Syrian Kurds Accuse Turkey Of Attacks, Ask U.S. For Explanation

[Purveyor]

Source: Reuters

The Kurdish militia regularly coordinates with U.S.-led forces bombing the Islamic State.

Reuters
Posted: 08/01/2015 11:45 AM EDT | Edited: 3 hours ago

BEIRUT/ISTANBUL, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Kurdish militia fighting Islamic State in Syria accused Turkey on Saturday of targeting it at least four times in the past week, calling the attacks provocative and hostile.

Turkey began a campaign of air strikes on Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) camps in northern Iraq and Islamic State fighters in Syria last Friday, in what Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has called a "synchronized fight against terror."

The campaign has raised suspicions among Kurds that Ankara's real agenda is checking Kurdish territorial ambitions rather than fighting Islamic State.

The president of Iraq's Kurdistan region on Saturday condemned Turkey's bombardment of Zargala, a village there which he said had killed civilians, and called for a return to the peace process between Ankara and the PKK.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-kurds-turkey-us_55bce38ae4b0b23e3ce2fa09

---

Turkey 'probes claims Iraqi Kurdish civilians killed in air strike'

Ankara (AFP) - Turkey on Saturday said it has opened an investigation into claims that several civilians were killed in an air strike against militants from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in northern Iraq.

Pro-Kurdish media described the attack as a "massacre" which had left at least nine civilians dead.

The controversy comes after almost a week of intensive bombing by Turkey of PKK targets in the remote mountains of northern Iraq, where the separatist group's military wing is based.

"An investigation has been initiated into the allegations," the Turkish foreign ministry said in a statement, adding that the reports had been received "with sorrow".

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-probes-claims-iraqi-kurdish-civilians-killed-air-182549778.html

[larkrake]

1. with sorrow? Bastards do it on purpose

[delrem]

2. More on this: article by Mike Whitney, counterpunch

The Politics of Betrayal: Obama Backstabs Kurds to Appease Turkey

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/29/the-politics-of-betrayal-obama-backstabs-kurds-to-appease-turkey/

And just a few weeks ago the Kurds were US's prime time heros.

[6chars]

16. good catch

some interesting facts there. wouldn't say that Obama is betraying anyone though. It's just business.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Turkey is playing a very dirty game and already has a lot of blood on its hands.

And Erdogan is trying to suck Obama into his crusade against Assad. No, thank you.

[delrem]

4. Not correct. The USA is openly engaged in a regime change operation in Syria.

That can't honestly be denied, any more than it can honestly be denied that Turkey (along with all "Friends of Syria&quot has been partnered with the US in this war.

No, Comrade Grumpy, Turkey is not "trying to suck Obama in" -- the US has been "in" from the beginning.

It can't be denied that this operation started immediately after the destruction of Libya ("We came. We saw. He died. hahahah!&quot

It can't be denied that this is the exact neocon plan outlined even before the illegal and immoral US war of choice that totally destroyed Iraq.

I'm sick to death of the neverending lies pretending US innocence of this ongoing hellscape.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. The US is in in a limited fashion. The US military is not attacking Assad's forces.

Our "moderate rebel" training program seems to be a bad joke. The leader of "our guys" just got kidnapped by Al Nusra. None of the major fighting forces are "our guys."

I'm sure the CIA or DIA or somebody had some role working with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia on the arms pipeline, too.

So, yeah, we're in, in a toe in the water sort of way.

But Turkey wants "safe zones" that morph into "no-fly zones" (does ISIS have an air force?) and potential open armed conflict with the Syrian government. Turkey is all about overthrowing Assad--and if it can attack the Kurds, too, all the better--and it wants us to do the dirty work.

[delrem]

9. Oh c'mon, you don't believe that "no US boots on the ground, so no US war" crap, do you?

Defining 'war' from existence through semantics.

Do you also believe that because the prisoners in Gitmo are called "unauthorized combatants", therefore they aren't actually prisoners of war due all associated legal diligence? Really?

How could you be sentient, post on a political board and so be aware of elementary things like the US "War on Terror", and believe that the USA is just maybe putting "a toe in the water" regarding this assault on the Syrian people?

The US isn't in the ME "War on Terror" in a "toe in the water sort of way".
It never has been - whether the USA leads its WoT "from behind" or "from in front", it leads it.

I sure don't like the lie that you're trying to spread, that the US is some kind of innocent in all this, that Obama is just a clueless chump who could be "sucked in" by the likes of Erdogan, and so on.

[NuclearDem]

10. The US isn't targeting Assad.

The US was at one point training and arming Syrian rebels fighting Assad, but the primary US concern in Syria is ISIS. The airstrikes are targeting ISIS, not Assad's forces.

The poster you were responding to is hardly a US apologist. You just got facts wrong.

[delrem]

11. That is a flat out lie.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/02/19/obama-defeating-isis-hinges-on-syria-regime-change/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/assad-must-go-obama-says/2011/08/18/gIQAelheOJ_story.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/obamas-road-to-damascus-the-war-for-regime-change-in-syria/279415/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/01/why-is-the-us-trying-to-replace-the-assad-government-with-al-qaeda-in-syria/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/19183-obama-bombs-isis-in-syria-u-s-officials-tout-regime-change
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/defense-chief-not-sure-about-legalities-us-defending-syrian-fighters

SHAME!
SHAME!

[NuclearDem]

12. Congratulations, you cite a bunch of bluster, what-ifs, and four-year-old articles.

For some reason, none of this contains any evidence of US forces targeting Syrian government forces. No airstrikes on Syrian command posts, no SEAD attacks on Syrian air defense, nothing.

Does the US support groups like the FSA? Yes.

Would the US enjoy seeing Assad go? Maybe, maybe not, depending on how effective Assad's forces are against ISIS.

Would supporting anti-government rebels destabilize Syria? Yes.

Do the US military actions in Syria directly target Syrian government forces? No.

Maybe if you'd actually read what people write, you would understand the point they're making.

So, shame, shame for not reading.

[delrem]

13. No, those were just from the top google links for USA regime change Syria Assad.

Shame on you.

From me: full ignore.

[NuclearDem]

14. And yet none of those articles actually show US military action against Syrian government forces.

You got something wrong, and you got called on it. Deal with it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. I don't think the US is innocent in this. Our policy has been fucked up there from the get-go.

We said "Assad must go," we helped on the arms pipelines for the armed opposition, we've supplied money and political capital.

What we haven't done is intervene directly militarily in the Syrian civil war.

I credit Obama with the good sense not to do that, I criticize him for playing the "Assad must go" game when all that really means is that more Syrians must die.

Erdogan has his own aims. They aren't necessarily congruent with ours.

The only solution for Syria is a negotiated political settlement. Starting with "Assad must go" is a sure guarantee of no progress.

[DRoseDARs]

5. Dollars to doughnuts we sold out the Kurds again.

We amped them up for the first Gulf War, and left them to fend for themselves against Saddam. We probably got Turkey to agree to help with ISIS in Syria, on the condition that we let them bomb "militant" Kurd forces too without us interfering.

[jamzrockz]

6. Sold them out?

This time the kurds are fighting for their survival. Its either they fight or get run over by ISIS. I have a feeling that the US would be more protective had they focused their attention on Assad instead of ISIS.

[blackspade]

7. How about focusing on ISIS instead of potential allies?

fucking idiots.

[MisterP]

17. we're now using dictators to attack the group that spun off of the group we supported

against one of those dictators that we used to like and another group we formed in reaction to another group we formed that used to fight us, and which hooked up with the generals of the dictator we used to like but then fought and another group we used to support against another dictator that we supported against that group, which even Israel likes now; this group partly grew out of another group we supported against another regime by means of another regime and we directly funded one leader and told to get more radical

key: Erdogan+Assad, ISIS, FSA, Assad, Sons of Iraq, Wolf Brigades, Hussein, AQ, Qaddafi, AQ, AQ, Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azzam

by next year we'll be suddenly noticing all the infibulations and honor killings up in the Zagros and by '17 we'll be fighting our noble Sunni allies against the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide or whatever the heated get-'em-now-before-it's-too-late rhetoric will be

[pinto]

19. Entirely possible, yet a bit of a stretch around the edges. Any published info on the picture?

Cited sources always help flesh out a discussion. Thanks.