Iraqi Resistance Warns Turks to Keep Off Iraq

re: Vertex # 18

I am against the war and was, when it started. I had a very intense argument with tahmed32 on this issue. Everything was discussed. There is nothing new I can add to this argument.

However, to answer your question. I would not discount the Kurdish motives in the Turkish bomb blasts, but why would the Kurds needlessly create problems with the Turks? Turkey`s government was against the war, and after the war it supported the idea of sending its troops but seems to be rethinking that choice. If the Kurds did this, Turkey would love it because it offer it gives Turkey a chance to send its army into the Kurdish enclave and prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state. Kurds for this reason do not want Turkish troops in northern Iraq.

It seems that this was a result of internal Turkish politics. The Kurdish-Turkish problem is secular and this problem seems to originate from religious reasons.

Ciao

“The message is that there are known knowns - there are things that we know we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns .... things we do not know we don’t know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.”

Donald Rumsfeld
United States Secretary of Defence

(LOL)

vertex #18 you ask me to tell you the ``Reality of what (you) know)``. This is what you were saying:

``In both cases though, it shouldn`t be lost on us (those skeptical of American intensions in the region) that attacks in Saudis and Turkey were in fact congruent with American interests. Nothing like turning a population seemingly hostile to your interests like a few attacks of these natures to make it seem that there was a common enemy all this time. And his name was Sadama Bin Laden.``

In plain words, what you were claiming was that it was the US and not arab terrorists responsible for these attacks in saudi arabia and turkey. The reality of this is that al qaeda claimed responsibility for the saudi attacks. Now, you can be a dedicated conpiracy theorist and claim that this claim was made by the US. But, even that level of dedication would not be enough. You would then have to explain why al qaeda did not then refute the claim and deny responsibility. That has not happened.

So even in plain, simple logic, you are as removed from reality as the earlier generation of muslims were in India: back in 1917 when the Khilafat movement was started on the belief that the west was out to end the caliph - the reality turned out to be that the turks under ataturk himself abolished it. And the leaders of the khilafat movement ended up looking like the fools that they were. Of course they are still revered by some people in pakistan. Now what was that word you would apply to them? the same one as you would apply to someone who claims that al qaeda didnt do something when in fact al qaeda is proudly claiming the dastardly deed.

So, spare your tears for the victims of the blasts - innocent people (muslims and jews) who were killed by these bombs. Dont try to protect islamic terrorists from themselves by ignoring their own claims and speculating instead that they wouldnt do something because it wouldnt be in their interest. After all, if they were not basically a bunch of half-brained sociopaths who have no clue what is even in their own interest (let alone in the interests of muslims, and let alone in the interests of humanity), they wouldnt be terrorists in the first place.

Your point is taken. The selection of targets also seem odd for a Kurdish group...although I think the Turks using any Kurd terrorist attack as a pretext into entering Kurdish territories is a bit off. With the Americans out of the picture, the Turkish response would be obvious. I`m not too certain, though, that even Kurdish agitation would see the Americans welcome a Turkish rush into northern Iraq (weren’t the Turks meant to take over in the so-called ``sunni`` triangle?). That would be just another headache for America in post-war Iraq.

This is all meaningless now, though, since I think the bombers have all been identified...apparently veterans from Chechneya...I still can`t fathom what they wanted to accomplish...like I said, they seem to be as retarded as they look. If they wanted to send a message to the Turks, then certainly better targets were available...if they wanted to send a message to the West...then they must realize that ``we can attack your facilities in Muslim countries`` isn`t a very powerful message at all...Al-Ansar amature night?

Re your #20, I still laugh every time I read that...

vertex #22 no one except those directing the bombers would know for sure what they were trying to accomplish. The most plausible theory is that the saudi and turk bombings were timed to overshadow Bush`s UK visit. However, if that is true, then the bombings backfired since they in fact ended up overshadowing the massive anti-war protests in UK.

Clearly, reality is more complex than any planner can anticipate, and certainly a far more complex than the stupid mind of the mullah and of the saddam or bin laden admirer can grasp. That is why i have always argued on chowk against violence except in case of defense from a real and imminent threat to life: the ends never justify the means: and particularly when one uses violent means, the ultimate affect is generally very different than what was envisaged.

While these arrogant half-brains in the muslim world are busy hating and (in case of the extremists) conducting actual violence directed towards the US and the west, their neighbors in india and china and other progressive third world nations are busy learning from the US and the west and catching up with them.