Turkish troops target Kurdish fighters in northern Syria
Source: AP
BEIRUT (AP) — Syria's main Kurdish militia and an activist group say Turkish troops fired several shells on a Syrian village near the border, where tensions have soared in recent days.
The Kurdish People's Protection Units, or YPG, says the Sunday night shelling on the border village of Zor Maghar targeted one of their vehicles.
The YPG did not say in its Monday statement whether there were casualties in the shelling.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says four fighters were wounded.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c940887aeaf54383aadf41c9cb8d439e/turkey-detains-suspects-new-police-sweep
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
6chars
(3,967 posts)or are they our friends' enemy or what.
by we, I mean both DU and the US.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)At least that's my understanding.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In Iraq they are our Friends, unless the Turkish Army is after them, then they are terrorists till the Turks leave Iraq.
Remember when it comes to Foreign Policy there are no such things as permanent allies, they are permanent interests, but allies come and go. Spain and England were the closest allies in Europe from about 1200 till the mid 1500s. The "Black Knight" of England died in Spain fighting for Spain. Henry VIII fought in France with Spain in the early 1500s (and to maintain the alliance is why he married his first wife, Catherine of Aragon).
The Spanish Amanda was less an invasion then an intervention to restore the alliance, that both countries needed to protect each other from the then leading power in Europe, France.
The Spanish alliance was reestablished in the 1808 when Napoleon invaded Spain and installed his brother as King of Spain. Most of Spain supported the previous King, who allied himself with Britain. This is where the Duke of Wellington earned his reputation as the best British General (with his food supplies coming from New England, even after the start of the War of 1812). Spain remained a strong ally of England, even as Spain lost its American Colinies, all during the 1800s and only embraced Germany in the 1930s under Franco. Post WWII it was England that first made efforts to get the US to ally with Spain, another example of the joint interests of Spain and England.
There are other example of permanent interest. The US - Russian Empire relations between about 1820 and 1917 for example. When England and France went to war with Russia in 1854, it was American Ships that smuggled goods to Russian Forces holding Sevastopol. During the US Civil War, they was NO US Warships north of Norfolk, the Russian Fleet war there to protect those cities from any English and French Intervention on part of the South. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 Theodore Roosevelt negotiated the peace, but his biggest stick was US intervention on the side of Russia (After the Russian Fleet was defeated, the surviving ships fled to the Philippines, then US occupied).
Notice the US did not have an alliance with the Russian Empire, it was more an understanding that both countries had interests that were compatible (and that was interests against British dominance). Now, since 1917 Britain has replaced Russia as the US main "Ally" for during WWI, the US cease being a net debtor country and had become a net creditor country in terms of Britain and France (Something the US would maintain till Reagan became President). Since 1917 the understanding between Britain and the US has been strong, yes the US and Britain are also allies, but allies have been known NOT to help an ally.
The Classic Case of NOT supporting an ally was in the 1980s. The NATO treaties clearly says it does NOT apply to anything south of the Tropic of Cancer, but the Organisation of American States alliance applies to all of South America. Thus the US had an alliance with Argentina to protect its fleet and lands but none with Britain as far as the Falklands were concerned. The British attacked Argentinian forces on the Argentinian mainlands, mostly commando raids, but also sunk a Argentina Cruiser OUTSIDE of its proclaimed area of hostility. Both were violation of the OAS Treaties and should have forced US Intervention, but Reagan decided to back Britain not Argentina, the US back the country it had the most common interest with, as oppose to a country it had an actual alliance with).
Just pointing out, allies come and go, interests remain. Right now it is in the interests of the US to support the Governments of Turkey and Iraq, thus any attack on either is an act of "Terrorism". On the other hand the US has no real interest when it comes to the Government of Syria, thus any attack on that government is an action of "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". The actual attacks may be by the same forces, but the difference is what is in the best interest of the US. Against Turkey or Iraq it is an act of "Terrorism" the same act by the same forces against the Government of Syria is an act by "Freedom Fighters" in their fight for "Freedom".
6chars
(3,967 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)During the Peninsula Campaign, Wellington had grown NOT to rely on Spanish promises of food for his men, thus he ordered Wheat from New England. New England ships would leave New England Ports and be "Intercepted" by British Frigates who would then escort them to Spain. This continued even after war was declared between the US and Britain.
Now, it should be noted while the US claimed it went to war with Britain to prevent American Sailors from being "Kidnapped" by British Warships, most US Sailors came from New England at that time period and every member of the House and Senate from New England voted AGAINST the war. On the other hand every member of the House and Senate from WEST of the Appalachians Mountains voted for the War. Why? Tecumseh was on the war path and he, not Sitting bull 60 years later, was the greatest threat to US westward expansion.
Between Tecumseh and his brother "The Prophet" Tenskwatawa. In most history books the Prophet is down played as a "Medicine Man" but in the Native American Culture of that time period, such "Medicine Men" were more important then Chiefs (Going back to Sitting Bull, at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, he was such a "Medicine Man" NOT a Chief). Thus the two worked together till Tecumseh died in 1814, then the Prophet was treated as a leader of the Shawnees as they moved across the Mississippi in the 1830s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenskwatawa\
While, the above Cite mention the battle of Tippecanoe, there repeat the fiction that Tenskwatawa lost the battle. In fact his forces still held the field at the end of the day and had driven the white forces off the battle field. This is where the dispute kicks in. Tecumseh had told his brother to abandoned Prophet town if Harrison moved against him. Harrison had moved to quickly for the Prophet to do so before the battle. Thus the battle may have been an attempt by the Prophet to give him time to abandoned the area. Another view is that his fellow Native Americans seeing that the white forces were still intact came to see it as a "Defeat" and left, forcing Tenskwatawa to abandon Prophet town. This outlook was part of the culture of these tribes, victories were expected to be quick not drawn out, when battles turned into long drawn out fights, Native Americans would just leave rather then continue the fight.
Please note, Harrison soon abandoned his position and the Natives rebuilt Prophet town. Thus in many ways the battle decided nothing. Harrison would ride it to the Presidency in 1840 but in 1811 many people in the Midwest view the battle as a major defeat. It is recorded as a victory because Harrison claimed it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe
The real significance of the Battle of Tippecanoe was over whelming hostility to the British in Canada, where Tecumseh was getting his muskets and powder from. This was the real reason for the War of 1812, a war to kill Tecumseh and his Native American Confederacy. Once Tecumseh was died, the war was over as far as the people of the Midwest were concerned. The army did technically stayed together till they reached Toronto, but by then no one had control over the militia that made up most of the troops, they became drunk, burned Toronto, then went home. No report exists of the army crossing the Great Lakes, but then it had mostly dissolved into small groups, many visiting relatives that had moved to Ontario since 1783, for Britain was giving the land away free to who ever wanted it, but due to the Napoleonic wars most "immigrants" had been from New England (Which was also the source of most new Immigrants on the American Side of the Great Lakes).
Side note: During the Revolution, New England had been, by BRITISH ESTIMATES OF THE TIME PERIOD, 90% for Independence. Due to the subsequent depression in the United States starting in the mid 1780s and ending after 1800s, many New England Farmers moved west, to both sides of the Great Lakes. Thus what was then "Upper Canada" now Ontario, had Loyalist leadership, many from all of the 13 former British Colonies, but the people during the actual farming, i.e. the 90%, tended to be the people whose fathers fought on Bunker Hill, but not for the British. This was always a problem for Canada, they really did not trust their people to by loyal to Britain, best shown by the fact by 1865 more Canadians were serving in the Union Army then were in the Canadian Militia of 1865 (Please note, Canadian Historians tend to dispute these numbers, but they do so by using Canadian Militia numbers of 1860, which had to be reduced twice during the American Civil War, as British Commanders became more and more concerned about the loyalty of the members of the Militia, and thus reduced the membership to members they thought they could trust).
Now, back to the Duke of Wellington. When the War of 1812 started, the British started a blockade of American ports, starting with Georgia. Why Georgia? England was still buying Wheat from New England to feed the Dukes of Wellington's troops and thus did NOT want to stop such exports. Yes, Trading with the Enemy is an old tradition in the US (During the French and Indian Wars of 1696 till 1763, New England traded goods and food to French Sugar Colonies in the West Indians, even while England and France were at war with each other and New England were all British Colonies).
Now, the US did do some Naval Battles with the Forces of Great Britain, but the real thrust of the American War effort was against British forces in what is today Ontario. The British actually took Detroit and Niagara at the beginning of the war, but by 1813 the US had managed to get its act together and retake Detroit and march into Ontario. On the way to what is now Toronto, during the battle of the Thames, Tecumseh was killed and with him died the Native American Confederacy.
While this was occurring, New England was still shipping Wheat to Wellington. Thus except for some British Warship vs American Warships action off the coast of New England, nothing happened in New England during the War of 1812 (Except money coming from Britain in exchange for wheat).
More on "The Sixty Year War" the war between White America and Native Americans between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River, from 1754 and the Battle of Fort Necessity and 1814 and the death of Tecumseh in the Battle of the Thames:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixty_Years%27_War
Just a comment that while the Midwest was in the fight of its life, New England was trading with the Enemy. This trade had become so important that New England actually held a Convention to demand the end of the War. Delegates were sent to Washington to present these demands, but they arrived just days after the arrival of the news of Jackson's defeat of the British in New Orleans AND that Britain had signed a peace treaty with the US. The War of 1812, while said to be a war to protect American Sailors, was in reality the last gasp of the Native American resistance to the Expansion of what we call the United States. Native American wars would last another 100 years (if you include the Battle of Bear Valley fought in 1918 when a band of Yaquis Indians from Mexico engaged US Cavalry forces in Arizona. Some raids continued till 1924 in the Southwest) but these were little more then Native Americans fighting to determine where they will fit into the United States as oppose to something outside of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention#Negative_reception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bear_Valley
In Mexico Native Americans keep fighting till 1933:
http://www.anishinabe-history.com/history/yucatan-war.shtml
Sorry, about go off on the Native American wars, but it relates to why the US went to war in 1812, and WHY New England opposed that war. The trading with the enemy had been part of New England Trading since the late 1600s, and when money is involved, you be surprised who trades with the enemy (One report I heard, was WWII German U-boats were FORBIDDEN to sink any Oil Tanker coming out of Galveston, for it was destined for Spain, who was Neutral, but had a border with Occupied France and thus a way to get Oil to the German Forces. I do not know how true that statement is, but I would NOT be surprised).
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)ERBIL, Kurdistan Region — Turkish attacks on both the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C) are Turkey’s attempt to weaken those forces battling the Islamic State, Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, said Monday.
“In a bid to protect ISIS from any harm, Turkey has targeted the freedom fighters of both the PKK and DHKP-C,” Nasrallah said in a statement released by Hezbollah media.
Nasrallah lambasted the Turkish government and refuted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s claim that ISIS was a threat to Turkish national security.
“I have no doubt that Turkey helped ISIS, and sheltered it. Turkey opened its borders for ISIS militants and facilitated the group economically,” said the Hezbollah leader.
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/270720151
