Pakistani style chitrol by a commentator of FT article defaming Turkey's moves in Idlib, loved it! (original article:
https://www.ft.com/content/b23bb8e8-53c2-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1)
One point I made, which shows open biased against the country and I will repeat it is there was no mention in the FT as in many western media that five of the ten people killed in the terrorist attack in Germany were Turkish citizens. This is done to prevent any empathy towards the people of Turkey and the country. Also comments are carefully selected to which subject they are allowed and which subject they are not allowed whipping up hate against one country and to prevent negative feeling and criticism towards another country. We all know which country that is.
Second in regards to this article. The quotation made by Erdogan is wrong. He said we would push back Assad army to where the borders are of Iblib, beyond all the observation posts Turkey has there under agreement. Of course to mention that some of Turkey's observation posts are surrounded by Assad army gives Turkey a justification that the author does not want people to know.
It should be mentioned that Erdogan had good relations with Assad, but changed directly and only when Assad started killing his own civilian population who wanted more rights and democracy. The FT knows that all of Turkey's observation posts are in the outer areas on Iblib, along its border. So why say Russia expected Turkey to push out 'Jihadist'. More correct that the agreement asked Turkey to prevent 'terrorist' groups and not 'Jihadist' and in particular makes mention of the group Hayat Tahrir al sham. Under the agreement they are to be moved from the border area and all other heavy weapons from whichever group to withdrawn from the border, which was done.
The article fails to mention that Iblib like about ten other places that Assad has already taken over were 'de-escalation' areas. Every article fails to mention that there are the amount of Hayat Tahrir al sham in Iblib because they were transported there by Assad's army under agreement for the to surrender from other de-escalation areas of Syria. The link shows map of where Turkey's observation posts are. It also shows where Iranian with Hezbollah where their posts are. They don't even get a mention in any FT articles about Turkey/Syria. Clearly to prevent a negative view of Assad's Syria.
https://www.qasioun-news.com/en/staticmap/view/2383/ Turkish officials have not only mentioned concern that the 3.5 million Iblib civilian population would be left to the mercy of Assad's army as well as Iranian and Hezbollah fighters, but they would all be forced to flee to Turkey for refuge. Hospitals, schools, markets and civilians have been targeted first to force the majority Sunni (85% before the war) population to leave the country for Turkey. This is clear ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, so for the article to now make out that Assad is a legitimate leader is a grave injustice. No mention that he should be trailed in the Hague. That court seems only for people who no longer have power or for non western supporting African leaders. Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people. This is conveniently forgotten and never mentioned. How many years after Saddam Hussain did the same were we remained again and again decades later!
Also Turkey's army has not withdrawn anywhere. This is factually not correct. Turkey still has its 12 observation posts and refuses to leave these posts. Turkey has now moved troops to other parts of Iblib for the first time. The 3.5 million people of Iblib, the 4 million Syrian refugees in Turkey (including the 350,000 Syrian Kurds) and about another 500,000 in other parts of Turkish controlled Syria all support Turkey's stance in Syria. Considering that there are another 2 million Syrian refugees in other countries and there are 1.8 Syrian Kurds who also do not support Assad, then clearly Turkey has more support than Assad and a clear mandate!
Many of terrorist in Iblib were transferred there from other areas of Syria that surrendered and were transferred to Iblib by Assad's army. Turkey is not in any position to kill these people just to plaase Russia and Assad. The agreement does not request Turkey to do so and impossible to do so with just 12 observation posts on the outer areas of Iblib. So when there are no Turkish troops allowed in Iblib town under the agreement, then how could Turkey by magic be expect to clear these people out of that city!!! The agreement made no impossible demands on Turkey, as FT is suggesting and getting round this fact by saying Russia has said this or that.
The article goes on and on with what Russia says. We all know that they are number one at spreading false information and in Syria they say that they do not target hospital, schools, markets and civilian areas, when all of us clearly do know they do.
The reason Turkey has rejected a new agreement for Iblib is not as article states that the ' which they said would leave Idlib’s 3m inhabitants “at the mercy of the [Assad] regime' It is because it goes against the agreements made before. The article fails to make mention of the other de-escalation around Syria, which have already been overrun by Assad army, Iranian and Hezbollah troops. Funny no mention of the Iranian and Hezbollah troops that Assad could not win without them. The whole article is giving a negative view of Turkey's position and a positive one of Assad and Russia, by not mentioning key facts and avoiding mention to other ones.
Turkey has a agreement with Russia and Iran over Iblib and clearly they have rights to be there under the agreement and Assad army has not. So it has nothing to do with the MHP nationalist party putting pressure on Turkey to stay.
In the whole article Russia is always referred to as Russia or Moscow. Putin name does not come up once. While Turkey is referred mostly as Erdogan. The war against Iraq was always referred to as the war against Saddam Hussain by the western media. This is a journalist tactic to favour one side against another. We see it with France24, DW and the BBC always giving what Russia has said and mentioning less what Turkey has said and in many cases as I have pointed out their position not fearly being mentioned correctly.
Putin sees that the western media will take his side with any war with Turkey and as many of these media are state owned or belonging to media barons close to the their governments at best these three countries will stay out of any conflict with Turkey. This giving a green light for Putin and as Putin wants to break up NATO and this is best way. France under Macron also wants the breakup of NATO to be replaced by the EU, knowing that he is likely to be leader of. The US had said to Turkish officials that they will give support to Turkey, but nothing has materialized. Turkey cannot even buy Patriots air defensive system from the US and it will not install its own in Turkey.
All this giving a green light for Putin. It is sad that Turkey has stood by NATO and defended the Middle East and its oil from Russian, to be 70 years later abandoned in such a traitorous way.
Btw, for my Turkish brothers, 'chitrol' means taking apart an argument point by point
