Could We Actually See A War Between Syria And Turkey?

THE AMERICAN DREAM - By Michael - June 28, 2011

In recent days, there have been persistent rumors that we could potentially be on the verge of a military conflict between Syria and Turkey.  As impossible as such a thing may have seemed just a few months ago, it is now a very real possibility.  Over the past several months, we have seen the same kind of "pro-democracy" protests erupt in Syria that we have seen in many of the other countries in the Middle East.  The Syrian government has no intention of being toppled by a bunch of protesters and has cracked down on these gatherings harshly.  There are reports in the mainstream media that say that over 1,300 people have been killed and more than 10,000 people have been arrested since the protests began.  Just like with Libya, the United States and the EU are strongly condemning the actions that the Syrian government has taken to break up these protests.  The violence in Syria has been particularly heavy in the northern sections of the country, and thousands upon thousands of refugees have poured across the border into neighboring Turkey.  Syria has sent large numbers of troops to the border area to keep more citizens from escaping.  Turkey has responded by reinforcing its own troops along the border.  Tension between Turkey and Syria is now at an all-time high.  So could we actually see a war between Syria and Turkey? ...

Since the Syrian government began cracking down on the protests, approximately 12,000 Syrians have flooded into Turkey.  The Turkish government is deeply concerned that Syria may try to strike these refugees while they are inside Turkish territory.

Troop levels are increasing on both sides of the border and tension is rising.  One wrong move could set off a firestorm.

The government of Turkey is demanding that Syrian military forces retreat from the border area.

The government of Syria says that Turkey is just being used to promote the goals of the U.S. and the EU.  Syria also seems to be concerned that Turkey may attempt to take control of a bit of territory over the border in order to provide a "buffer zone" for refugees coming from Syria.

What makes things even more controversial is that the area where many of the Syrian refugees are encamped actually used to belong to Syria.  In fact, many of the maps currently in use inside Syria still show that the area belongs to Syria.

War between Syria and Turkey has almost happened before.  Back in the 1990s, the fact that the government of Syria was strongly supporting the Kurds pushed the two nations dangerously close to a military conflict.

Today, the border between Syria and Turkey is approximately 850 kilometers long.  The military forces of both nations are massing along that border.  One wrong move could set off a war.

Right now, it almost sounds as though the U.S. government is preparing for a war to erupt in the region.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stated that the situation along the border with Turkey is "very worrisome" and that we could see "an escalation of conflict in the area".

Not only that, but when you study what Clinton and Obama have been saying about Syria it sounds very, very similar to what they were saying about Libya before the airstrikes began.

In a recent editorial entitled "There Is No Going Back in Syria", Clinton wrote the following....

Finally, the answer to the most important question of all -- what does this mean for Syria's future? -- is increasingly clear: There is no going back.

Syrians have recognized the violence as a sign of weakness from a regime that rules by coercion, not consent. They have overcome their fears and have shaken the foundations of this authoritarian system.

Syria is headed toward a new political order -- and the Syrian people should be the ones to shape it. They should insist on accountability, but resist any temptation to exact revenge or reprisals that might split the country, and instead join together to build a democratic, peaceful and tolerant Syria.

Considering the answers to all these questions, the United States chooses to stand with the Syrian people and their universal rights. We condemn the Assad regime's disregard for the will of its citizens and Iran's insidious interference.

"There is no going back"?

"Syria is headed toward a new political order"?

It almost sounds like they are already planning the transitional government.

The EU has been using some tough language as well.

A recent EU summit in Brussels issued a statement that declared that the EU "condemns in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression and unacceptable and shocking violence the Syrian regime continues to apply against its own citizens. By choosing a path of repression instead of fulfilling its own promises on broad reforms, the regime is calling its legitimacy into question. Those responsible for crimes and violence against civilians shall be held accountable."

If you take the word "Syrian" out of that statement and replace it with the word "Libyan" it would sound exactly like what they were saying about Gadhafi just a few months ago.

The EU has hit Syria with new economic sanctions and it is also calling on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the crackdown by the Syrian government.

It seems clear that the U.S. and the EU want to see "regime change" happen in Syria.

The important thing to keep in mind in all of this is that Turkey is a member of NATO.  If anyone attacks Turkey, NATO has a duty to protect them.

If Syria attacked Turkey or if it was made to appear that Syria had attacked Turkey, then NATO would have the justification it needs to go to war with Syria.

If NATO goes to war with Syria, it is very doubtful that Iran would just sit by and watch it happen.  Syria is a very close ally to Iran and the Iranian government would likely consider an attack on their neighbor to be a fundamental threat to their nation.

In fact, there are already reports in the international media that Iran has warned Turkey that they better not allow NATO to use their airbases to attack Syria.

So if it was NATO taking on Syria and Iran, who else in the Middle East would jump in? ...

Would Russia and China sit by and do nothing while all of this was going on?

Could a conflict in the Middle East be the thing that sets off World War III?

Let's certainly hope not. ...

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/could-we-actually-see-a-war-between-syria-and-turkey

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Women in the Cairo Street Scenes: a Troubling Photo Essay

ARUTZ SHEVA (Israeli National News) - By Prof. Phyllis Chesler - February 7, 2011
For days now, the mainstream and leftstream media have been telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood is not dangerous, not radically Islamist-but that even if they are Islamist that they are popular amongst the people. Western leftists view the Brothers as engaged in a Hamas-like form of soup kitchen social work/theocratic totalitarianism, but who nevertheless have earned the right to be democratically voted into power by the people. They have been invited to join the negotiations with Mubarak's regime. ...

Such journalists also claim that the Egyptian people in the streets are not "political," that they are impoverished, broken, barefoot warriors who have heroically risen up for jobs, food, and an end to corruption and tyranny. Indeed, the people may not be "political"-but their heroism may end up benefiting those who, unlike themselves, are already organized militarily, economically, and ideologically-like the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the other hand, unorganized though they may be, the people may still have views and beliefs. According to a June, 2010 Pew opinion survey of Egyptians:

Fifty nine percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics....Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion...When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN's Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

Is this Pew Center survey really true? What other indicators might we rely upon?

In the last week, we have seen massive coverage of the street uprising in Cairo on every major television channel and in print and Internet media of all political persuasions. No one has commented upon what the photos are showing us. Some say that a picture speaks a thousand words-and so it does. Follow along with me.

First, view these photos of Cairo University graduates in 1959, 1978, 1995, and 2004. Clearly, there is a progression-a regression really, in terms of women's rights. Former women's gains have, increasingly, been washed away.

As you can see, despite the size of the picture, the female graduates in 1959 and 1978 had bare arms, wore short sleeved blouses,  dresses, or pants, and were both bare-faced and bare-headed. By  1995, we see a smattering of headscarves-and by 2004 we see a plurality of female university graduates in serious hijab: Tight, and draping the shoulders. ...

Edited :: See Original Report Here & See All Pictures
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142158


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.