Is This Erdogan’s Backdoor For Implementing Safe Zones?

June 26, 2012

Is This Erdogan’s Backdoor For Implementing Safe Zones?

Having lost its reconnaissance plane to the Syrian air defense on Saturday the Turkish government was first holding back. But after having been pushed by the British foreign minister, the French and likely also by the interventionists in Washington the tone of the Turkish government changed.

It demanded a NATO Article 4 consultation which was granted but ended today in a relatively calm statement. It even leaves open where the Turkish plane was hit, within Syrian national waters, as the Syrian government says, or over international waters as the Turks claim. There clearly is suspicion by some NATO countries that Turkey provoked this incident.

But the NATO statement wasn’t enough for the Turkish prime minister. This morning he spoke to the Turkish parliament and I have serious concern that some of his statements were in preparation of creating Turkish protected safe zones for the Syrian insurgents on Syrian ground:

“The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed,” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a televised speech. “Any military element that approaches the Turkish border from Syria and poses a security risk and danger will be regarded as a threat and treated as a military target.”

What is the distance that is described with “approaches the Turkish boarder from Syria”? Is this a fifty meter no-go zone or a 100 miles deep buffer zone within which Turkey will go after any Syrian troop movement?

The insurgents currently dominate in some of the border areas to Turkey. The border-towns in Turkey is where their supplies are coming from. If the Syrian army moves against these insurgents on Syrian ground will that be “regarded as a threat and treated as a military target” by the Turkish government?

It seems that Erdogan plans to act against the Turkish public opinion and to order his military to use a generous interpretation of what “approaches the border” means and starts to attack Syrian troops on Syrian ground. This would be another provocation and likely an escalation on to a full fledged war on Syria.

As a sign of what might come this video and a picture, uploaded only a few hours ago, allegedly showing Turkish tank units deploying towards the Syrian border.

Posted by b on June 26, 2012 at 13:26 UTC | Permalink

Comments

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31697.htm
Let us start with 1984 and dismiss some canards. First, the book was not a prophecy any more than Animal Farm was a story about animals. Reverse the last two numbers, and “1984” becomes “1948,” the time of Austerity. The BBC had already been nicknamed “Big Brother” by Eric Blair/George Orwell when he was working for it during the war, primarily for its paternal, familial comfort. Its cooperation with wartime intelligence and the government in general made Blair see its omnipresence in a dualistic light, as both friend and overseer. In other words, big brother BBC had become a necessary and willing daily adjunct for the people because of its news and entertainment, and then, later, as its ability to condense and control information had become clear (when things were not true until on the BBC), it had been co-opted by government. What Blair saw was the way that an accidentally and exigently, even demotically, assembled network could become indispensable and, once trusted, once indispensable, become an entertaining Pravda.
Postman would argue that commercial television gets a pass into the home for entertainment and then, by its ability to trivialize, flatten, and control, and its desperation to entertain in order to keep its welcome, becomes a medium of denial and repression. In short, Postman’s critique of television is the same as Orwell’s “Big Brother,” except that Orwell seemingly never discussed the pleasures of Big Brother, and television in the United States was decentralized. These differences are somewhat illusory, however.

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 3:56 utc | 101

Hopefully this is not too OT:
Don’t know if this applies to LCD screens: http://voices.yahoo.com/your-brain-waves-change-watch-tv-low-alpha-349221.html?cat=25

. . . In an experiment in 1969, Herbert Krugman monitored a person through many trials and found that in less than one minute of television viewing, the person’s brainwaves switched from Beta waves– brainwaves associated with active, logical thought– to primarily Alpha waves. When the subject stopped watching television and began reading a magazine, the brainwaves reverted to Beta waves.
One thing this indicates is that most parts of the brain, parts responsible for logical thought, tune out during television viewing. . . .

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 4:00 utc | 102

http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1149/pg2/index.html
Television, however, is a drug that is actually essential to maintaining the social infrastructure. Why? Because it brainwashes consumers to throw money at the gaping void of their meaningless, terror-filled lives. And by brainwashed, I mean they’ve been hypnotized using very subtle and established techniques which, when coupled with television’s natural effects on brain waves, make for the most ambitious psychological engineering ruse ever concocted.
Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high frequency alpha waves does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland’s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.
I should note that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the “light hypnotic” state used by hypno-therapists for suggestion therapy.

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jun 28 2012 4:02 utc | 103

Real reason Turkey deploy tanks on syrian border is probbaly because PKK rebels are entering turkey from syria
3 turkish soldiers killed by PKK
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/28290.html

Posted by: nikon | Jun 28 2012 14:05 utc | 104

I still think Turkey is masquerading as pro-NATO while conspiring with Damascus for intel feed-back purposes. Turkey has not yet committed any hostile/destructive act against Syria. And what is the cash value of an old F4?
Imo, the Turks would LOVE to play NATO’s liars for suckers and they’re probably still thanking their lucky stars that they missed out joining the EU. Also, contrary to an earlier inference by anna souri, the Turks consider themselves to be courageous and chivalrous in military matters – which can’t and won’t ever be said by, or about, US-NATO.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 28 2012 17:22 utc | 105

Note: I posted the BBC link to show what is being put out for Great Britain and the world to “know” as truth. But I also was interested to see if any others have noticed the Western media is using “regime” less and “government” more when referring to Syria’s situation.
Hu Bris — I’m not going to smash my TV as it still functions for viewing movies on DVD’s and –yes, I’m that old and my equipment is that old– VCR’s.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 28 2012 19:08 utc | 106

Back to Main