Archief
Artikelen

Bovenstaande landkaart uit 2006 is afkomstig uit een tijdschrift voor de gewapende strijdkrachten van de VS. Op de tekentafel heeft men het Midden Oosten herverdeeld. In 2006 leek dit onzin, maar tegenwoordig hebben we ISIS en de oude grenzen vervagen. Zoals blijkt uit de kaart, zou het NATO-land Turkije een flink stuk territorium moeten inleveren, terwijl de door Turkije zo gehate Koerden een eigen “onafhankelijke” staat krijgen. De strategie van de VS wordt dan duidelijk: verdeel en heers!

Een belangrijke overweging is dat ISIS niet zomaar uit de lucht kwam vallen. Deze “moslim-terroristen” worden gesteund door de VS, het land dat het hardst roept dat ze ISIS bestrijden! Ook Turkije neemt nu eindelijk deel aan de strijd tegen ISIS, terwijl dat land tot voor kort juist een doorvoerland was voor troepen en bevoorrading van ISIS. De enigen die serieus lijken te strijden tegen ISIS zijn de Koerden! Maar terwijl Turkije nu bommen gooit op plaatsen waar ISIS de baas is, bombardeert Turkije ook de versterkingen van de Koerden, de PKK die opereert vanuit Irakees Koerdistan. Krankzinnig? Of maakt dit alles deel uit van een plan waarvan bovenstaande kaart reeds getuigde?

Dat de VS zijn grote vijand Al Qaida ooit zelf in het leven heeft geroepen en financierde, is tegenwoordig wel een feit van algemene bekendheid. ISIS komt echter uit dezelfde koker! En onder het mom van vrijheid en democratie heeft de VS de zogenaamde burgeroorlog in Syrië veroorzaakt. De “gematigde moslimstrijders” die openlijk door de VS worden gesteund met wapens en geld, zijn vaak dik bevriend met ISIS!

Genesis: The real story behind the rise of ISIS

Islamic State was not accident; it was engineered, assisted, trained and deployed under the authority of the United States to invade, occupy and exploit the Middle East, while claiming liberation and democracy-building.

The US Hand in the Syrian Mess

Neocons and the mainstream U.S. media place all the blame for the Syrian civil war on President Bashar al-Assad and Iran, but there is another side of the story in which Syria’s olive branches to the U.S. and Israel were spurned and a reckless drive for “regime change” followed, writes Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

July 22, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Consortium News” – Syria’s current leader, Bashar al-Assad replaced his autocratic father as president and head of the ruling Ba’ath Party in 2000. Only 35 years old and British educated, he aroused widespread hopes at home and abroad of introducing reforms and liberalizing the regime. In his first year he freed hundreds of political prisoners and shut down a notorious prison, though his security forces resumed cracking down on dissenters a year later.

But almost from the start, Assad was marked by the George W. Bush administration for “regime change.” Then, in the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency, there were some attempts at diplomatic engagement, but shortly after a civil conflict broke out in 2011, the legacy of official U.S. hostility toward Syria set in motion Washington’s disastrous confrontation with Assad which continues to this day.

Thus, the history of the Bush administration’s approach toward Syria is important to understand. Shortly after 9/11, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark learned from a Pentagon source that Syria was on the same hit list as Iraq. As Clark recalled, the Bush administration “wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”

Sure enough, in a May 2002 speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” Under Secretary of State John Bolton named Syria as one of a handful of “rogue states” along with Iraq that “can expect to become our targets.” Assad’s conciliatory and cooperative gestures were brushed aside.

In choosing to cite human rights selectively as their rationale for regime change, Western governments — including the Obama administration — followed longstanding double standards. Many of the U.S-backed states involved in the anti-Assad campaign, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, have also committed gross human rights violations and war crimes, whether at home or in neighboring territories and states such as Gaza, Yemen and Lebanon.

In Syria as in Libya and Iraq, human rights became a convenient bludgeon for supporting the longstanding ambition of U.S. neoconservatives to topple critical Arab regimes as part of their grand plan for remaking the map of the Middle East. The worthy cause of saving lives perversely enabled a much greater sacrifice of Syrian lives.

Wie herinnert zich nog de strijd om Kobani? Deze grensstad in Syrisch Koerdistan werd in de herfst van vorig jaar ingenomen door ISIS, terwijl Turkije de grens dicht hield voor Koerden die hun volksgenoten wilden helpen. Ten slotte kregen de Koerden steun van de VS, Kobani werd plat gebombardeerd en de vluchtelingen konden “naar huis terugkeren”, ware het niet dat hun huis niet meer bestond! In hun strijd tegen ISIS krijgen de Koerden sindsdien steun van de VS, maar Turkije is daar niet blij mee! Turkije is echter een NATO-land, dus het moet niet teveel dwarsliggen. De strategie lijkt nu te zijn: je kunt het ene doen en het andere niet laten!

Turkey Launches War On Islamic State’s Worst Enemies – The Kurds

By Moon Of Alabama

July 25, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – Since 2013 a ceasefire between the state of Turkey and Kurdish PKK rebels in south-east Turkey held up well. The government pledged some support for Kurdish cultural autonomy and in return the ruling AK Party gained votes from parts of the Kurdish constituency. The AKP government also has good relations with the Kurds in north Iraq. It buys oil from the Kurdish regional government and supports the kleptocracy of the ruling Barzani clan in that autonomous Iraqi region.

The PKK is a militant Kurdish organization in Turkey. The equivalent in Syria is known as YPG. In Iran the group is called PJAK and in Iraq HPG. The HDP party in Turkey is the political arm of the PKK. The PYD is the political arm of the Syrian YPG. All these are essentially the same egalitarian, secular marxist/anarchist organization striving for Kurdish autonomy or independence.

Turkey has now reopened its war on the PKK Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and in Syria. Turkish police rounded up hundreds of Kurdish activists in Turkey and tonight dozens of Turkish fighter planes attacked PKK positions in Syria and Iraq. This war is likely to escalate and will be long and bloody. It will be mostly fought on Turkish ground. How did it come to this?

Turkey joins US war in Syria
By our Turkish correspondent
25 July 2015

Over the past two days, Turkey’s government has executed a sharp shift in its foreign policy, aligning itself more closely with Washington’s military strategy in the region and effectively becoming an active part of the US-led “coalition” waging war in Iraq and Syria.

For a long time, Ankara had refrained from supporting the US-led war, ostensibly aimed against the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS), insisting on a policy aimed at toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad and covertly supporting ISIS, both against the Syrian regime and against Kurdish nationalists.

On Wednesday, however, US President Barack Obama and Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan agreed in a phone call to work together to secure the Turkish-Syrian border and fight against ISIS.

Turkey steps up its offensive against ISIL and PKK

Kurdish Forces in Syria Fired Upon by Turkish Tanks
News | 27.07.2015 | 10:48

Turkey tense amid air strikes on ISIL and PKK

Kurdish group says “truce not meaningful” after Turkish air strikes

Daarmee is de strijd van de Turken tegen de Koerden weer opgelaaid. Maar de Turken zitten nu wel in een spagaat! Enerzijds is er de NATO die ISIS bestrijdt, anderzijds zijn er de Koerden die ISIS bestrijden. De eersten doen dat uit geopolitieke overwegingen, de laatsten uit lijfsbehoud! Want ISIS houdt niet van Koerden. Als zij een Koerdische stad of dorp veroveren, dan worden de mannen vermoord en de vrouwen verkocht als slavinnen. De Koerden bestrijden ISIS daarom op leven en dood! Om uit deze spagaat te geraken, willen de Turken nu praten met de NATO: Turkey summons NATO session amid airstrike campaign against ISIS & Kurdish PKK

Op de achtergrond speelt intussen ook de binnenlandse politiek van Turkije, waar onlangs verkiezingen plaats vonden waarbij een pro-Koerdische partij 13% van de stemmen haalde en nu 80 zetels krijgt in het Turkse parlement. Voor de Koerden, die al vele jaren vechten voor het recht op een Koerdische identiteit en een zekere autonomie voor het Koerdische deel van Turkije, brengt een dergelijke uitslag hoop! Maar voor de rechter flank van de Turkse samenleving, zijn de bombardementen op Koerden dan weer een gebruikelijke reactie.

The Kurdish Question and the Economic Outlook

With regard to the Kurdish question, the emergence of the HDP might provide a stimulus for renewed dialogue. In its electoral manifesto, among other measures, the party had pledged to back up self-rule with the introduction of regional assemblies. Since the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres – calling for autonomy for the Kurdish people; a call that remained unheeded –the Kurdish question remains unresolved.

After decades of failed attempts at greater self-government, the official opening of negotiations with regard to Turkey’s accession to the European Union represented a shift in perspective and, with it, the potential for greater recognition of Kurdish cultural identity.

The latest elections might possibly induce greater momentum towards a definitive settlement as this involves the continued pursuit of peace talks with the outlawed armed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Die vredesbesprekingen worden nu met succes gebombardeerd! Het is echter de vraag hoe dat in de toekomst gaat uitpakken… Het is niet onmogelijk dat Turkije in zijn systematische onderdrukking van de Koerden nu eindelijk zijn hand heeft overspeeld!

Has Turkey bitten off more than it can chew? duurt 25 minuten.

Gepubliceerd op 26 jul. 2015

Turkey is now fighting two very different battles at the same time. Turkish fighter jets have been hitting PKK positions in Iraq for days. The Kurdish PKK has been fighting for greater autonomy within Turkey for 30 years, and more than 40,000 Turkish and Kurdish soldiers and civilians have died during the struggle. Between 30 and 40 million Kurds live in adjoining regions of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, at the same time, Turkey is now also bombing ISIL bases in Syria. The battles become complicated when you take into account the group at the forefront of the international fight against ISIL is another Kurdish group; the YPG.
Presenter: Sami Zeidan.
Guests: In Ankara: Bilal Sambur, a Kurdish Political Analyst and Head of the SESA Institute of Social, Economic, and Political Research in Ankara. In London: Galip Dalay, the Research Director of Al Sharq Forum, a think-tank based in Istanbul. In Washington DC: Richard Weitz,a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who also directs the institute’s Center for Political-Military Analysis.

Share and Enjoy:
  • NuJIJ
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Hyves
  • RSS
  • email

25 Reacties op “Turkije, de NATO, ISIS en de Koerden”

  • Boudine:

    De VS probeert Syrië kapot te maken, maar Poetin probeert vrede te stichten! Hij doet dat stiekem, opdat de VS zijn plannen niet doorkruist. Het artikel van Mike Whitney gaat daarover.

    Is Putin Planning to Sell-Out Assad?

    By Mike Whitney

    Forget about ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al Assad for a minute and, instead, focus on the terms “autonomous zones”, “creation of …sanctuaries”, “safe zones” and “a confederal Syria.”

    All of these strongly suggest that the primary aim of US policy is to break Syria up into smaller units that pose no threat to US-Israeli regional hegemony. This is the US gameplan in a nutshell.

    In contrast, Russia does not want a divided Syria. Aside from the fact that Moscow and Damascus are long-term allies (and Russia has a critical naval facility in Tartus, Syria), a balkanized Syria poses serious threats for Russia, the most significant of which is the probable emergence of a jihadi base of operations that will be used to deploy terrorists across Central Asia thus undermining Moscow’s grand plan to integrate the continents into a giant free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Russian President Vladimir Putin takes the threat of terrorism very seriously, which is why he has been working around-the-clock to engage leaders from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Kurds and Syrian opposition groups in negotiations to put an end to the fighting and reestablish security in Syria. It’s worth noting that there’s been an effective blackout of these crucial negotiations in the western media, mainly because they make Putin look like a peacemaker who is respected among other world leaders and who is making every effort to stop the spread of terrorism. Obviously, that doesn’t jibe with the media’s portrayal of Putin as the new Hitler, so they’ve simply omitted the meetings from their coverage.

    The differences between the US and Russia are irreconcilable. Washington wants and end to the nation-state system and create a new world order, while Putin wants to maintain the current system in order to preserve national sovereignty, self determination, and multi-polarity. This is the basis of the clash between Russia and the US. Putin rejects unipolar global rule and is working as fast as he can to build a coalition capable of resisting persistent US intervention, manipulation and aggression. This is no small task, and it involves a great deal of discretion. Putin does not have the wherewithal to confront the US Goliath at every turn, so he must pick his fights carefully and operate largely in the shadows, which is what he is doing.

    The “New Thirty Years War” in the Middle East – A Western Policy of Chaos?

    By Steven MacMillan

    August 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “NEO ” – The Middle East has been in a state of chaos for years now, with each passing year bringing a new wave of instability, carnage and human suffering to the people of the region. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, Western foreign policy has directly caused or exacerbated much of the chaos we see in the region today and has contributed to a growing trend of instability.

    A pertinent question of our time however is whether this instability and destabilization is a result of inept strategy by Western nations, or a calculated strategy by the West to intentionally create chaos, balkanize nations and increase sectarian tensions in the region?

  • Boudine:

    Ankara: the New Capital of Jihad

    By Mike Whitney

    “The US and it’s allies want to keep this monster (ISIS) in check, but they don’t want to destroy it. All their military, political and media campaigns are smokescreens. What the West has done so far has strengthened terrorism not ended it. The proof of this is the fact that terrorism has spread everywhere, its material resources have increased, and its ranks have swollen.”

    — Syrian President Bashar al Assad

    August 20, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Counterpunch” – Has US policy in Syria fallen prey to the political ambitions of one man, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan?

    Certainly not. Washington has its own malignant agenda in Syria, which is to topple Syrian President Bashar al Assad, split the country into pieces, lock-down critical pipeline corridors, and establish a “Salafist principality” that will justify continued US intervention across the Middle East for the foreseeable future. These are the objectives of US policy and they haven’t changed because of anything Erdogan has done.

  • Boudine:

    CrossTalk: Unsourced Syria

    Gepubliceerd op 9 sep. 2015

    An unsourced story originating on an Israeli website claimed Russia was about to deploy significant military assistance to Syria to fight Islamic State. This set the media aflame and had Washington issuing warnings. The story was not only unsourced, but also untrue. But it did reveal how the West frames its illegal war against Syria. CrossTalking with Eric Draitser, Danny Makki and Fawaz Gerges.

  • Boudine:

    What if Americans Had Known in 2013 that U.S. rejected Syria Deal in 2012?

    By David Swanson

    The Guardian reported on Tuesday that the former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, who had been involved in negotiations in 2012, said that in 2012 Russia had proposed a process of peace settlement between the Syrian government and its opponents that would have included President Bashar al-Assad stepping down. But, according to Ahtisaari, the United States was so confident that Assad would soon be violently overthrown that it rejected the proposal.

    The catastrophic Syrian civil war since 2012 has followed U.S. adherence to actual U.S. policy in which peaceful compromise is usually the last resort. Does the U.S. government believe violence tends to produce better results? The record shows otherwise. More likely it believes that violence will lead to greater U.S.-control, while satisfying the war industry. The record on the first part of that is mixed at best.

  • Boudine:

    Vladimir Putin’s Foreign-Policy Objectives, & His Desire for U.S. to Be an Ally

    By Eric Zuesse

    September 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “SCF” – On September 4th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin restated, as he has many times before, that he seeks a U.S.- Russian alliance to overcome the global Islamic jihad movement, in Syria, Iraq, and everywhere.

    Then, on Tuesday September 8th, Yahoo News bannered, “Austria joins growing voices that say Assad must be part of Syrian solution,” and reported that Austria’s Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said: “In my opinion the priority is the fight against terror. This will not be possible without powers such as Russia and Iran.” German Economic News noted then that, “Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo had already called on Monday for negotiations with Assad to end the war.”

    However, the U.S. government is strongly opposed to accepting Putin’s offer of an alliance to overcome Islamic jihad.

    So: Regardless of Putin’s success at dealing with Islamic jihadists, his invitation to the United States to work together to defeat the Sunni, and mainly Saudi and Thani-funded, international movement for Islamic jihad for a global Caliphate, will probably continue to meet only America’s cold shoulder. The United States opposes Islamic jihad, but it opposes Russia more.

    Or, at least, the U.S. Government does. Obama primarily seeks to defeat Russia, not to ally with it — not even against Islamic jihad.

    Who’s to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!

    Official Washington’s new “group think” is to blame Russia’s President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted “regime change.”

    By Robert Parry

    September 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Consortiumnews” – Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

    Graham’s grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren’t eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out.

    Official Washington’s “group think” still holds that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “must go,” that U.S. diplomats should simply deliver a “regime change” ultimatum not engage in serious compromise, and that the U.S. government must obstruct assistance from Russia and Iran even if doing so risks collapsing Assad’s secular regime and opening the door to an Al Qaeda/Islamic State victory.

    Of course, if that victory happens, there will be lots of finger-pointing splitting the blame between President Barack Obama for not being “tough” enough and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin who has become something of a blame-magnet for every geopolitical problem. On Friday, during a talk at Fort Meade in Maryland, Obama got out front on assigning fault to Putin.

    Obama blamed Putin for not joining in imposing the U.S.-desired “regime change” on Syria.

Laat een reactie achter