Russian Ambassador Assassinated in Turkey

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

So, is NATO an obsolete organization?
If the accusations against Erdogan and his government are true, why has NATo not stepped up to apply any type of sanctions against one of its members?
Or is it outside of NATO's reach of responsibilities?

Turkey is strategically so important that I don't think NATO wants to give up on them. At this point, they aren't a very trustworthy ally though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Turkey is strategically so important that I don't think NATO wants to give up on them. At this point, they aren't a very trustworthy ally though.

Turkey is strategically huge now especially with the Russians taking control of ports in the Ukraine. Basically NATO needs the ports that Turkey has. If Turkey decided to cede from NATO, then NATO would lose complete access to the Black Sea and it would leave their NATO allies in Romania and Bulgeria and Greece and even Italy in a pretty insecure position.

[Bownesian]

Same strategic importance as before 1991 though, right?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

So, is NATO an obsolete organization?
If the accusations against Erdogan and his government are true, why has NATo not stepped up to apply any type of sanctions against one of its members?
Or is it outside of NATO's reach of responsibilities?

Accusations of what? The US has been both directly and indirectly but knowingly arming Islamists in the region for decades. There is plenty of circumstancial evidence that they're STILL channeling arms to AL-Qaeda affiliates. They've most certainly taken the Islamist side in the propaganda war over Aleppo. They're in no position to complain.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Accusations of what? The US has been both directly and indirectly but knowingly arming Islamists in the region for decades. There is plenty of circumstancial evidence that they're STILL channeling arms to AL-Qaeda affiliates. They've most certainly taken the Islamist side in the propaganda war over Aleppo.

Although the US has historically done all these things, it's hard to put say they are continuing to do those things in Syria. Initially yes, they supported less extreme groups. They also stopped doing that very early on in the process, when it became clear that any weapons put into the area would end up in the hands of the most extreme groups.

As far as a propaganda wars go, I really don't see the USA engaged in that anymore. Quite frankly do they need to be? All the major players seem so evil, that the propaganda writes itself. The Russian backed Assad regime is an elitist group of homicidal manics; ISIS is a group of religiously motivated homicidal maniacs; and other groups like the Kurds also practice terrorism, but aren't quite as evil. While it would be nice to help out the less radical factions, the area and the conflict is such a cluster @#$#@ that its not possible, and that seems to be more or less the official policy of the US government.

As far as Aleppo goes specifically, is there really all that much in dispute about what actually happened? It was totally under control by Islamists who were very bad people. Most recently, Assad invaded. He didn't invade to help anyone though. He's not offering freedom. He's offering rule by a class of Alawite elites that subjugate. And in order to reach that point of subjugation, he needs to demolish Aleppo and then purge it.

ISIS also controls vast swaths of oil fields. They don't need the USA to provide them with weapons. They can just buy them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

ISIS also controls vast swaths of oil fields. They don't need the USA to provide them with weapons. They can just buy them.

Yeah, but who are they buying them from and how are they getting in?

We know the US was selling arms to Iran to be used in an offensive capacity against Iraq not even a year after delcaring Iran to be a state sponsorship of terrorism.

It would surprise me if the united States was NOT doing it at this point.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, but who are they buying them from and how are they getting in?

We know the US was selling arms to Iran to be used in an offensive capacity against Iraq not even a year after delcaring Iran to be a state sponsorship of terrorism.

It would surprise me if the united States was NOT doing it at this point.

My guess is Saudi Arabia. Of course, they buy them from the West, so indirectly, we are arming ISIS.

[Ducay]

Saudi supplies a lot of the weaponry, look at the articles of US, Canadian, Nato made weapons ending up in the hands of ISIS and other Saudi backed factions.

They are also the ones spreading Wahhabism, effectively the root of modern Islamic terrorism.

[Itse]

While a lot of what happens in the international arms trade disgusts me on a very fundamental level and I totally think countries selling arms to crisis areas deserve shame for it, I'd like to mention that it's unclear whether for example Obama could do much about it.

After all, the companies selling arms are private companies, doing legitimite business with US allies. The government can put a lid on it to some extent, but it's probably politically impossible to gather enough political will in Washington to (for example) make a credible threat to the Saudis that unless they stop arming ISIS the US will stop selling them anything. After all, international arms trade is a huge business, and politicians generally don't want to mess with big business interests too badly.

Plus there's always the old issue of "if we'd stop selling them weapons, they'd just buy them from Russia or someone else". And then there's the issue that right now it's our enemies fighting our enemies, so what ever.

All that is understandable. However, it's not exactly a situation which leaves the US with any noticable moral high ground. As a nation, their hands are elbow deep in blood anyway.

[DuffMan]

nm

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, but who are they buying them from and how are they getting in?

We know the US was selling arms to Iran to be used in an offensive capacity against Iraq not even a year after delcaring Iran to be a state sponsorship of terrorism.

It would surprise me if the united States was NOT doing it at this point.

At this point the area is flooded with weapons. Beyond what the USA has done, Russia dumps all their old weaponry into the region. Most of the ISIS weapons are AK47s, although they have a fair number of American weapons they've stolen from American allies. If you have cash, you can find assault rifles. People also underestimate how heavily armed the Syrian government was. The whole country was a fortress designed to withstand attack, as Syria has more enemies in the region than anyone else. They're an Arab country that sided with Iran.

When ISIS swept through the region, they took the weapons from the Syrian and Iraqi governments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mili...ipment_of_ISIL

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by blankall

Although the US has historically done all these things, it's hard to put say they are continuing to do those things in Syria. Initially yes, they supported less extreme groups. They also stopped doing that very early on in the process, when it became clear that any weapons put into the area would end up in the hands of the most extreme groups.

As far as a propaganda wars go, I really don't see the USA engaged in that anymore. Quite frankly do they need to be? All the major players seem so evil, that the propaganda writes itself. The Russian backed Assad regime is an elitist group of homicidal manics; ISIS is a group of religiously motivated homicidal maniacs; and other groups like the Kurds also practice terrorism, but aren't quite as evil. While it would be nice to help out the less radical factions, the area and the conflict is such a cluster @#$#@ that its not possible, and that seems to be more or less the official policy of the US government.

As far as Aleppo goes specifically, is there really all that much in dispute about what actually happened? It was totally under control by Islamists who were very bad people. Most recently, Assad invaded. He didn't invade to help anyone though. He's not offering freedom. He's offering rule by a class of Alawite elites that subjugate. And in order to reach that point of subjugation, he needs to demolish Aleppo and then purge it.

ISIS also controls vast swaths of oil fields. They don't need the USA to provide them with weapons. They can just buy them.

I think that the US had a snap judgement to make at the beginning of the uprising in Syria, but couldn't make it fast enough. There were a large number of legitimate and acceptable Sunni allies four or five years ago in Syria. US intervention at that stage could have worked to aid in the overthrow of Assad.

But in a short time, the radicals were the only ones left fighting. For two reasons: they were receiving outside aid from ISIS, the Saudis, and Al Qaeda; and two, they're crazy and not afraid to die. What began as a movement of both moderates and extremists went hard toward the extremists, and at that point the US could no longer intervene.

I believe that there was a short window where Assad could have been overthrown and a moderate Sunni coalition strengthened. That was the failure of the Obama administration. It was an understandable - even predictable - one, but a failure nonetheless.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by blankall

People also underestimate how heavily armed the Syrian government was. The whole country was a fortress designed to withstand attack, as Syria has more enemies in the region than anyone else.

Meh, not really. The Syrian military was crap. They needed a ton of help from Hezbollah and Iran to stay around during the early days of the civil war, and almost lost completely on a few occasions.

They also have resorted to using suitcase bombs dumped out of planes and helicoptors to bring Aleppo to heel.

And first-hand - driving around Syria in 2003, you could see what a joke their military was: rusty tank after rusty tank without treads along the highways with fearsome fourteen year old soldiers sitting on the tops cradling rusty AKs from 1965. Sure, there were some better armed groups in the military, but that was what I saw a lot of.

[CliffFletcher]

At this point, the Syrian army is relying mainly on mercenaries. Whatever else they lack, they still have money (or a sponsor).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Meh, not really. The Syrian military was crap. They needed a ton of help from Hezbollah and Iran to stay around during the early days of the civil war, and almost lost completely on a few occasions.

They also have resorted to using suitcase bombs dumped out of planes and helicoptors to bring Aleppo to heel.

And first-hand - driving around Syria in 2003, you could see what a joke their military was: rusty tank after rusty tank without treads along the highways with fearsome fourteen year old soldiers sitting on the tops cradling rusty AKs from 1965. Sure, there were some better armed groups in the military, but that was what I saw a lot of.

I didn't say that they had the best weapons, just a lot of them. ISIS isn't operating with high tech weapons either. Just a willingness to use them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

I didn't say that they had the best weapons, just a lot of them. ISIS isn't operating with high tech weapons either. Just a willingness to use them.

Yeah, one side has Rules of Engagement and the other doesnt.

I am far from a military man, but if you're fighting someone without rules, you have to have a long, hard look at your own.

[sharkov]

Turkish security is a total joke. Countries should bring their own security teams

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Turkish security is a total joke. Countries should bring their own security teams

Isn't that how it works in most countries?

I drive by the embassies in Ottawa all the time and they have their guards at the gates. You would think that the ambassador going out in public would have at least one of their own guys watching their back.

It makes me think the Russians are either really lazy or set this guy up.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Isn't that how it works in most countries?

I drive by the embassies in Ottawa all the time and they have their guards at the gates. You would think that the ambassador going out in public would have at least one of their own guys watching their back.

It makes me think the Russians are either really lazy or set this guy up.

Ambassadors do not typically have bodyguards.

[Locke]

Obligatory 'Diplomatic Immunity' joke.