Turkish Military presence in Iraq - Updates & Discussions

[passo_del_bosniako]

https://twitter.com/x/status/786027060703657984

yeah. Moslawis cant wait to be "liberated" by these sectarian gangs

 

[usernameless]

https://twitter.com/x/status/786027060703657984

yeah. Moslawis cant wait to be "liberated" by these sectarian gangs

One thing looks quite certain, Abadi and Iran (its shiite militias) don't have a good intended plan for Mosul once isis got eliminated there, hence they want us to keep away especially at a critical time like this.

 

[T-Rex]

“It is said that the battle for Mosul against Daesh will kick off on October 19 and that we all have to be prepared for this event,” Erdogan said in a meeting with Turkish community figures based in the United States.

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/250920166

The date should have been kept secret. Anyway it can always be changed for the element of surprise. Somebody please show me a map of Iraq, I just wanted to see how far Mosul is from the Turkish border and its proximity to the Syrian border. I think it is an important factor.

 

[Saho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/786065292258607104

https://twitter.com/x/status/786066655893942273

---


This ia very good article to read. In short, it's a race to Mosul. It remains unclear who will rule it after as ethnic groups are deeply divided through ethnic/religious lines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8d78d2-8a58-11e6-8cdc-4fbb1973b506_story.html

http://m.yenisafak.com/en/columns/i...lan-hitting-on-the-outside-not-inside-2033444

 

[passo_del_bosniako]

One thing looks quite certain, Abadi and Iran (its shiite militias) don't have a good intended plan for Mosul once isis got eliminated there, hence they want us to keep away especially at a critical time like this.

Just look at Falujjahs aftermath. Ethnic/secterian cleansing disguised as CT opp.

 

[Oublious]

https://twitter.com/x/status/786065292258607104

This ia very good article to read. In short, it's a race to Mosul. It remains unclear who will rule it after; Turkmen-Turks, Suuni Iraqis, Kurds, Shia etc as they are deeply divided.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8d78d2-8a58-11e6-8cdc-4fbb1973b506_story.html

http://m.yenisafak.com/en/columns/i...lan-hitting-on-the-outside-not-inside-2033444

Let them to do that look what we do with iraqies....

There are

- Thousands of misbehaving reckless Shia militants that arent under Iraqi control
- Thousands of PKK terrorists in Northern Iraq which is practically a safe heaven for them
- Thousands of ISIS terrorists that still control large portions of Iraq
- Thousands of Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists still

But somehow you feel to the need to create tensions and conflict with the one neighbouring country who was actively helping you fight ISIS on your own soil for many years and only has a couple hundred soldiers near Mosul. This guy is the pinnacle of stupidity, not because he wants Turkish soldiers out of Iraq but purely because of timing and his agenda for Mosul.

They are planning for ethnic cleaning, they will kill sunnies in Mosul. Thats why i don´t feel pity for shias with iran, in no time ther will be second deash. And yet they will againg cry for help.

 

[[TR]AHMET]

If You look carryfully you will find Iran is under every sectarians wars, they allways making sedition (fitna) between Muslims! Even they create DEASH by making pressure Sunnis at Iraq and Syria with USA!

Also Turkey is sunni but we dont making section war in Turkey or anywhere! we can atack DEASH as Sunni but Iran can't atack Hezbollah or any extremist Shia group! this is the diffences between us and them.

All their bads makes Muslims weak but other side strong countries get benefit!!

-
Lebanese religious scholar "Shayh Muhammed el Hüseyne" said, Hz. Huseein away from Hezbıllah, iran, Ayetullah Sestani and Other Shia militias. Shayh El Huseyne also said they are killing Sunnis for USA!

http://www.haksozhaber.net/hz-huseyin-iran-ve-hizbullahtan-beridir-84310h.htm

-
Turkish army massing at Iraq border
http://www.ahaber.com.tr/gundem/2016/10/12/tskdan-irak-sinirina-askeri-sevkiyat

 

[Saho]

Iranian-backed Shia militias, Asaib ahl al-Haq, in a statement last week threatened Turkish troops near Mosul, stating that “Turkish troops deployed near Mosul will be our target.”

Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Asaib ahl al-Haq militia stated that “It is not Turkey or Erdogan that decide on the participation of Hashd al-Shaabi. We will participate in the operation and it is us who will not allow Turkish troops to participate.”

Jawad al-Tilbawi, a Hashd al-Shaabi official told Iraqi local media outlets on Saturday that “The Turkish troops in northern Mosul will be a legitimate target of the joint Iraqi security forces,” adding that “We will deal with Turkish troops in the same way we are treating Daesh [an Arabic pejorative name for IS].”

 

[CrimsonFury]

Poor Abadi...he always speaks nonsense when the Iranian c*ck is not in his mouth. Stupid, useless and problematic people they (Baghdad "government") are...we should let them destroy Mosul so that they are stuck there for generations perpetually killing each other in sectarian frenzy, this is an outcome that is desirable as it would commit the morons in Baghdad into a fight against themselves and thus speed up the dismemberment of that failed, terrorist paradise "country". All Turkey has to do is build a wall, plant large minefields, and keep a force of 3000-4000 heavily armed troops on the border to keep those scum out of the Republic.

 

[usernameless]

Omitting Turkey from Iraqi agenda or placing the country into a secondary position due to the pressure from Iran will not create a new and peaceful Iraq
Articles

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi keeps releasing statements with regard to the Bashiqa camp debate, which has heated up again after the Mosul operation came to the fore. Repeating that he does not wish to see the Turkish military in Mosul, al-Abadi added another interesting argument to the "picnic" polemic:

"There is not a picnic in Iraq but a fight against Daish. After we take back Mosul from Daish we would invite them as guests, but for now, there is no place for Turkish soldiers in Iraq since we are occupied with battling Daish and the presence of Turkish soldiers hinders us from doing that."

The argument suggesting that Turkish military hampers the fight against Daish simply makes no sense.

In Bashiqa, Turkey has been conducting train-and-equip initiatives in order to fight Daish in a way that encompasses all the elements of Iraq.

Some Iraqi military officers also took part in that initiative, too.

A couple of days before the first Bashiqa crisis, the Iraqi defense minister paid a visit to the camp and thanked Turkey for its support.

Also, it is known that Ankara has a penchant for using Bashiqa along with international coalition partners.

Furthermore, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım and Foreign Minister Mevlet Çavuşoğlu have remarked numerous times that Turkey does not have any "different" demands regarding Mosul.

The terror caused by Daish and the PKK and the concerns of providing safety in Turkey and Iraq are the most important reasons for Turkey's presence in Bashiqa. Ankara wishes to be at the Mosul table in order to prevent the PKK's consolidation and the change of demographic structure in the region, like in the years of Iraqi occupation.

While other forces, including the U.S., which was not affected by the Iraqi civil war, are in the region, why is Turkey's presence seen as a problem? The answer to this question lies behind what al-Abadi abstained from saying.

Behind the argument that Turkey hampers the fight against Daish lies this message: "We do not want you to prevent us from establishing order and maintaining the demographic structure we want after the purge of Daish."

So, al-Abadi hints that they do not want to see Turkey's influence in the establishment of the new order in Iraq. In other words, they aim to maintain a policy of enhancing the Iranian and Shiite influence, which will leave the local elements in the regions purged of Daish out of the equation.

I wrote in one of my previous columns that the weakest point of the fight against Daish, led by the U.S. is that the post-Daish period is not being planned fairly and realistically. The negative aspects of this policy are now resurfacing one by one. The employment of some terrorist groups as land forces, such as the Shiite militia, the PKK and the Democratic Union Party (PYD), builds ground for a new conflict both among regional forces and local fundamental elements.

The PKK is endeavoring to gain legitimacy under the umbrella of al-Hashd al-Sha'abi (the People's Mobilization), while Sunni Arabs and other local elements are trapped in radicalization even wilder than Daish.

Also, the promises that are not kept in such a chaotic atmosphere shatter the trust between some allies such as the U.S. and Turkey, just as the Obama government has not kept its word regarding the People's Protection Units (YPG) and the PKK and uses and reinforces the PKK in the field under the umbrellas of the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) in Syria and al-Hashd al-Sha'abi in Iraq. Tired of such acts, Ankara wants to be at the front in order to provide its own safety and maintain its cooperation with allies on a reasonable platform.

With Operation Euphrates Shield, imposing hard power in the field as part of the Syria-Iraq context has become a component of Turkey's new policy. This choice undoubtedly brings new tensions, blockages and changing partnerships on to the agenda.

Blamed previously for not fighting Daish, Turkey is now trying to be limited in the field. The U.S., which wanted Turkey's participation in the Mosul operation beforehand, now takes a stance siding with Iraq, and thus Iran. Repeating the same mistakes in Iraq since the occupation of Iraq despite all the warnings, the U.S. is on the brink of a new mistake. Omitting Turkey out of the Iraqi agenda or placing the country into a secondary position due to the pressure from Iran will not create a new and peaceful Iraq. Turkey is the only country that has the potential to support Iraq's integrity by encompassing all the elements in Iraq.

Furthermore, Turkey's friends and neighbors should realize that it is a must for Turkey to fight the threats from all the PKK formations under different names in Iraq and Syria.

http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/duran-burhanettin/2016/10/12/new-iraq-directly-concerns-turkey

 

[CrimsonFury]

Omitting Turkey from Iraqi agenda or placing the country into a secondary position due to the pressure from Iran will not create a new and peaceful Iraq
Articles

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi keeps releasing statements with regard to the Bashiqa camp debate, which has heated up again after the Mosul operation came to the fore. Repeating that he does not wish to see the Turkish military in Mosul, al-Abadi added another interesting argument to the "picnic" polemic:

"There is not a picnic in Iraq but a fight against Daish. After we take back Mosul from Daish we would invite them as guests, but for now, there is no place for Turkish soldiers in Iraq since we are occupied with battling Daish and the presence of Turkish soldiers hinders us from doing that."

The argument suggesting that Turkish military hampers the fight against Daish simply makes no sense.

In Bashiqa, Turkey has been conducting train-and-equip initiatives in order to fight Daish in a way that encompasses all the elements of Iraq.

Some Iraqi military officers also took part in that initiative, too.

A couple of days before the first Bashiqa crisis, the Iraqi defense minister paid a visit to the camp and thanked Turkey for its support.

Also, it is known that Ankara has a penchant for using Bashiqa along with international coalition partners.

Furthermore, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım and Foreign Minister Mevlet Çavuşoğlu have remarked numerous times that Turkey does not have any "different" demands regarding Mosul.

The terror caused by Daish and the PKK and the concerns of providing safety in Turkey and Iraq are the most important reasons for Turkey's presence in Bashiqa. Ankara wishes to be at the Mosul table in order to prevent the PKK's consolidation and the change of demographic structure in the region, like in the years of Iraqi occupation.

While other forces, including the U.S., which was not affected by the Iraqi civil war, are in the region, why is Turkey's presence seen as a problem? The answer to this question lies behind what al-Abadi abstained from saying.

Behind the argument that Turkey hampers the fight against Daish lies this message: "We do not want you to prevent us from establishing order and maintaining the demographic structure we want after the purge of Daish."

So, al-Abadi hints that they do not want to see Turkey's influence in the establishment of the new order in Iraq. In other words, they aim to maintain a policy of enhancing the Iranian and Shiite influence, which will leave the local elements in the regions purged of Daish out of the equation.

I wrote in one of my previous columns that the weakest point of the fight against Daish, led by the U.S. is that the post-Daish period is not being planned fairly and realistically. The negative aspects of this policy are now resurfacing one by one. The employment of some terrorist groups as land forces, such as the Shiite militia, the PKK and the Democratic Union Party (PYD), builds ground for a new conflict both among regional forces and local fundamental elements.

The PKK is endeavoring to gain legitimacy under the umbrella of al-Hashd al-Sha'abi (the People's Mobilization), while Sunni Arabs and other local elements are trapped in radicalization even wilder than Daish.

Also, the promises that are not kept in such a chaotic atmosphere shatter the trust between some allies such as the U.S. and Turkey, just as the Obama government has not kept its word regarding the People's Protection Units (YPG) and the PKK and uses and reinforces the PKK in the field under the umbrellas of the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) in Syria and al-Hashd al-Sha'abi in Iraq. Tired of such acts, Ankara wants to be at the front in order to provide its own safety and maintain its cooperation with allies on a reasonable platform.

With Operation Euphrates Shield, imposing hard power in the field as part of the Syria-Iraq context has become a component of Turkey's new policy. This choice undoubtedly brings new tensions, blockages and changing partnerships on to the agenda.

Blamed previously for not fighting Daish, Turkey is now trying to be limited in the field. The U.S., which wanted Turkey's participation in the Mosul operation beforehand, now takes a stance siding with Iraq, and thus Iran. Repeating the same mistakes in Iraq since the occupation of Iraq despite all the warnings, the U.S. is on the brink of a new mistake. Omitting Turkey out of the Iraqi agenda or placing the country into a secondary position due to the pressure from Iran will not create a new and peaceful Iraq. Turkey is the only country that has the potential to support Iraq's integrity by encompassing all the elements in Iraq.

Furthermore, Turkey's friends and neighbors should realize that it is a must for Turkey to fight the threats from all the PKK formations under different names in Iraq and Syria.

http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/duran-burhanettin/2016/10/12/new-iraq-directly-concerns-turkey

We have no friends or allies in the region

 

[passo_del_bosniako]

https://twitter.com/x/status/786208156644937728

 

[Deliorman]

So what are the demographics of Mosul and it's region? What kind of people live there? Is there even any Shias living there? Seeing a bunch or retards claiming they will kill all Sunnis, Turks and destroy their businesses there etc is worrisome but shows why Iraq is barely a state.

 

[u.MP]

So what are the demographics of Mosul and it's region? What kind of people live there? Is there even any Shias living there? Seeing a bunch or retards claiming they will kill all Sunnis, Turks and destroy their businesses there etc is worrisome but shows why Iraq is barely a state.

Majority Kurds but Ba'ath government brought in more Arabs.

 

[f1000n]

Majority Kurds but Ba'ath government brought in more Arabs.

wrong