Turkey invades Syria

I wonder why one does not see such headlines in the corporate news media? Apparently the west's liberal-international-law-loving-human-rights-protecting-democracy-promoting-elites see the world through a very selective filter. It seems that rights are only applicable to some.

 

On August 24, Turkey launched a military invasion of Syria with the assistance of the United States Air Force. This is a clear violation of international law. It is a war crime. Syria has protested to the United Nations Security Council - an organisation that is incapable of holding the US and its allies to account.

 

The corporate news have had nothing to say, other than to promote the propaganda that Turkey is attacking Islamic State - a narrative that is an obvious lie. Turkey, which has supported IS for years, informed the Islamic State terrorists of the intention to invade so that they could evacuate the area, which they did, by relocating to Turkey. Turkey's invasion effectively rescued the Islamic State terrorists in Jarablus.

 

Turkey's invasion force has been exclusively focused on attacking Kurds, who are supposedly US allies. Turkey's president even stated perfectly plainly that this was precisely the purpose of the invasion. He went so far as to say Turkey would not cease its "operations" until the Kurds are defeated - an object that would require nothing short of genocide.

 

Yet the law-abiding-peace-loving-human-rights-protecting-terrorist-hating-western-elites can only parrot Turkey's propaganda narrative.

 

 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (4)

  1. TomasSISI

    I have often wondered and do not know what it is about the Kurds that stirred Iraq to use deadly gas attacks on them and leads to Turkey wanting to eradicate them. As far as I know, they are peaceful and benign occupants of these countries, though these actions may cause them to begin terrorist activities. My personal animosity toward Iran and Saddam Hussain was not the fear of his supposed nearing of an atomic weapon, but was his unprovoked, deadly attack on the Kurds.

    September 12, 2016
    1. stevehayes13

      The reason for the attacks on the Kurds is they want their own homeland. When the map was redrawn in the aftermath of the First World War, their aspirations were ignored in order to promote the interests of the imperial powers.

      By the way, Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, not Iran; and he was not supposed to be nearing an atomic weapon – well not by any competent person.

      September 13, 2016
  2. TomasSISI

    Damn! Did i do it again. mixing the names of these two countries. I know which one I am thinking of but get confused is the use of the modern names. I like Mesopotamia and Persia, not much chance of confusing the readers there. As for whether or not he was ‘said’ to have had an atomic weapon, It is what we were told by the senior Bush and backed up by CIA. Competent persons..? well the news media have long made out these agencies were. I think Langley is still under the influence of Wild Bill Donovan and his cowboys.

    September 13, 2016
    1. stevehayes13

      Bush knew Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, but he wanted to destroy the regime, something planned before 9/11.

      September 14, 2016