Quantcast

Turkey: imperial ambitions?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/27 20:52:33
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Last Friday, a reconnaissance jet took off from Turkey, strayed
briefly over Syria, and never returned. Syrian anti-aircraft gunners
shot it down. Turkey and Syria have been allies for a long time. No
more, it seems. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said something
yesterday that was so warlike that he walked it back later. But
Erdoğan’s earlier acts and attitudes suggest that none of this was an
accident.


Turkey loses a plane

The jet ditched
in the Mediterranean after taking anti-aircraft fire from Syria. The
pilot and his observer are still missing; most people presume them dead.
The Syrians said almost at once that the plane had breached Syrian airspace, and the anti-aircraft gunners had shot at it as a matter of course.


At first, Prime Minster Erdoğan did not seem angry about losing the
plane. That changed over the weekend. First, he went to his fellow
heads-of-state in NATO. He used a channel that the North Atlantic Treaty
sets up for just this kind of complaint. Then yesterday he warned Syria not to come near the Syrian-Turkish border.
If any Syrian troops did, Turkey would order its troops to shoot at
them. “Don’t test us,” Erdoğan said in effect. The most ominous thing he
said was:


The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed.


In other words: we will shoot on sight.


Later, Focus News Agency quoted Agence France-Presse as saying that Erdoğan walked that back somewhat.


As Turkey, the Turkish nation, we have no intention of attacking [Syria]. We don’t have any hostile attitude toward any country.


Or does he? Already American and other officials are wondering: what was that plane doing? Was it on a routine training flight, and did it merely stray over Syria? Or did Turkey send that plane over Syria on purpose? The New York Times
says that the American officials think that Turkey was spying on Syria.
They would have an almost perfectly good reason. Syria is in civil war,
and the Syrian resistance has camped out on the Turkish side of the
border. (And now Erdoğan has put those camps under Turkish protection.)
But the history of Turkey and of Erdoğan suggests another,
further-reaching reason.


An Ottoman Revival?

Since September of 2011, everyone in the region who cares to know,
has known what Turkey really wants. Turkey was once the center of the
Ottoman Empire. That Empire lasted for more than 600 years and held sway
over much of Europe, Asia, northern Africa, and especially the Middle
East. The last Ottoman Sultan made the mistake of entering the First
World War on the German/Austrian side. The Turks lost that war, and with
it their entire empire and the sultanate.


On September 23, 2011, Israel Hayom wrote this pieceon the site t


Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. Photo: Loukas Papadimos/Prothupourgos tis Elladas, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.


hat former Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold runs. In it, Hayom took note
of the anti-Israel rhetoric from Erdoğan. But he also noted something
else: Erdoğan was throwing his weight around in the region, and not
against Israel alone. The Russians in fact took note, and said bluntly:


Turkey wants to revive the Ottoman Empire.


Six days later, this piece came out in Time. Erdoğan, in an interview, almost boasted about Ottoman history and what was “beautiful” about it.


In short, Erdoğan has not only admitted but avowed that he would like to make Turkey a superpower like the old Ottoman Empire. Incredibly, most people forgot about that.


Until now. Last night, Bret Baier’s “All Star Panel” on his Special Report
program on Fox talked about Turkey, the shoot-down, and Erdoğan’s
answer. One panelist reminded everyone of Erdoğan’s ambitions. Then he
suggested that Erdoğan might really want to encourage the Syrian
resistance to camp out on the Syrian side, while still protecting them as he is now obviously doing. His goal: to see Bashir Assad fall from power in Syria. His further goal is to make Turkey the boss of the Arab lands, as it once was before Lawrence of Arabia changed that.


So maybe Turkey didn’t merely lose a plane. Maybe it sent that plane
to do more than spy, and certainly more than train. Might that pilot
have had orders to “stray” over Syria? A small recon plane,
plus bounties to the families of a pilot and his observer, might seem a
small price to pay to bring back an empire. And when Erdoğan says that
he “has no intention” to attack, he might be protesting a bit too much.


What would that mean for the region, and especially for Israel?
Certainly it would mean another complication. After all, the first
Zionist pioneers bought the land back from absentee Ottoman landlords.
But the rest of the world might want to take notice, if Erdoğan suddenly
starts talking about grand treaties of peace in the Middle East. Like,
maybe, a treaty for seven years?

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/27...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2012/06/28 05:06:16
    Undecided
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +2
    The key word here is not Turkey, but NATO. The intent is to draw Turkey into initiating the war and thus set a pretext for NATO intervention. This incident with the plane came close. Kurdish rebels have been attacking Turkey and then returning to Syria. Russia is providing aid to Syria and now has special forces there. This thing could greatly expand. Turkey's proximity to Russia and Turkey's membership in NATO could lead to a regional conflict. Along with other western European nations, Greece is also a member of NATO. This brings up the conundrum, "If Russia entered Turkey from the rear, would Greece help?"
  • Cap 2012/06/28 03:00:49
    No. Nothing to see here. Move on.
    Cap
    +2
    Temlakos, many of your posts are impressively insightful, but there are so many reasons that a Turkish warplane might fly into Syrian airspace that extensive speculation based on that fact alone is like a student in geometry trying to define a plane when all s/he knows about it is one point it contains. Your musings are interesting, but spectacularly premature.
  • ScottyG - Faqueue 2012/06/28 02:23:17
    Undecided
    ScottyG - Faqueue
    +2
    I think Turkey has enough other issues to deal with. They won't be empire building for quite some time.
  • redhorse29 2012/06/28 00:55:30
    No. Nothing to see here. Move on.
    redhorse29
    I think Turkey at NATO's direction made a mistake and got caught. Remember the plane was shot down and found well within Syrian waters. The response was a shock. The death unfortunate. But Turkey is not on any kind of power trip.
  • Cyan9 2012/06/28 00:33:51 (edited)
    No. Nothing to see here. Move on.
    Cyan9
    +1
    This is absurd. Syria isn't some saintly country and it's time Murdoch and Friends stop defending Putin's puppet dictatorship. They shot down a reconnaissance plane on a test mission down after it strayed into disputed(Internationale? Syrian?) airspace. If Syria wasn't so paranoid they could have easily avoided this result. They were lucky Turkey didn't immediately escalate the situation. Assad is on his last days and Turkey sure doesn't want the collapse of the Syrian government to bring them into it.
  • Temlako... Cyan9 2012/06/28 01:03:20
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    I didn't say that the Syrians were saints. Frankly, they and the Turks deserve each other.

    But you can't deny that Erdoğan has boasted about his territorial ambitions for months. Wasn't that shoot-down a predictable result?
  • BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/27 23:43:23
    Undecided
    BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I thought most Turks were over here running kebab shops, & drug rings
  • Kiosk Kid 2012/06/27 23:38:21
    Undecided
    Kiosk Kid
    +2
    Turkey doesn't like its planes shot down just like other countries don't like their planes shot down.

    Turkey's response was normal.
  • Temlako... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 01:05:23
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    It would be, but suppose Turkey sent that plane up to provoke Syria? Which would be exceedingly easy to do.

    Nor do I mean to suggest that American intervention, on either or any side, would be appropriate, necessary, or profitable.
  • Kiosk Kid Temlako... 2012/06/28 01:28:09
    Kiosk Kid
    Countries send planes up to test other countires defenses. However, getting locked onto tells the country sending the plane up that they could be shot down.

    There is no actual reason to shoot down the plane unless you are trying to make a political point to the world.
  • Icono1 2012/06/27 23:35:44
    Yes. Turkey wants to revive the old Ottoman Empire.
    Icono1
    +3
    With so much instability in the area with Iran rising the Turks may want to establish at least a peaceful 'Arab' buffer zone around their country.

    Now a true Caliphate would be a tall order in today's Muslim world with all of the extremist factions vying for power and dominance.
  • Red_Horse 2012/06/27 23:24:25 (edited)
  • Temlako... Red_Horse 2012/06/27 23:25:40
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +3
    Nevertheless, Erdoğan got the result he wanted: an incident.
  • Red_Horse Temlako... 2012/06/27 23:39:35 (edited)
  • Temlako... Red_Horse 2012/06/28 01:07:07 (edited)
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    Yes. Does that surprise you? Those people don't think the way we do. We *hope* that no person, elected President of the United States, would never issue such a bloodthirsty, Machiavellian (or Borgian) order. But Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could teach Niccolo Machiavelli a thing or two about corrupt diplomacy.

    But I have no brief for American intervention. Frankly, I say to stay a million miles away from that conflict. They deserve each other.
  • Red_Horse Temlako... 2012/06/28 01:57:56
  • Theresa 2012/06/27 23:16:44
    Yes. Turkey wants to revive the old Ottoman Empire.
    Theresa
    +3
    Actually they want to create the Caliphate which would be 20 times larger than the Ottomans ever were.
  • texasred 2012/06/27 23:03:34
    Undecided
    texasred
    +4
    If they didn't have so many other problems, this could be a possibility. Right now, they don't have time for empire building.
  • abycinnamon BN-1 2012/06/27 23:01:03
    No. Nothing to see here. Move on.
    abycinnamon BN-1
    +2
    Yet another reason to not watch fox. This is a silly idea. It would be WWIII.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/27 23:45:53 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +2
    What does Fox have to do with it except to provide news facts?

    We are having a logical discussion and so far the Liberal has only produce a fallacy (breakdown in logic).

    If you want to participate in the discussion, provide facts not party line crap.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/27 23:53:29 (edited)
    abycinnamon BN-1
    +1
    faux does not provide facts. Faux provides breathless propaganda and makes mountains out of molehills when people they don't like do things, and when people they do like do the very same things - well - that's completely different. Faux is not news.

    I mention them because the very idea that turkey would try to reconstruct the ottoman empire is absurd on its face, and is just the sort of inane crap that faux broadcasts so you, the vapid audience, have something else about which to be terribly, terribly upset.

    And you call my opinion a fallacy. Well - it's not a fact. It's an opinion. This is an opinion site. I think concluding that because a shooting at the syrian border happened, turkey is going to rebuild the ottoman empire, is probably one of the most stupid ideas I've heard in a long time. And that is not a party line. It's my opinion. I have no idea what the party thinks about this.

    But if you want to insult me for having this opinion, well go right ahead. It says a lot more about you than it says about me. Nothing I didn't know already, however. Do you even know what the ottoman empire was? I'm thinking not.

    I think it's time for this graphic:
    lame
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/28 00:15:42 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    Ok you spewed an accusation, Standard Liberal Operating Procedures (SLOP).

    Let me slam the Liberal with facts provided by Fox New with a Fox News reference.

    "Turkey warned Syria on Tuesday to keep its forces away from the countries' troubled border or risk an armed response — a furious reply to the downing of a Turkish military plane last week by the Damascus regime.

    NATO backed up Turkey and condemned Syria for shooting down the plane but stopped short of threatening military action, reflecting its reluctance to get involved in a conflict that could ignite a broader war."

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/...

    Argue with it but the Marxist can't! You will have to cut and run again when faced with facts! Let me give you a fact, Marxism doesn't work!
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 00:30:14 (edited)
    abycinnamon BN-1
    What accusation - that faux is a crappy source? The fact that you all are talking about the ottoman empire speaks for itself. Okay - I will concede that they do provide the occasional fact during their regular news broadcast. The majority of their problem is with their little shows. But they keep their inane audience going with their conspiracy theories - and this question is one of them.

    The fact that you paint all liberals with the same brush, and that you have little names for us, also tells me a lot about you and it's not flattering.

    The fact that you are baselessly calling me a marxist - well - that makes you a bigot. Congratulations. I hope you're proud of yourself.

    Turkey having a conflict with syria is hardly reconsitituting the ottoman empire - or is that what you think the ottoman empire was? A "broader war" would obviously refer to turkey vs syria. So then why are all you geniuses talking about the ottoman empire? Oh right - it was the show ON FAUX.

    And for those fools who think that turkey wants a caliphate - turkey has a secular government and they seem to be quite happy with that.

    I can't help but notice you are focusing on picking on me and completely avoiding discussing the topic at hand. Which I am discussing. Why is that? did I frighten you? Or are you really not interested in a discussion - you just want to personally attack me?
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/28 01:08:22 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    When a Liberal can't argue with my facts, they spew the fallacy of "shooting the messenger." In otherwords, they make a personal attack on me or Fox News and cut and run on the facts.

    Let me slam the Liberal with facts about your fallacy.

    "Killing the Messenger (Argumentum ad Hominem)

    “This fallacy disagrees with an argument by attacking the person who makes the argument.”

    http://depts.washington.edu/m...

    Can you make a logical argue against Fox News’ facts. Of course not, so you spewed a fallacy.

    Let me produce a fact. Marxism doesn’t work! Does the Liberal want to argue or cut and run hiding behind your fallacies?
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 01:38:14
    abycinnamon BN-1
    has anyone told you that you are an arrogant ass? just stating a fact here - for proof just read what you just wrote. Would you talk to anyone you actually know the way you have spoken to me?

    didn't think so.

    No marxism doesn't work. It fails to reward individual for his own efforts and that is contrary to human nature. It is doomed to fail in a large society. It is possible to have a small group of altruistic people decide to live in a socialist manner, but that's as far as that system can go in its pure form.

    I'm not a marxist. You however, are still an ass, and a bigot for assuming I'm a marxist. when you decide to behave like a human being and treat me with the respect and decency with which I have treated you, then I'll talk to you. The topic is turkey. Faux is a side issue which a person who was actually interested in a conversation would dismiss. until then, enjoy being a bigoted ass.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/28 13:18:08
    Kiosk Kid
    I gave a Fox News reference on Turkey. You said; "What accusation - that faux is a crappy source?" That was the fallacy of 'shooting the message. Instead of arguing with their message you called them a name.

    I have been called thousands of names by Liberals. Marxist can't produce facts because Marxism doesn't work! Therefore, they can only spew accusations, fallacies, and personal attacks (name calling).

    Liberals generally start out with party line accusations and deteriorate into 3rd grade name calling. It is Standard Liberal Operating Procedure (SLOP).

    BTW, a Marxist is an individual that supports the teachings and ideology of Karl Marx. Obama supports the teaching and ideology of Karl Marx. Therefore, Obama is a Marxist.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 18:21:20
    abycinnamon BN-1
    and what, pray tell, is your evidence that obama is a marxist - and if it is his offhand remark about "spreading the wealth around" - sorry - that is a fail.

    I would also wonder what is your evidence that I am a marxist - seeing as how you have been calling me one from the moment you started talking to me.

    You have failed to respond to my assertion that the theory that turkey wants to reconstitute the ottoman empire - for which your source is faux news - is utterly ridiculous on its face. Which supports my assertion that faux is a crappy source.

    You have been doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You have been insufferably rude, you have treated me like an object, you have been arrogant, you have refused to address me except as "the liberal" which is unbelievably pompous of you. You make your fellow conservatives look very, very bad.

    I will not act like you, and if you are trying to get me to block you that won't work either, although I have been blocked by countless conservatives. All I can conclude is that you are a really awful person I am very glad not to know.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/28 18:37:37 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    Let me slam you with facts and logic.

    A Marxist is an individual that supports the teachings and ideology of Karl Marx. Liberals support the teaching and ideology of Karl Marx. Therefore, Liberals are Marxist.

    Karl Marx said; “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
    Karl Marx said; “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”

    http://thinkexist.com/quotes/...

    Didn’t Obama pass Obamacare in the Senate without a single Republican vote? Didn’t Obamacare transfer wealth from those with abilities to those of need? Wasn’t the justification for Obamacare that 30 million people needed it?

    If you walk like a duck and you talk like a duck, you are a duck.

    You are about the 70th time I got a Liberal to bite on this fishing hook.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 18:46:34
    abycinnamon BN-1
    Healthcare for those who need it isn't marxism - it's civilization. We are the only first world country that does not provide that for its citizens. We still don't, but at least we are providing for more of them.

    We have, and have had for very many years, a mixed economy. apparently this is news to you, as it didn't start with obama. Pure capitalism isn't healthy either, and it is why we are seeing the destruction of the middle class. republican policies have destroyed regulations that keep the predatory practices of unchecked capitalism under control, and the result of that is that a few people become very, very rich, some more people do well, and a lot of people become poor.

    you, my intellectually challenged friend, walk talk and quack like a fool. You don't think democracy is a good thing? Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship? Or anarchy? Or maybe you like the oligarchy of big business and billionaires that we currently have - and that some of us would like to get rid of.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/28 19:01:19
    Kiosk Kid
    You said; "Healthcare for those who need it isn't marxism"

    Karl Marx said; "from those according to abilities to those according to their needs."

    Obamacare is Marxism according to Karl Marx.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 19:17:09
    abycinnamon BN-1
    and so is social security, and the military, and the school system, and the police, fire, highways, dams, all public works, all government. I suppose you want to get rid of those too.

    It's kind of amazing that you really think that one sentence condemns everything. You are really very narrow minded. You could say that a business is marxist - since those with the abilities own the company, and then give jobs to those who need them.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/28 19:27:15 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    No, the military, schools, police, fire, and highways etc. are not wealth transfer programs based on individual needs.

    They are programs that improve commerce and provide security for all people. They are the reasons people form governments in the first place.

    You pay for highways through gas taxes depending or your own use of the highways.

    I have been through this argument many times before. It is not unusual for you to try to include normal government programs to improve commerce with Marxist Welfare programs.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/28 19:33:34 (edited)
    abycinnamon BN-1
    they are socialist programs. Sorry, but they are. I don't use any highways in florida, but I pay for them. I don't go to school or have children, but I pay for that. And of course you didn't have an answer for medicare. or for that matter, social security.

    thanks for playing.

    furthermore, the poor do pay taxes. They pay taxes on gasoline, sales taxes, and other taxes tucked away into whatever other things they pay for. It all ends up going to the government.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/29 03:58:45 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    How do you pay for highways and road if you don't pay gasoline taxes?

    Yes, welfare programs are Marxist. If you rent or buy you will pay school taxes for education and other taxes depending on the area you choose to live in.

    However, weith Federal taxes for education you have no choice so it is a welfare program.

    My point is that there are government services that improve all people lives no matter if they are rich or poor. They improve commerce and grow the economy.

    Then there are Marxist welfare programs desined to buy votes.

    Vote for me and I will will steal from those with abilities and send you a welfare check because you have few abilities.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/30 04:12:34
    abycinnamon BN-1
    I think you would do better to spend you apparently considerable time and effort worrying about the money going to the legislators from lobbyists and corporations than your obsession with "marxist programs". I think they are considerably more damaging.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/30 04:19:34 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    My point is that there are government services that improve all people lives no matter if they are rich or poor. They improve commerce and grow the economy.

    Then there are Marxist welfare programs designed to buy votes. Vote for me and I will steal from those with abilities and send you a welfare check because you have few abilities. The result of Obama are below.

    Debt
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/30 04:44:18
    abycinnamon BN-1
    A society can and should be judged by how it treats its weakest members. this is not about marxism. it is about being civilized.

    You don't have to be a marxist to believe that there is a place for altruism in the world, and that government can have a positive role in that action.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/06/30 17:18:46 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    You have your opinion. I call it what it is Marxism.

    However, there certainly a role for individual charity.
  • abycinn... Kiosk Kid 2012/07/01 00:32:26 (edited)
    abycinnamon BN-1
    you have an unbelievably low threshold for calling something marxism. Marxism calls for equal distribution. I would simply like to see minimal but adequate standards of living, and the existence of health care. That is not equal distribution. It is also beyond the scope of individual charity.
  • Kiosk Kid abycinn... 2012/07/01 00:37:20
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    A Marxist is an individual that supports the teachings and ideology of Karl Marx. Liberals support the teaching and ideology of Karl Marx. Therefore, Liberals are Marxist.

    Karl Marx said; “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
    Karl Marx said; “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”

    http://thinkexist.com/quotes/...

    Didn’t Obama pass Obamacare in the Senate without a single Republican vote? Didn’t Obamacare transfer wealth from those with abilities to those of need? Wasn’t the justification for Obamacare that 30 million people needed it?

    If you walk like a duck and you talk like a duck, you are a duck.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/24 17:01:19

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals