What's new

US, UK soldiers wear terrorist YPG uniforms in Syria camps

I am a hater of the US policies as much as any guy on this forum but lately America bashing has become so common that we have started to forget everything else.

Not to defend the US but looking back, this whole US-ypg mess is as much our fault as it is US'.

Back around 2012 when the international coalition to fight daesh was formed the US first came to us asking for help. They said "you are our nato ally and you have a 900 km border with Syria, you are the most effective factor against daesh and we need your help". But you know what we did? We refused. First we offered the hostage situation as an excuse (our embassy staff were taken hostage by ISIS). But then CIA helped us rescue those guys, and the US asked what now? You know what we did? You guessed it right. We refused to join in.

Then the US had no chance but to find another partner. And they found ypg. When it was too late we ran back to the US and asked them to stop what they are saying. But they said "you are an unreliable ally. You refused to help us when we needed your help. You made up excuses and even when we helped resolve those you still refused. We have moved on, we have a new ally now."
And to be frank they are at least partially right.

What we did was a strategic mistake. But it is time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the present.

By now it is clear that the ypg is much more important to the US than Turkey. This means that if the time comes to choose between Turkey and ypg they will choose the latter. This means Turkey has two options. Either we make peace with the situation, forget everything that happened, make friends with the US and ypg like we did with barzani and use the situation to our advantage. (remember, at least now that ypg has formed an entity we know where to hit when it comes to that) the second option is to burn the bridges, take all the risk and attack while we still have the chance. I doubt that the US will open war against us just because we attacked Ypg but I am sure that they will do everything else. We will be harmed big time, no doubt in that but at least we will have accomplished something.

Sorry for the long post



there was no DAESH in Syria in 2012 ... and TURKEY recognized DAESH as Terrorist Organization before The US and European Union

so The Global Coalition against Daesh was formed in September 2014
and TURKEY always said that NATO Countries should fight togerther against DAESH but THE US always forced Turkey alone to fight against DAESH

and Turkey left alone in its fight against Daesh

Turkey and The US easly would destroy DAESH in a few months..... wtf Daesh ? but The US always had dirty plan in Syria

if Turkey alone enter Syria in 2014, then there would be a conflict between Turkey and Syrian Regime+Iran

when Turkey understood dirty American plan in Syria ,, Turkey decided to enter Syria but Pkk started to rebellion in Turkey also American backed traitor GULENIST Pilots shot down Russian Jet

in finally TURKEY entered Syria with Russian helping and blocked American-Israeli backed Terror coridor in Syria


The US created DAESH to use in the region for American-Israeli interests and The US - YPG Terrorists captured 40% of Syrian Territory under the Mask of fighting against DAESH


TURKEY never will allow Terror coridor in Syria and Its time to kick our NATO ally's little b.tch YPG in Syria

The US can not fight against TURKEY ... and The US can not stop Turkish Armed Forces
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
These people are snakes, don't expect anything from them. We learnt after destroying our economy and having 70,000 dead. Turkey should learn from our mistake, wage an all out war against these groups, otherwise you'll suffer the same.
 
. .
Edward Snowden leaked NSA documents show THE US , Israel created
the DAESH

https://globalnews7.wordpress.com/2...uments-show-u-s-israel-created-islamic-state/

Edward Snowden has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad (Israel’s intelligence agency) worked together to create DAESH


Our NATO allies support Pkk Terrorism against TURKEY since 1990s
and Its time to kick our NATO ally's little b.tch YPG in Syria

Iran’s English-language daily newspaper, the Tehran Times, recently ran a front-page story describing the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria’s (ISIS) June offensive in Iraq as part of a U.S.-backed plot to destabilize the region and protect Israel. The story was an English translation of a scoop by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), which cited a purported interview with National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden.

According to the article, Snowden had described a joint U.S., British and Israeli effort to “create a terrorist organization capable of centralizing all extremist actions across the world.” The plan, according to IRNA, was code-named Beehive — or in other translations, Hornet’s Nest — and it was devised to protect Israel from security threats by diverting attention to the newly manufactured regional enemy: ISIS.

The IRNA story appears to build on, or may have even started, an Internet rumor that has assumed truthlike proportions through multiple reposts and links. No mention of a “hornet’s nest” plot can be found in Snowden’s leaked trove of U.S. intelligence documents, and even though Snowden has not publicly refuted the claim, it is safe to assume that the quoted interview never took place. (IRNA has been known to report stories from the satirical Onion newspaper as fact.) Yet Iranian government officials and independent analysts in Iran alike cited IRNA’s report as definitive proof of ISIS’s American and Israeli origins.

Back when former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in power, it was not unusual to see IRNA echoing specious wild theories dreamed up by the leadership, but since the more moderate Hassan Rouhani assumed the presidency in August 2013, the security establishment’s nuttier fantasies of deranged plots against Iran have been largely reined in. That is, until ISIS spilled out of Syria and started setting up camp next door in Iraq, where Iran has tight ties with the Shi‘ite-dominated government in Baghdad.
Even before the Snowden scoop made the rounds of Iran’s media, military commanders, citing their own sources of intelligence, struck a similar theme. On June 18, Fars News Agency quoted Major General Hassan Firoozabadi, Chief of Staff of Iran’s armed forces, saying that ISIS “is an Israel and America[n] movement for the creation of a secure border for the Zionists against the forces of resistance in the region.” That Iran’s media, along with its leaders, is focusing on ISIS’s supposed external backers — as opposed to its origins in local terrorist groups, al-Qaeda and popular discontent in both Syria and Iraq — demonstrates a concerted effort to streamline the national narrative in order to project power and preserve stability. As an example of another Western plot against Iran, ISIS can be managed — so goes Iran’s thinking. But as a new, potentially more destabilizing threat on Iran’s borders, ISIS poses challenges that the leadership is still struggling to understand and respond to. The only problem is that dismissing ISIS as a Zionist conspiracy could end up undermining Iran far more than any supposed American plot.

In its previous incarnation as an Iraqi al-Qaeda affiliate, ISIS has been responsible for thousands of Shi‘ite deaths in terrorist attacks since its formation in 2003. The group’s current success in Iraq — by some estimates it now controls a third of Iraq’s territory, including the city of Mosul — has as much to do with its considerable funding and military prowess as it does the weaknesses of the Iraqi state, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an Iranian-backed Shi‘ite who has alienated Iraq’s large Sunni minority. Now that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has declared himself the emir of a caliphate spanning the Syrian-Iraqi border, he continues to advocate violence against members of the Shi‘ite sect, whom he calls apostates, and has threatened to destroy Shi‘ite holy sites in an attempt to ignite an Islamic sectarian civil war. That would likely cause the Iranian-backed government in Baghdad to collapse, forcing Iran to send in troops and sparking a region-wide conflagration.


Yet Iranian government officials refuse to accept that there is a sectarian root to ISIS’s agenda, or that ISIS was able to advance in part because of Sunni discontent. When American leaders suggested that al-Maliki’s Shi‘ite chauvinism may have played a role in rallying Sunni support for the ISIS advance into Iraq, and suggested he step down, Iranians saw it as a direct threat to their influence. “When ISIS started advancing into Iraq, the first thing the Americans said was that Maliki should be changed,” says Hossein Shariatmadari, editor in chief of the government-owned conservative daily Kayhan. “Maliki was democratically elected, so what does he have to do with it? Nothing. The Americans wanted to cut the ties between Iran and Iraq.”


Instead Iran has declared the group a region-wide terrorist threat that funded and peopled by outsiders, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies. So far Iran says it has not gotten directly involved in Iraq, though it is prepared to do so if necessary. (Official statements aside, there is significant evidence of Iranian support in the form of military weaponry, assistance and training, if not troops on the ground.) But if Iran does take a hand in the battle against ISIS, it will do so in the name of fighting terrorism — and not for the cause of supporting its Shi‘ite ally in government.

That’s a canny move that could explain, in part, the government line, says a Western diplomat in Tehran. To go in with an overtly sectarian agenda would invite a regional backlash that could harm Iranian interests and threaten the state. “It is in the best interest of Iran to present this group as terrorists, because that way no one can accuse Iran of backing Shi‘ites against a Sunni movement,” says the diplomat.


But if Iran continues to back Maliki against the will of a disgruntled, powerful and armed Sunni minority in Iraq, it could still invoke a backlash all the same. Which might explain why the government line also plays up the American and Mossad angle a familiar trope. If it all collapses, Iran can still blame the West for the debacle, says the diplomat. “If Iran can convince its people that there is a plot against the country that must be countered, while at the same time providing a narrative of counterterror to the world, they are protecting their interests and hedging their bets at the same time.”

Why IRNA had to concoct something so obviously fictional as a fake Snowden interview to bolster the narrative is still unclear. Even Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan, is mystified. “I thought this interview was strange too, because all this happened after Snowden had access to those documents,” he tells TIME. Nonetheless, he ran the story on his front page as well.

— With reporting by Kay Armin Serjoie / Tehran

http://time.com/2992269/isis-is-an-american-plot-says-iran/
 
.
Iran’s English-language daily newspaper, the Tehran Times, recently ran a front-page story describing the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria’s (ISIS) June offensive in Iraq as part of a U.S.-backed plot to destabilize the region and protect Israel. The story was an English translation of a scoop by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), which cited a purported interview with National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden.

According to the article, Snowden had described a joint U.S., British and Israeli effort to “create a terrorist organization capable of centralizing all extremist actions across the world.” The plan, according to IRNA, was code-named Beehive — or in other translations, Hornet’s Nest — and it was devised to protect Israel from security threats by diverting attention to the newly manufactured regional enemy: ISIS.

The IRNA story appears to build on, or may have even started, an Internet rumor that has assumed truthlike proportions through multiple reposts and links. No mention of a “hornet’s nest” plot can be found in Snowden’s leaked trove of U.S. intelligence documents, and even though Snowden has not publicly refuted the claim, it is safe to assume that the quoted interview never took place. (IRNA has been known to report stories from the satirical Onion newspaper as fact.) Yet Iranian government officials and independent analysts in Iran alike cited IRNA’s report as definitive proof of ISIS’s American and Israeli origins.

Back when former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in power, it was not unusual to see IRNA echoing specious wild theories dreamed up by the leadership, but since the more moderate Hassan Rouhani assumed the presidency in August 2013, the security establishment’s nuttier fantasies of deranged plots against Iran have been largely reined in. That is, until ISIS spilled out of Syria and started setting up camp next door in Iraq, where Iran has tight ties with the Shi‘ite-dominated government in Baghdad.
Even before the Snowden scoop made the rounds of Iran’s media, military commanders, citing their own sources of intelligence, struck a similar theme. On June 18, Fars News Agency quoted Major General Hassan Firoozabadi, Chief of Staff of Iran’s armed forces, saying that ISIS “is an Israel and America[n] movement for the creation of a secure border for the Zionists against the forces of resistance in the region.” That Iran’s media, along with its leaders, is focusing on ISIS’s supposed external backers — as opposed to its origins in local terrorist groups, al-Qaeda and popular discontent in both Syria and Iraq — demonstrates a concerted effort to streamline the national narrative in order to project power and preserve stability. As an example of another Western plot against Iran, ISIS can be managed — so goes Iran’s thinking. But as a new, potentially more destabilizing threat on Iran’s borders, ISIS poses challenges that the leadership is still struggling to understand and respond to. The only problem is that dismissing ISIS as a Zionist conspiracy could end up undermining Iran far more than any supposed American plot.

In its previous incarnation as an Iraqi al-Qaeda affiliate, ISIS has been responsible for thousands of Shi‘ite deaths in terrorist attacks since its formation in 2003. The group’s current success in Iraq — by some estimates it now controls a third of Iraq’s territory, including the city of Mosul — has as much to do with its considerable funding and military prowess as it does the weaknesses of the Iraqi state, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an Iranian-backed Shi‘ite who has alienated Iraq’s large Sunni minority. Now that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has declared himself the emir of a caliphate spanning the Syrian-Iraqi border, he continues to advocate violence against members of the Shi‘ite sect, whom he calls apostates, and has threatened to destroy Shi‘ite holy sites in an attempt to ignite an Islamic sectarian civil war. That would likely cause the Iranian-backed government in Baghdad to collapse, forcing Iran to send in troops and sparking a region-wide conflagration.


Yet Iranian government officials refuse to accept that there is a sectarian root to ISIS’s agenda, or that ISIS was able to advance in part because of Sunni discontent. When American leaders suggested that al-Maliki’s Shi‘ite chauvinism may have played a role in rallying Sunni support for the ISIS advance into Iraq, and suggested he step down, Iranians saw it as a direct threat to their influence. “When ISIS started advancing into Iraq, the first thing the Americans said was that Maliki should be changed,” says Hossein Shariatmadari, editor in chief of the government-owned conservative daily Kayhan. “Maliki was democratically elected, so what does he have to do with it? Nothing. The Americans wanted to cut the ties between Iran and Iraq.”


Instead Iran has declared the group a region-wide terrorist threat that funded and peopled by outsiders, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies. So far Iran says it has not gotten directly involved in Iraq, though it is prepared to do so if necessary. (Official statements aside, there is significant evidence of Iranian support in the form of military weaponry, assistance and training, if not troops on the ground.) But if Iran does take a hand in the battle against ISIS, it will do so in the name of fighting terrorism — and not for the cause of supporting its Shi‘ite ally in government.

That’s a canny move that could explain, in part, the government line, says a Western diplomat in Tehran. To go in with an overtly sectarian agenda would invite a regional backlash that could harm Iranian interests and threaten the state. “It is in the best interest of Iran to present this group as terrorists, because that way no one can accuse Iran of backing Shi‘ites against a Sunni movement,” says the diplomat.


But if Iran continues to back Maliki against the will of a disgruntled, powerful and armed Sunni minority in Iraq, it could still invoke a backlash all the same. Which might explain why the government line also plays up the American and Mossad angle a familiar trope. If it all collapses, Iran can still blame the West for the debacle, says the diplomat. “If Iran can convince its people that there is a plot against the country that must be countered, while at the same time providing a narrative of counterterror to the world, they are protecting their interests and hedging their bets at the same time.”

Why IRNA had to concoct something so obviously fictional as a fake Snowden interview to bolster the narrative is still unclear. Even Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan, is mystified. “I thought this interview was strange too, because all this happened after Snowden had access to those documents,” he tells TIME. Nonetheless, he ran the story on his front page as well.

— With reporting by Kay Armin Serjoie / Tehran

http://time.com/2992269/isis-is-an-american-plot-says-iran/
LOL Don't worry. let them blame all their ills on the U.S, U.K and Israel as usual, they are never responsible for anything that happen in their countries/region. Anyway, I think we are already used to hearing this, nothing new there to be honest.
 
.
LOL Don't worry. let them blame all their ills on the U.S, U.K and Israel as usual, they are never responsible for anything that happen in their countries/region. Anyway, I think we are already used to hearing this, nothing new there to be honest.
You cant deny the destabilizing factor of some western powers in ME.
 
. . . . .
dubya fucked the shit up big time but tell me fam what does that gotta to do wit dis?
I thought you were referring to my post above.


Yes, the constant attacks by the Western Powers on the Daesh,
destabilizes the ambitions of islamists.
No im talking about the illegal wars fought in the name of democracy, ME was bad with dictators but got worse with the democracy brought by US.

Ironically those radical islamists were under check with the dictators, now they roam freely and chop off heads which gives US even more legitimacy to interfere.
You dont need to be a rocket scientist to see what US is trying to do in this region, if it was about bringing democracy then i have to say they failed miserably.
 
.
You cant deny the destabilizing factor of some western powers in ME.
The way some people in your region talk, one might think people in this region are so foolish and dumb that we can simply use them and manipulate them as we please. It's like saying they are little children been abused by adults, as such they cant be blamed as they are not old enough to be responsible for any of their actions. lol
That will mean we are so super smart and intelligent that we can use the world as we please. That's how it sounds when many of you blame all their ills on the West. This is getting tiring to be honest.
 
.
The way some people in your region talk, one might think people in this region are so foolish and dumb that we can simply use them and manipulate them as we please. It's like saying they are little children been abused by adults, as such they cant be blamed as they are not old enough to be responsible for any of their actions. lol
That will mean we are so super smart and intelligent that we can use the world as we please. That's how it sounds when many of you blame all their ills on the West. This is getting tiring to be honest.
You know what mike, this is exactly whats happening in ME.
 
.
No im talking about the illegal wars fought in the name of democracy, ME was bad with dictators but got worse with the democracy brought by US.
That's not entirely correct. It depends on who you ask, for many Iraqis(vast majority are Shias) the U.S/British invasion and toppling of Saddam was one of the best thing they could ever hope for. They were the main people pleading with western powers to help them get rid of their Sunni oppressor/dictator Saddam so they can take control of their country. So there again many of them might not agree with your point.
 
.
That's not entirely correct. It depends on who you ask, for many Iraqis(vast majority are Shias) the U.S/British invasion and toppling of Saddam was one of the best thing they could ever hope for. They were the main people pleading with western powers to help them get rid of their Sunni oppressor/dictator Saddam so they can take control of their country. So there again many of them might not agree with your point.
This is for the sectarian reasons, put that a side and look at the general situation in Iraq and ME, after Saddams fall a number of terrorist groups emerged from the created chaos and power vacuum.
The same goes for Syria and Libya.
And im not even blaming the west only, even Turkey has its share in it but we must focus on the starting point and who thought it would be a good idea the mess up Iraq like this.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom