Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:04 pm
 


https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/1460 ... th-russia/

$1:
Turkey Announces its Intention to Go to War with Russia

Mesut Hakki Casin, a prominent member of Turkey’s Security and Foreign Policy Board, who advises Erdogan, said: “We have fought Russia 16 times in the past, and we will fight it again.“

Casin made his statements following the death of 33 Turkish soldiers who were killed in an airstrike by Russian-backed Syrian forces in Idlib.

The official hinted that they will use Muslims inside Russia to assist them with their efforts saying that Moscow will be “will be shattered from inside” should a war break out between the two countries.

Following a request from Ankara, NATO convened an urgent meeting to review the situation in Idlib on Friday. Turkish officials vowed to retaliate against Syria following the attack on their troops.


Yesterday the fucking Turks shot down two Syrian fighters inside Syria and then attacked a Syrian government airfield.

The Russian government today delivered a diplomatic note to Turkey advising them that Russia will not guarantee the safety of Turkish forces operating inside Syria on the ground or in the air.

Reuters neglected to mention the ground comments:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syri ... SKBN20O2AL

$1:
Russia to Turkey: We cannot guarantee safety of your planes over Syria - TASS

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian Defence Ministry said on Sunday that Moscow could not guarantee the safety of Turkish planes flying in Syria after Damascus said it was closing the air space over the Idlib region, the TASS news agency reported.

The ministry issued the warning after Turkey shot down two Syrian warplanes over Idlib on Sunday and struck a military airport well beyond its frontlines in a sharp increase of its military operations following the death of dozens of Turkish soldiers last week.

“In these conditions the leadership of Russia’s military contingent (in Syria) cannot guarantee the safety of Turkish flights in Syrian skies,” TASS cited Counter Admiral Oleg Zhuravlev as saying.


I see no downside from these two countries going to war so long as NATO stays out of it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31737
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:20 pm
 


Image

Any way to drag the Saudis into it so as many of those evil pricks as possible also get killed? :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:23 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/146018/turkey-announces-its-intention-to-go-to-war-with-russia/

$1:
Turkey Announces its Intention to Go to War with Russia

Mesut Hakki Casin, a prominent member of Turkey’s Security and Foreign Policy Board, who advises Erdogan, said: “We have fought Russia 16 times in the past, and we will fight it again.“

Casin made his statements following the death of 33 Turkish soldiers who were killed in an airstrike by Russian-backed Syrian forces in Idlib.

The official hinted that they will use Muslims inside Russia to assist them with their efforts saying that Moscow will be “will be shattered from inside” should a war break out between the two countries.

Following a request from Ankara, NATO convened an urgent meeting to review the situation in Idlib on Friday. Turkish officials vowed to retaliate against Syria following the attack on their troops.


Yesterday the fucking Turks shot down two Syrian fighters inside Syria and then attacked a Syrian government airfield.

The Russian government today delivered a diplomatic note to Turkey advising them that Russia will not guarantee the safety of Turkish forces operating inside Syria on the ground or in the air.

Reuters neglected to mention the ground comments:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syri ... SKBN20O2AL

$1:
Russia to Turkey: We cannot guarantee safety of your planes over Syria - TASS

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian Defence Ministry said on Sunday that Moscow could not guarantee the safety of Turkish planes flying in Syria after Damascus said it was closing the air space over the Idlib region, the TASS news agency reported.

The ministry issued the warning after Turkey shot down two Syrian warplanes over Idlib on Sunday and struck a military airport well beyond its frontlines in a sharp increase of its military operations following the death of dozens of Turkish soldiers last week.

“In these conditions the leadership of Russia’s military contingent (in Syria) cannot guarantee the safety of Turkish flights in Syrian skies,” TASS cited Counter Admiral Oleg Zhuravlev as saying.


I see no downside from these two countries going to war so long as NATO stays out of it.


If that asshole Erdogan is attacked in Europe and calls for help from NATO we as signatories of article 5 of the Washington Treaty are obliged to assist him ...................... unless of course minor legalities.

$1:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/of ... _17120.htm

So here's hoping if the KGB dipshit Putin decides to take out the Muslim dipshit Erdogan they do it in Syria or on the Anatolian Peninsula which, isn't Europe and means we could politely decline to follow the agreement since the parameters hadn't been met.

Unfortunately this would likely mean the departure of Turkey from NATO :wink: but since they were going to cozy up with the Russians anyway, I wonder just where they'll go if their former friend is the one pummeling them beyond recognition?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25105

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:38 pm
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
If that asshole Erdogan is attacked in Europe and calls for help from NATO we as signatories of article 5 of the Washington Treaty are obliged to assist him ...................... unless of course minor legalities.
Not if they start it. Which if they just announced their intention to go to war... they started it.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1552
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:14 pm
 


Putin: "Hey, Erdog!"
Erdog: "Yeah, what is it?"
Putin: "I have an idea. The Disney/NASA/Hollywood crowd will have no choice but to lap it up!"


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:35 pm
 


Weren’t they just crawling into bed with each other?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:25 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
If that asshole Erdogan is attacked in Europe and calls for help from NATO we as signatories of article 5 of the Washington Treaty are obliged to assist him ...................... unless of course minor legalities.
Not if they start it. Which if they just announced their intention to go to war... they started it.


Like I said legalities but that still doesn't negate the fact that if he didn't or doesn't declare war and Russia attacks him and his hubris, he's got a valid reason to invoke Article 5. The biggest saving grace is he invaded Syria and has now made himself and his country a pariah. So, the worst that can happen for us is he leaves NATO because we didn't back him and his insane regime up.

But the Russians are still a whole different story. I don't know how proxy wars work within the NATO framework but if they attack Turkey on European soil because of Turkey's actions in Syria it still could be considered an act of aggression against a NATO country.

BTW if you read the article you notice that in Article 5 there is no mention of a NATO country being the aggressor so even if Turkey starts a war with Russia it likely doesn't negate the fact that if they attack Turkey on European soil it's still incumbent on the NATO countries to come to their defence.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2164
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:02 pm
 


Putin and Assad have remorselessly targeted schools and hospitals in Syria and deserve any bad thing coming to them. They and the Iranians are responsible for the waves of Syrian refugees that have inundated Turkey, Lebanon and Europe. With that said, I very much doubt Erdogan would want a war with Russia.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1176
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:08 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
Image


Good.

Nuke the Turks. :lol:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2164
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:35 am
 


Erdoğan’s crude attempts to use refugees to extort the EU are producing a turning-point in European politics:

https://www.france24.com/en/20200303-er ... ns-borders

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rders.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25105

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:56 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BTW if you read the article you notice that in Article 5 there is no mention of a NATO country being the aggressor so even if Turkey starts a war with Russia it likely doesn't negate the fact that if they attack Turkey on European soil it's still incumbent on the NATO countries to come to their defence.

It's literally in the name of it. Your not defending if you attack first. That's why NATO wasn't in Iraq.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:03 am
 


A little side chatter on this is that the Russians got pissed because the 'Syrian' fighters were actually two Russian SU-24 fighter-bombers operating well inside Syrian airspace where the fucking Turks had no fucking business.

This makes three Russian fighters the Turks have shot down in this war not to mention a few years back they also threatened Russian transport aircraft flying from Russia via Iran to Syria.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:53 am
 


Tricks Tricks:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BTW if you read the article you notice that in Article 5 there is no mention of a NATO country being the aggressor so even if Turkey starts a war with Russia it likely doesn't negate the fact that if they attack Turkey on European soil it's still incumbent on the NATO countries to come to their defence.

It's literally in the name of it. Your not defending if you attack first. That's why NATO wasn't in Iraq.


Sorry but I have to disagree. NATO wasn't in Iraq because it was "IRAQ" and they weren't asked. The article specifically states a member has to be attacked in Europe or North America or on Turkish Territory or territory owned by NATO members . It also doesn't state "attacked first" it simply states "attacked".

$1:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 1
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.


Also, apparently if Turkey is attacked on the Anatolian peninsula it can be construed as an attack on NATO which is the scary part because that's going to be the area the Russians will likely hit first if this escalates.

I'm thinking that nobody back in 1949 ever thought one of the NATO members would go rogue and start a conflict so, there was no need to put in an "attacked first" clause which would have, when you think about it hamstrung European NATO members when it came to defending themselves against a Warsaw Pact build up.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25105

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:42 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Sorry but I have to disagree. NATO wasn't in Iraq because it was "IRAQ" and they weren't asked. The article specifically states a member has to be attacked in Europe or North America or on Turkish Territory or territory owned by NATO members . It also doesn't state "attacked first" it simply states "attacked".

$1:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 1
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.


Also, apparently if Turkey is attacked on the Anatolian peninsula it can be construed as an attack on NATO which is the scary part because that's going to be the area the Russians will likely hit first if this escalates.

I'm thinking that nobody back in 1949 ever thought one of the NATO members would go rogue and start a conflict so, there was no need to put in an "attacked first" clause which would have, when you think about it hamstrung European NATO members when it came to defending themselves against a Warsaw Pact build up.

I've bolded the important part.

Attacking first isn't self defense. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations was put in so that there doesn't need to be a UN resolution made to respond to an aggressive attack. That's the entire point of Article 5, to enumerate the collective defense measures by members of NATO, removing that requirement to come to the aid of an ally.

If Turkey hits first, which they technically already have by shooting down Russian planes (if what Bart says is true), we are not obligated to respond to an article 5 invocation. No NATO country is.

Also they weren't asked because it wouldn't have gone through. We were asked to go to Afghanistan, and we did. America invoked article 5 on 9/11, and Afghanistan was the response to that. If they thought they could get us into Iraq with them, they would have. But since they were the principal aggressor, then it wasn't a valid use of Article 5.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25105

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:15 pm
 


Mistake in the above, the U.S. didn't invoke Article 5 on 9/11, NATO did it for them by unanimous vote. It was requested by the U.S., but they never formally invoked it themselves.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.