans - except that the Turkish land in question was never owned or inhabited by the Kurds so can you really blame them for taking action against Kurdish extremists who bomb innocent people in their cities just as the IRA did in England in the 70s? Whether you do or don't it has little to do with Turkish attitudes towards ISIS.
The Kurdish republicans were Turkey's priority once, but ISIS are their main problem now.

You show again a complete lack of understanding of the Kurdish region and it's history, the Kurds have been there for centuries. Post WW1 it was split up by the allies to Armenia and Kurdistan (Treaty of Sevres), something Ataturk didn't like and reinvaded, forcing a new treaty to be agreed where the Kurds lost any self governed land. Ever since they've been fighting to get their land back.

The notion that Erdogan is more concerned with breaking the Kurds is highly plausible and widely believed by many Turks.