Turkish troops launch offensive into northern Syria, says Erdogan

[Easo]

Because wife of a terrorist leader is more important than the leader himself:

Turkey has captured a wife of former Islamic State (IS) group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50316311

"But, I am announcing it here for the first time: we captured his wife and didn't make a fuss like them. Similarly, we also captured his sister and brother-in-law in Syria."

[josykay]

Because wife of a terrorist leader is more important than the leader himself:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50316311

"But, I am announcing it here for the first time: we captured his wife and didn't make a fuss like them. Similarly, we also captured his sister and brother-in-law in Syria."

So... they capture IS terrorists alive... but ambush and kill kurdish politicians?
Also... we do not make a fuss lime them, so we make a fuss like them...

[Skulltaker]

https://apnews.com/251062e322ab4bba99251fe59c90540a

And we're staying for the oil! Not for our allies, but the oil. But we'll be allying with the Kurds again to this end.

And putting the troops in an even more legally and morally precarious situation, that's even more dangerous.

So in the end, Trump accomplished nothing but allowing Turkish forces to invade Norther Syria, commit potential war crimes, destroy our close alliance with the Kurds, create circumstances that push the Kurds closer to Syria and Russia, and keeping our troops in the region.

All while confusing the fuck out of everyone because none of this was planned.

What exactly is the play here? Why protect the oil? Does Trump think Assad is going to let them take it? I don't get it.

[Edge-]

What exactly is the play here? Why protect the oil? Does Trump think Assad is going to let them take it? I don't get it.

He literally thinks the US can just "take the oil", as he's repeatedly talked about in the past.

But there is a strategic purpose there: Denying ISIS forces and potential Russian backed groups access to that oil.

The problem is that this expanded troop footprint directly conflicts with his stated goals of getting US troops out of the region because we can never expect a coherent policy from an incoherent man.

[Breccia]

But there is a strategic purpose there: Denying ISIS forces and potential Russian backed groups access to that oil.

Yes, the ISIS forces that Trump said we defeated which is why he pulled the troops out. That's incoherent for you.

[Skulltaker]

He literally thinks the US can just "take the oil", as he's repeatedly talked about in the past.

But there is a strategic purpose there: Denying ISIS forces and potential Russian backed groups access to that oil.

The problem is that this expanded troop footprint directly conflicts with his stated goals of getting US troops out of the region because we can never expect a coherent policy from an incoherent man.

I forgot to consider stupidity, thanks.

I can see how they keep terrorists away from it, russian troops, not so much. I don't think the US would risk a confrontation with Russia, and Putin and Assad are still buddies, last I heard, so if they want it, they'll take it, I guess. Maybe Trump cut a deal with Putin and Assad for some shares of the oil...? Which would probably be beyond illegal.

I feel sorry for the soldiers ordered around like that, and for the american tax payer.

[Breccia]

I forgot to consider stupidity, thanks.

The Pentagon has it covered. They've had a lot of experience considering stupidity recently.

Revenue from oil fields that U.S. forces are protecting in northeast Syria will go to U.S. partner forces in the region and not the United States, the Pentagon's top spokesman said Thursday.

“The revenue from this is not going to the U.S., this is going to the SDF,” Jonathan Hoffman told reporters at the Pentagon, referring to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.

“We work to ensure that no one approaches and shows hostile intent to our forces and if they do our commanders maintain the right of self defense,” Hoffman said on Thursday when asked repeatedly if U.S. forces were there to keep Syrian or Russian government actors from accessing the area.

Pentagon officials also insisted that the U.S. mission in Syria still remains the defeat of ISIS.

“The mission is the defeat of ISIS. The securing of oil fields is a subordinate task to that mission and the purpose of that task is to deny ISIS the revenues from that oil infrastructure,” said Joint Staff Vice Director Navy Rear Adm. William Byrne, who spoke alongside Hoffman.

Hoffman and Byrne would not say if ISIS actually has the ability to seize the oil fields, given its lack of armor and aircraft, only offering that U.S. forces are focused on preventing that from happening.

This continues to raise the same question: did we leave or not?

Trump last week gave the go-ahead for an expanded military operation to secure expansive oil fields in eastern Syria, and the Pentagon has already sent new troops and armored vehicles to the area.

The new plan backtracks on Trump’s original desire to pull all U.S. forces from Syria, and now has hundreds of U.S. troops protecting a stretch of nearly 90 miles from Deir el-Zour to al-Hassakeh that is currently controlled by Kurdish forces.

Trump on Friday still insisted that “we want to bring our soldiers home,” but left soldiers in the country “because we’re keeping the oil.”

“I like oil. We’re keeping the oil,” he told reporters on the White House lawn.

Later that day at a rally in Tupelo, Miss., Trump told the crowd the United States would distribute the oil to “help out the Kurds and we'll help out other people. We'll also help out ourselves if that's OK."

[Easo]

We'll also help out ourselves if that's OK.

Bitch, what? Just, what?!

[ati87]

https://apnews.com/251062e322ab4bba99251fe59c90540a

And we're staying for the oil! Not for our allies, but the oil. But we'll be allying with the Kurds again to this end.

And putting the troops in an even more legally and morally precarious situation, that's even more dangerous.

So in the end, Trump accomplished nothing but allowing Turkish forces to invade Norther Syria, commit potential war crimes, destroy our close alliance with the Kurds, create circumstances that push the Kurds closer to Syria and Russia, and keeping our troops in the region.

All while confusing the fuck out of everyone because none of this was planned.

But even if Trumps actions aren't well thought off the situation in Syria and Iraq was far from perfect and the only outcome pre Turkey invasion was having a large group of refugees spread across different countries, with the majority of them in Turkey.

The ISIS fighters that were in custody where either going to be executed or kept in cages IN Syria/Iraq instead of being send back to the country of origin.

I've just read that Turkey announced that the fights for example will be send back starting next week, this is actually a good if you want to resolve this entire mess. The safe zone that Turkey claims it's creating is for argument sake (regardless if you believe it or not) also a mandatory action that the West should have pushed for a long time ago if they ever wanted this issue be resolved.

From my perspective Turkey used the excuse of the safe zone to push back the Kurdish groups who wanted to create an independent state or autonomous area. But now I do see some Progress in resolving the above issues and honestly if people don't like the actions taken by the Turkish government the Western countries should have done this a long time ago.

[Xarkan]

But even if Trumps actions aren't well thought off the situation in Syria and Iraq was far from perfect and the only outcome pre Turkey invasion was having a large group of refugees spread across different countries, with the majority of them in Turkey.

The ISIS fighters that were in custody where either going to be executed or kept in cages IN Syria/Iraq instead of being send back to the country of origin.

I've just read that Turkey announced that the fights for example will be send back starting next week, this is actually a good if you want to resolve this entire mess. The safe zone that Turkey claims it's creating is for argument sake (regardless if you believe it or not) also a mandatory action that the West should have pushed for a long time ago if they ever wanted this issue be resolved.

From my perspective Turkey used the excuse of the safe zone to push back the Kurdish groups who wanted to create an independent state or autonomous area. But now I do see some Progress in resolving the above issues and honestly if people don't like the actions taken by the Turkish government the Western countries should have done this a long time ago.

We should not

These fighters chose to become members of a state that just so happened to fail, they chose to be citizens of a state that just so happened to fail. That should bind them, they should be failed revolutionaries in Iraq and Syria and if the laws there would mandate their deaths that should be it.. By becoming and choosing to become citizens in a state hostile to ours they should be no longer our concern

This was their choice to make, it does not fall to us to deny their right to make it

Or put another way

F. 'em

[Easo]

We should not

These fighters chose to become members of a state that just so happened to fail, they chose to be citizens of a state that just so happened to fail. That should bind them, they should be failed revolutionaries in Iraq and Syria and if the laws there would mandate their deaths that should be it.. By becoming and choosing to become citizens in a state hostile to ours they should be no longer our concern

This was their choice to make, it does not fall to us to deny their right to make it

Or put another way

F. 'em

I will completely disagree. I hate how goverments are trying to sweep them under the rug and shrug off any responsibility, especially the actions of UK and USA.
NO.
They are our failings and still legally our citizens, even with the above mentioned countries taking the citizenship away (from the looks of it, based on shaky grounds that they have double citizenship or never had it. Populists, nothing more).
Where were all the goverment agencies when teenagers (and others) radicalised? Where were they when they managed to fly to Turkey and cross the border without adult? Where? They failed.
Its so easy to stand on the moral highground and say that they have nothing to do with us.

[ati87]

We should not

These fighters chose to become members of a state that just so happened to fail, they chose to be citizens of a state that just so happened to fail. That should bind them, they should be failed revolutionaries in Iraq and Syria and if the laws there would mandate their deaths that should be it.. By becoming and choosing to become citizens in a state hostile to ours they should be no longer our concern

This was their choice to make, it does not fall to us to deny their right to make it

Or put another way

F. 'em

Given that not a single country acknowledge that ISIS was a country you can't argue these people where citizens of that state.
Also you can't hardly claim the moral high-ground in comparison to actions turkey is taken when on the other hand your white washing the actions of your own citizens.

[Xarkan]

I will completely disagree. I hate how goverments are trying to sweep them under the rug and shrug off any responsibility, especially the actions of UK and USA.
NO.
They are our failings and still legally our citizens, even with the above mentioned countries taking the citizenship away (from the looks of it, based on shaky grounds that they have double citizenship or never had it. Populists, nothing more).
Where were all the goverment agencies when teenagers (and others) radicalised? Where were they when they managed to fly to Turkey and cross the border without adult? Where? They failed.
Its so easy to stand on the moral highground and say that they have nothing to do with us.

If we take them then they go unpunished for their actions

We can punish treason, we can punish their joining enemy armies.. we cannot punish crimes that are not against our countries, we cannot punish murder, we cannot punish rape, we cannot punish any of it if it is crimes in Syria or Iraq (again with rather specific exceptions)

What you and ati87 demand is that they never pay for their actions

[Easo]

If we take them then they go unpunished for their actions

We can punish treason, we can punish their joining enemy armies.. we cannot punish crimes that are not against our countries, we cannot punish murder, we cannot punish rape, we cannot punish any of it if it is crimes in Syria or Iraq (again with rather specific exceptions)

What you and ati87 demand is that they never pay for their actions

Why would they go unpunished? I am pretty sure there is a bunch of them sitting in prisons already.
I am also very sure they can be punished for those crimes in their home countries.
P.S.
And the judicial system in Iraq and Syria is non-existant. Those are not courts, those are circus and the only thing they do is breed more conflict in the future. There are already enough reports that they are using them to settle personal grudges instead of actually determining whether the accused actually was an ISIS member.

[Edge-]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/penta...144702137.html

Turkey’s military offensive in northern Syria following Donald Trump’s order for U.S. forces to pull back aided Islamic State and damaged ties with Kurdish-led militias, according to a new assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The DIA’s assessment, part of a quarterly report, concluded that Islamic State “exploited the Turkish incursion and subsequent drawdown of U.S. troops to reconstitute capabilities and resources within Syria and strengthen its ability to plan attacks abroad.” The report was released Tuesday by the Pentagon’s inspector general.

Donald Trump helped strengthen ISIS by withdrawing US troops without a plan or advanced notice, giving Turkey a free avenue to attack our Kurdish allies and reduce the pressure on ISIS.

[josykay]

Why would they go unpunished? I am pretty sure there is a bunch of them sitting in prisons already.
I am also very sure they can be punished for those crimes in their home countries.
P.S.
And the judicial system in Iraq and Syria is non-existant. Those are not courts, those are circus and the only thing they do is breed more conflict in the future. There are already enough reports that they are using them to settle personal grudges instead of actually determining whether the accused actually was an ISIS member.

Because western nations, like Germany were idiots, and attempted to just ignore the ISIS citizens/ members. No matter sex, no matter age. They just attempted to ignore the problem, until it would eventually go away, instead of taking responsibility, investigate, and sentence them. Now, due to the turkish actions, every reasonable chance to investigate further is blown away. You have to prove crimes being comitted by that specific person. Which means, that probably most of the people deported back to europe will be set free afterwards.

[Gaidax]

If we take them then they go unpunished for their actions

We can punish treason, we can punish their joining enemy armies.. we cannot punish crimes that are not against our countries, we cannot punish murder, we cannot punish rape, we cannot punish any of it if it is crimes in Syria or Iraq (again with rather specific exceptions)

What you and ati87 demand is that they never pay for their actions

Sounds like a "you" problem.

If you don't have any laws in regards to membership in terrorist organizations or are unable or unwilling to clean after your own compatriots mess, it's on your government.

I don't see why Turkey, Iraq or whatever 3rd party has to take care of your shit, especially given how you bash them relentlessly. What when Turkey does shit you don't like they are bloodthirsty murderers, but when it comes to taking action against your own compatriot ISIS bootlickers, they are suddenly the shining light of justice?

Start taking responsibility for your government inaction. Your governments literally grew that shit on your own soil allowing religious nuts run unchecked turning people into extremists.

[Easo]

Well, couple of months have passed, but I suppose some here still remember that Kurdish politician, who was shot on the highway after the invasion?
Well, BBC did some digging... And it seems she was executed (as should be surprise to no one...), not killed accidently, by the Turkish supported, trained and supplied group:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-mi...f-a-peacemaker

Needless to say, Turkey "has not answered to BBC's request for a comment". I just hope some day Erdogan will finish his life behind bars.

[breadisfunny]

It's turkeys fault but it was indeed a fucked up decision to leave the kurds there.

- - - Updated - - -

The US should be there telling Erdogan to fuck off.

why? europeans would just be screaming about how the u.s. should fuck off from syria instead. your never happy with what we do.

[ParanoiD84]

your never happy with what we do.

And who would that be turkey? im pleased what the us does you just killed irans top general and one that was the next to lead the country, just that they should have never left the kurds. Sure never asked for the us to leave syria anyways, not that they need to be there but still.