Explosion strikes Turkey's capital

[Independent voter]

The 'you can't go to war against an idea' nonsense is a bunch of early 2000s lefty bunk.

Sure you can.

You just wholesale slaughter the people who believe the idea. And when their kids take up arms to avenge them, you do it to them too. Ad infinitum.

Human life is resource intensive. The drone + the hellfire missile is cheap.

Containing the idea as much as possible and waiting for it to die out like a fire works too though it can take a long time.

[Deleted]

What else is new?

- - - Updated - - -

One writer here in sweden think's it's the turkeys military that did it to put pressure on Edrogan, i think it's either Daesh or PKK though.

Foolishly assuming Erdogan has any opposition in Turkey that he didn't already take care of in one way or another.

[Skulltaker]

Are we talking strictly legally? Because Strictly legally, the US hasn't gone to war since World War II.

But we still call Vietnam "the Vietnam War", Iraq "the Iraq War", "The War in Afghanistan", "the Gulf War", "The Kosovo War" and so forth.

But there is a different level for other conflict:

"the Invasion of Panama"
"the Invasion of Grenada"
"Operation Desert Fox" (the 1998 Iraq Handslap)
"Operation Praying Mantis"
"Operation El Dorado Canyon".


I don't think we're near the point of talking about the "War against ISIS", but it is certainly above the prior 5 operations I listed.

I'd say it's a major front in the wider "War on Terror", a perfectly legitimate name that Obama's Administration replaced with the euphemism "Oversees Contingency Operations", within his first week in the White House in 2009, because the idea of a "War against an Idea or Tactic", was some kind of mental sticking point for liberals even though it was really short hand for "War on Al Qaeda and their Islamic Fundamentalist offshoots and brethren who would attack the West given the chance".

The nice part about "Oversees Contingency Operations", is the euphemism has expanded to mean something COMPLETELY different than its dishonest initial definition, (as in what the words are: oversees, operations, in a contingency) and as an official budget item, has come to fund anti-Russia and anti-China investments.

maybe that makes the "War on Terror" ripe for renewal in a narrower sense. I certainly expect the US to fight ISIS's successor, a decade from now. And so long as it costs $1 billion a year, there is no reason that it can't last forever. Unless your a lefty that is somehow all frustrated about this "permanent state of war", even though the US has been at that state since pretty much World War I, unless you ignore about a 3 and a half year period in the mid 1990s.

In the end, it's all about money. It's not ideals really. If you're on the left, it's politically difficult to justify cutting spending to "the War on Terror" in favor of liberal priorities like Healthcare. "Oversees Contingency Operations" on the other hand? Even the phrase is a mouthful. And Obama tried to eliminate that budget entirely, until Congress laughed in his face and turned it into a secondary defense budget, a slush fund to protect it (as best as possible) from the Budget Control Act of 2011.

If you're an anti-War liberal, "Overseas Contingency Operations" is a monument to the road to hell being paved with the best intentions. The adoption of the phrase allowed the "War budget", which is what it really is, turn into a slush fund. Bravo. "War on Terror" was much simpler, ironically enough. Because the OCO Budget is now a permanent fixture, and eliminating it would require raising the Defense budget by $80 billion a year (about what Russia spends on defense total).

You are, sadly, right. (and not 'because it's you' sadly, because 'it's the way it is' sadly).

Here's a question, out of curiosity. If you could, would you change that? The constant state of... conflict? Would you consider it a worthwhile goal?

[Yunru]

It could be just a setup by politicans to get votes from citizens to have a excuse to go to war.
You cant trust media.

[Skroe]

Containing the idea as much as possible and waiting for it to die out like a fire works too though it can take a long time.

True.

Are we in a rush or something though? Are we going somewhere?

The most obnoxious, and intellectually lazy thing, I've seen written in the past seven years is how the nation is "exhausted from war". I've never seen a shred of evidence of that.

This nation? Where less than 1% of it's citizenry has served in the wars? Where a tiny portion even knows a service member? Where most of the country went shopping and went on with their lives during the worst of Iraq and Afghanistan? Where 'Support our Troops' is meaningful until it comes to actually paying for things to support our troops?

This nation isn't tired from the wars or jack squat. It never has been. That's not to say that the military with repeated 9 month deployments, run down hardware in need of replacement (and is being replaced), and military families, hasn't been exhausted. But they a country within this country. This country as a whole has been pathologically uninvested in the wars... except in one particular case:

when it comes time to pay money for it.


"exhausted from war"... hell "takes a long time"... puts a clock on the military aspect of the conflict, that judging by how repulsed the leaders of the Afghan surge were at Obama's artificial timeline, is a way of doing business the people actually fighting the wars deeply resent. So why have we been inflicted with a decade of that nonsense phrase? The World War II of a four year war, open and shut, and people on the left who want war money to go to domestic spending.

That's all it ever has been.

So yeah. The War on Terror could take decades. We're in decade #2. Has the US been worsened by it? No. The most damnable thing is we've spent the past seven years trying to do it on the quick and cheap in a pointless effort to be done with it, and the country likely exacerbated the problem as a result.

The way I read a retired general put it: Russia and China should be the US defense establishment's primary focus, and the War on Terror it's ongoing hobby. Seems very reasonable.

[Skulltaker]

Containing the idea as much as possible and waiting for it to die out like a fire works too though it can take a long time.

Problem with that is that fires don't raise children and teach them their values, while explaining how everybody else is to blame about the ruins the little flames have to grow up in.

You want a solution? Occupy the country, seperate parents from children, rebuild the infrastructure, health care and educational system and teach the children proper humane values apart from their parents. It would cost... eh. A lot. Cheaper to keep killing them.

[Skroe]

You are, sadly, right. (and not 'because it's you' sadly, because 'it's the way it is' sadly).

Here's a question, out of curiosity. If you could, would you change that? The constant state of... conflict? Would you consider it a worthwhile goal?

Would I? Do you mean meaningful world peace? I mean who wouldn't want that.

Do you mean change how the US conducts its security policy? No. Absolutely not.

I've written about this before. Now before I go on, let me put this plainly: after I write this, you'll probably have people debate the morality or practical outcomes of what I write about. Ignore it. It doesn't matter. What I'm about to write about will not change so long as the US remains a fantastically wealthy country with a large population and huge global interests.

Why does the US have 11 aircraft carriers? Why don't we have 4, 2 for each coast? The British will have two in 2020, one at sea, one at home undergoing repairs and they'll trade spots. China will have 6, 3 at sea, 3 in dock. Why does the US have 11... actually 21 if you count the Amphious Assault Ships? Imperialism? Not something so quaint.

US Security Strategy is built around the concept of Forward Defense. This explains the 700 bases. This explains the 21 flat tops. This explains the huge fleet of hundreds of air refueling planes and hundreds of cargo vehicles. It explains the global prepositioning of heavy armory, so on and so forth. It decided, a very, very long time ago, that the best way to defend it's interests and our security is to fight "over there" far away from our borders.

This contrasts with the British an a very specific way. We'll get to that in a moment.

This is not a unique thing at all. Global superpowers, hegemonic states of their time, have always adopted forward defense. It is a trait that comes about when countries stop defining their interests narrowly and start defining it broadly, which comes about when they play a role different and greater than their peers, in international relations and economics.

The British Empire, famously, had the empire that the sun never set on. However in the 1960s they conciousely retreated from being "East of the Suez" as the saying went. That represents a disctinct policy shift. The British Empire, in it's decline, started to define it's interests narrowly - mostly to Europe and the North Atlantic - rather than bradly (as in 'East of the Suez'). And it adopted a security policy commesurate with that.

The US largely filled that gap, but I think there remains a distinct difference between the British and American global interests. The US network of allies largely acts to prevent conflicts. Our alliance with the Saudis, Egyptians and Israelis keep potential foes on the same side, versus common enemies (Iran, Syira). The European Union, which the US midwifed, was founded in party to keep Germany and France from going to war again. There is of course, South Korea, Japan, and the Phillipines. There is Pakistan and India, that we've played a long mediator role in, keeping Nuclear War from happening.

There are two models of World Peace: one where nobody is in chage and one where somebody is. I'm a firm believer in the latter. I believe a hegemonic US, controlling the primary leavers of power in the world, will bring about world peace. This means everything from seats on global councils, to controlling the spread of technologies (like missile and nuclear technology) to dominating industries (like the arms trade) to control the spread of threats. I believe the US will bring it about at a regional level that spreads, by turning regional security partnerships, post-conflict with the regional enemy, into a new regional consensus. The EU is a kind of proto-model of that.

Now what this means is that the US get's drawn into conflicts that it would otherwise not be, were it focused on border defense... if we had our own "East of the suez" policy shift. Let's take Syria since we're talking about it in this thread. If Russia "wins" Syria, what do they get? What they had back in 2010? Really it's more of an opportunity for anti-Assad/anti-Iran/anti-Russian interests to make gains. But there is no "loss" there, so to speak. The US is involved because our regional partners are involved, but just looking at the defense budget, ISIS concerns occupy a miniscule part of the planning, which is almost entirely about countering China and Russia with advanced technology.

So these 'police actions', I think are desirable. Because whats the alternative, if the US did retreat "east of the suez" so to speak? A nuclear armed Saudi Arabia, a nuclear armed Japan that is a rival with South Korea? A global situation even more perilous to our interests, which is largely economic in nature.

[Skulltaker]

There are two models of World Peace: one where nobody is in chage and one where somebody is. I'm a firm believer in the latter. I believe a hegemonic US, controlling the primary leavers of power in the world, will bring about world peace. This means everything from seats on global councils, to controlling the spread of technologies (like missile and nuclear technology) to dominating industries (like the arms trade) to control the spread of threats. I believe the US will bring it about at a regional level that spreads, by turning regional security partnerships, post-conflict with the regional enemy, into a new regional consensus. The EU is a kind of proto-model of that.

Ah. That old thing. Interesting theory, probably viable. If the US had more desireable values, I'd agree. Seeing how many problems the US has, though, it won't happen. To much resistance forming, to many dangerous factors to consider. Most likely outcome right now is that we will run ourselves into the ground, like every species that overpopulates it's living environment. The way we cannibalize our ressources, by the time the US gains haegemonic status, there's nothing left to rule.

Also, 3 equal powers work usually better. Keeping each other in check. Also a more likely outcome, currently.

[Skroe]

Ah. That old thing. Interesting theory, probably viable. If the US had more desireable values, I'd agree. Seeing how many problems the US has, though, it won't happen.

Compared to the rest of the world? The US's problems are very minor.

if you're not American, I wouldn't read much into political wrangling. We're a very political country. Budgets still get passed, things still happen. We've just become drama queens, and that's really all it is. A grand old show.

Take the supreme court opening. It's going to be another international spectacle that tarnishes our rep in the short term. But it'll get filled, law will happen and we'll forget all about it in a year and change at most.

To much resistance forming, to many dangerous factors to consider.

Hardly. Resistance has always been there. ALWAYS. It's never amounted to anything. The US has always managed to walk over it.

Take Russia for example, not sure if you saw the budget breakdown in the other thread. They can resist all they like. With what we're throwing at them, they had better.

Most likely outcome right now is that we will run ourselves into the ground, like every species that overpopulates it's living environment. The way we cannibalize our ressources, by the time the US gains haegemonic status, there's nothing left to rule.

The US has been hegemonic since 1992. You've lived in the era of American hegemony for the past 24 years. Hegemony doesn't mean without rivals or challenges.

Also, 3 equal powers work usually better. Keeping each other in check. Also a more likely outcome, currently.

You just made this up. Right here. For some reason. THe Balance of Powers system, and shifting alliance partiuclarly lead to the Napoleonic Wars, the mid and late 19th century wars and World War I. It doesn't work.

Furthemore there is no country or countries that can suitably fulfil that role. Russia has neither the resources, nor the manpower to do it. China is too poor, and surrounded by rivals.

[Skulltaker]

You know what: it doesn't matter. None of us will see the outcome anyway. IF the US can get humanity over the crisis in a century, when we no longer can support our own nature, let them do it. We won't be here for it, though. At the pace they are working, they won't make it. None of us will, of course.

[Gref]

If it is PKK I really really feel sorry for HDP. PKK itself is making that Kurdish Party's job harder. Before the last election they had a huge increase in the votes and PKK steps in AKP uses it to get more votes, HDP loses that gain. Poor guys really. CHP, HDP they are trying so hard agaisnt a %100 corrupted goverment. Such a pity, waste.

[Deleted]

Most of the dead are army officers. Someone needs to pay for this.

A shame they didn't get to the front-lines to defend isis you mean?

[Gref]

A shame they didn't get to the front-lines to defend isis you mean?

... That was a terrible comment. I am no nationalist, no erdogan lover but your comment is simply terrible. They are respectable members of a respectable army. I am proud of Turkish Armed Forces and its history. None of those soldiers or any member of TAF would defend IS. Say that for erdogan and I will accept.

[Tackhisis]

One Muslim tribe attacking another Muslim tribe.

Most Turks are of European blood, being the descendants of IE population in Asia Minora.

[Khaza-R]

They'll blame the Kurds and then use it as a reason to attack them and commit genocide. Guaranteed.

[Kuntantee]

A shame they didn't get to the front-lines to defend isis you mean?

Is it the crap (Turkish army defending ISIS in front) that you are fed daily with Russian news? You must be addicted to it. Extra-big, each morning. Yummy!

For the record folks, we are talking about kind of Russian news blaming Turkey for the very fucking hospital they bombed.

[ZenX]

A shame they didn't get to the front-lines to defend isis you mean?

Turkey has been in an open conflict with ISIS/DAESH beginning with the aftermath of Suruc Massacre that had a death toll of 34 people (July 20th, 2015) which were followed by 3 other of their terrorist attacks including the Ankara Massacre that transpired in Ankara's Central Train Station that had a death toll of 102 people with 500 more severely wounded (October 10th, 2015).

Even if a cooperation had somehow been transpiring between this terrorist organization and Turkey, it hasn't been the case for more than 8 months now.

Most of the dead are army officers. Someone needs to pay for this.

The people that got hit were military clerks of various merits not tied to active duty and civilian personnel working in the managerial departments of the military (Neither the ones in barracks nor those that does in bases/forts). The terrorist attack is said to targeted at the shuttles routinely taking the personnel back to their homes at the end of the working hours. From the looks of the pictures taken in the scene, the bomb loaded car hit the shuttle that was trailing the leading one, leaving a smouldering husk of the shuttle with a crater next to it. Additionally, the parliament is 600 meters away from the location of the attack and, it has been stated that the explosion was heard and felt within 3 kilometre radius.

There was a discussion between the four different representatives of the parties in the parliament, a senior writer of dissident voice w.r.t. the government and a security consultant with military background, on air an hour later. The consultant emphasised that the type of attack (although a bit more different due to its target's strategic value and vehicle used being a car [rather than a van] on the move [rather than being stationary]) was brought to the region by ISIS/DAESH but PKK had attacks in the same manner for 7 times within the last few months in the east and south-east region of Turkey.

Current reported death toll consists of 28 dead and 61 wounded (30 of them released from the hospital after seeing treatment). Among the wounded 31 which are in the hospital 21 are reported to be civilians.

[Theodarzna]

There are two models of World Peace: one where nobody is in chage and one where somebody is. I'm a firm believer in the latter. I believe a hegemonic US, controlling the primary leavers of power in the world, will bring about world peace. This means everything from seats on global councils, to controlling the spread of technologies (like missile and nuclear technology) to dominating industries (like the arms trade) to control the spread of threats. I believe the US will bring it about at a regional level that spreads, by turning regional security partnerships, post-conflict with the regional enemy, into a new regional consensus. The EU is a kind of proto-model of that.

Hegemonic power degrades over time, the US would eventually perish from the strain of it.

[Sierra85]

They'll blame the Kurds and then use it as a reason to attack them and commit genocide. Guaranteed.

this happens all the time in turkey so it's not unlikely.

[xenogear3]

Why ISIS?

Turkey, Muslims, helps ISIS and attacks Russia airplanes.