SOCIAL MEDIA TERRORISM: DAESH’S NEW CAUCASIAN PROVINCE

[admin]

‘Turkey Part of the Problem Rather Than a Force Fighting Daesh’
by sputniknews.com
12/1/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Even though Turkey’s NATO allies have, by and large, stood by Ankara in the wake of its downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber, experts believe the country has “overplayed its hand”, and while it claims to be part of the solution in fighting Daesh (also known as ISIL/ISIS) it’s actually part of the problem.

In the wake of the gunning down of a Russian bomber in Syrian airspace, President Obama has argued that every country has the right to defend itself.

However, Obama’s articulation of Turkey’s “right to defend itself does not really apply in this case,” according to Henri J. Barkey, the Director of the Middle East Program at the DC-based Smithsonian Institute's Wilson Center.

“Russia and Turkey are two friendly countries that have extensive trade, tourism, and other ties,” he wrote in his article for The American Interest magazine. “Russian President Vladimir Putin and Erdogan had vowed to raise the trade volume to $100 billion by 2023. Turkey buys large amounts of gas from Russia. They are both dependent on that trade; Turkey consumes large amounts of energy, and the Russians need the foreign exchange earnings this trade provides.”

Hence, he reasoned, an armed bomber on the fringes of Turkish territory is an unlikely threat to any country, let alone an important member of NATO.

While questioning why Turkey would feel threatened by “that single aircraft” and “why would the Russians, who are already saddled with numerous other problems, threaten a friendly country”, the author concluded that “this was not a case of self-defense but rather one of defending one’s sovereignty”.

He provided several explanations of what might be behind the attack, such as: “the Turks seemed particularly upset at the Russian bombardment of its allies, the anti-Assad Turkmen militia. Turkey has invested a lot of support in this militia; Erdogan publicly admitted that they had been supplying it with arms. Another worrying factor for Ankara was the growing post-Paris consensus to prioritize the fight against the Daesh, also known as the Islamic State, at the expense of the fight against Assad, which has always been Turkey’s primary focus.”

But even with all the above in mind, Barkey states that “Turkey may now realize that it has overplayed its hand.”

“Erdogan, who initially said there was nothing to apologize for, is now saying that if they knew it was a Russian plane they would probably have acted differently. Erdogan likely changed his tune because Putin didn’t lose any time in retaliating against Turkish interests: Turkish convoys in Syria delivering supplies to the opposition have been bombed, Turkish businessmen have been denied entry at the Moscow airport, tourism packages are being cancelled, and Moscow is contemplating other measures, including the elimination starting January 1, 2016 of the visa-free travel program.”

However, the most worrisome thing, he says, is the increasing arsenal, including the S400 advanced air defense systems Russia has brought into Syria.

“This, more than anything else, will make life harder for allied aircraft over Syria and is clearly something Washington wishes would never have happened.”

‘Turkey claims to be part of the solution in fighting ISIL, but often it’s been part of the problem.’

His view is echoed by Steven A. Cook, the Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“As Turkey and Russia dispute the incident, it is casting a spotlight on one of the most troubling developments in the evolving struggle in the Middle East: When it comes to fighting the Islamic State and extremism more generally, Turkey—and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan—has become a significant part of the problem, rather than part of the solution,” he wrote in his article for the magazine Politico.


Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan listens to statements at the COP21, United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Le Bourget, outside Paris, Monday, Nov. 30, 2015

“For the uninitiated, Erdogan’s statement must have seemed heartening. But close observers of Turkey know better: Over the past five years, American policymakers, Turkey watchers, terrorism experts and a slew of journalists have come to understand that while Ankara can play a constructive role in combating extremism and resolving the Syrian conflict, it has chosen not to.”

And as that conflict spreads and jumps borders, the Turks’ myopia on jihadism in Syria may very well come back to haunt them and their Western allies, he states.

Over time, the author says, extremism became a veritable instrument of Turkish statecraft—and also, not surprisingly, a threat within Turkey’s borders.

“The choices that Erdogan and top Turkish officials have made contributed to the vortex of violence and extremism that is Syria’s reality. Erdogan has never paid a price for these choices either at home, where he has hollowed out Turkish political institutions to ensure his grip on power, or abroad, where Turkey’s NATO allies are forced to pretend, by dint of circumstance and geography, that Ankara shares their goals.”

With all of that in mind, Cook criticizes the attitude of Turkey’s Western partners towards its policy.

“And it’s not just enabling jihadis or agreeing to fight the Islamic State without really fighting the Islamic State; at home, Erdogan has crushed the Turkish press, clamped down on social media, rerun an election earlier this year because the initial result wasn’t good enough and made sure his son-in-law was appointed energy minister,” he says.

“Yet Americans say nary a word about Erdogan’s thuggish approach to domestic and foreign policy. Germany’s Angela Merkel even showed up in Ankara in October with a bunch of goodies to help the Turkish leader’s party regain a parliamentary majority.”

“It’s good to be Erdogan. In the interest of alliance unity and solidarity, he will get a further pass from his NATO allies now that the plane incident has raised tensions between Ankara and Moscow,” he states.

However, he finally concludes, “as long as Washington determines not to call out the Turkish government for its bad behavior, Ankara will continue to sow chaos.”

[admin]

Putin: Russia Has Evidence Su-24 Shot Down to Protect Daesh Oil Deliveries
by sputniknews.com
11/30/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Discussing the matter with world leaders during the Paris climate talks, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow has evidence that the Su-24 was shot down by Turkey to protect oil deliveries of the ISIL terrorist group, also known as Daesh, and that oil from IS-controlled fields is being exported to Turkey on an industrial scale.

"We have every reason to believe that the decision to shoot down our aircraft was dictated by the desire to ensure the safety of supply routes of oil to Turkey, to the ports where they are shipped in tankers," Putin said.

Discussing the matter with world leaders during the Paris climate talks, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that most colleagues agree there was no need to attack the Su-24 bomber, as it was not threatening Turkey.

Putin also stressed that whether or not the order to shoot down the aircraft came directly from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it was still a "huge mistake."

"We have heard from the Turkish side that this decision was not made by the president, it was made by other people. For us, it does not matter much, the important thing is that two of our servicemen died as a result of this criminal move," he told reporters.

In response, Erdogan denied that his country buys oil from Daesh, and called Putin's comments "slander."

"We buy from Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Qatar, and Nigeria. We won't accept such slanders," he told reporters in Paris.

He also added that he will resign from office if the allegations can be proven.

"The accusation that Turkey allegedly buys crude oil from the Islamic State is unacceptable, and to say it is amoral. You can't just say things, you need to present evidence," he said. "If documents exist — let's see them. If this fact is proven, I will not stay in my position."

Putin also said that the Syria conflict was to be a main topic of bilateral meetings during the summit, with hopes that anti-terror cooperation with France, in particular, will "go further" than with other countries.

He said that despite the downing of the Su-24 by Ankara, Moscow will continue to strive for a broad, international coalition to combat the terrorist group, adding that he regrets the deterioration of relations between Russia and Turkey.

"I think that this is regrettable for all of us," Putin said. "And for me personally it's a real pity, because I myself did much to build up relations with Turkey over the course of a long period of time."

Speaking with US President Barack Obama, Putin stressed that there is a general agreement on Syria's future, and that new elections are necessary.

As the climate talks continue through the week, the White House has confirmed that Obama will meet with President Erdogan on Tuesday.

[admin]

Time to Kick Turkey Out of NATO? Ankara Playing Dangerous Games With ISIL
by sputniknews.com
11/27/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

For decades Ankara has used its NATO membership to achieve its own goals, which very often do not coincide with the interests of the Alliance, Czech-based freelance journalist and analyst Martin Berger emphasizes.

Ankara's recent provocative action toward Russia has prompted deep concerns among NATO member states: it is clear that not one of them is interested in escalating tensions with Russia.

"The members of NATO fear that the 'impulsive actions' of Turkey's President will force them into a new major conflict, and NATO is not prepared to fight it yet. These 'impulsive actions' may trigger the response that is required by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty," Czech-based freelance journalist and analyst Martin Berger writes in his article for New Eastern Outlook.

In order to resolve the dangerous crisis which erupted in the wake of the downing of an Su-24 bomber by a Turkish fighter jet, the West is now searching for those "guilty" of the attack. And it is obvious that the guilty party is Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan, Berger stresses.

"Vice-Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and the chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) Sigmar Gabriel expressed harsh criticism of Turkey after the downing of Russia's Su-24 bombers by labeling it an 'unpredictable player'," the analyst points out.

Citing French media sources, Berger calls attention to the fact that since the Muslim Brotherhood "came to power" in Turkey, the country has become a serious headache rather than a reliable partner of the Western bloc.

Furthermore, under Erdogan's rule Ankara has spoiled Turkey's relations with Israel. On the other hand, during the Arab Spring the Turkish leader had first sided with Assad but then "stabbed him in the back" allowing Islamists from around the world to flood Syria through the Turkey-Syrian border, Berger narrates. He adds that Ankara has never missed an opportunity to demonstrate its disdain toward the Kurds, which have long been fighting against Islamic State and even went so far as to attack them.

In light of this the analyst quotes the former NATO commander of Europe, Ret. General Wesley Clark, who once said about Turkey:

"Let's be very clear: ISIL is not just a terrorist organization, it is a Sunni terrorist organization. It means it blocks and targets Shia, and that means it's serving the interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia even as it poses a threat to them. All along there's always been the idea that Turkey was supporting ISIL in some way… Someone's buying that oil that ISIL is selling, it's going through somewhere. It looks to me like it's probably going through Turkey, but the Turks have never acknowledged it."

Commenting on Ankara's recent provocative strike on the Russian Su-24 bomber, Berger notes that Turkey's protégés, much-talked-about "defenseless" Turkomans, not only killed the Russian pilot as he descended, but also blasted a Russian helicopter (with a US-made TOW missile) that was sent to rescue the Su-24 crew.

The analyst cites retired US Major General Paul Vallely, who lambasted Ankara for an apparent attempt to revive the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The American general believes that due to Ankara's fishy cooperation with Islamic State, Turkey should be kicked out of NATO.

"For decades, Turkey has used NATO membership in order to achieve its own objectives, which, as a rule, do not coincide with the interests of the alliance," Berger underscores.

"In the early 2000s, Turkey chose to demonstrate its support of Islamism, which has always been a more serious threat to the West than the Soviet Union," the analyst notes, adding that NATO should get in an alliance with Russia against the Islamist threat, including that posed by the Turkish leadership.