![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
debunkgpolitics.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHappy New Year!
Manipulating people for evil purposes is despicable. Murdering innocent people is more despicable. Quite possibly, ISIS used Karlov as a pawn to conquer Syria.
Earlier this month, a Turkish police officer shot and killed the Russian ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov. Mevlut Mert Altintas also wounded at least three other people. According to reports, Altintas shouted a phrase commonly used by members of ISIS.
Turkey and Russia are allies in the war against Syrian rebels. The assassination of a Russian by someone from an ally may seem odd at first. After all, Altintas could have shot a Turkish diplomat, instead, as ISIS and Turkey are enemies in the Syrian civil war. Moreover, ISIS is composed of Sunni Muslims. Syria and Turkey are predominately Sunni Muslim. However, if Altintas belonged to ISIS, then the possible reasons behind this killing are clearer.
One explanation is ISIS possess a bloodthirsty drive for world domination. ISIS has tortured and killed many innocent civilians, particularly Christians, to capture territory in the Middle East.
Another explanation is the adage “divide and conquer.” By killing Karlov, ISIS may have hoped to sever the alliance between Russia and Turkey. Putin has not yet indicated whom he believes is responsible for the assassination. He could end relations with Turkey for allowing the murder of a Russian on Turkish soil, especially by a Turk. Or, he could enhance the assault on ISIS. If Russia wages a battle against Turkey, then Russia could be weakened by diverting resources to fighting Turkey. Whether fighting two wars would weaken Russian enough for the rebels to win is questionable, but circumstances may be dire enough for rebel forces to try anything. Reducing the Turkish front would further help rebel forces.
Another explanation is the murder was a simple counterattack on Russia, as someone else in this community already mentioned. Putin does not come across as someone easily intimidated, especially after he annexed Crimea and has been fighting ISIS since the latter threatened to attack Russia.
Manipulating people for evil purposes is despicable. Murdering innocent people is more despicable. Quite possibly, ISIS used Karlov as a pawn to conquer Syria.
Earlier this month, a Turkish police officer shot and killed the Russian ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov. Mevlut Mert Altintas also wounded at least three other people. According to reports, Altintas shouted a phrase commonly used by members of ISIS.
Turkey and Russia are allies in the war against Syrian rebels. The assassination of a Russian by someone from an ally may seem odd at first. After all, Altintas could have shot a Turkish diplomat, instead, as ISIS and Turkey are enemies in the Syrian civil war. Moreover, ISIS is composed of Sunni Muslims. Syria and Turkey are predominately Sunni Muslim. However, if Altintas belonged to ISIS, then the possible reasons behind this killing are clearer.
One explanation is ISIS possess a bloodthirsty drive for world domination. ISIS has tortured and killed many innocent civilians, particularly Christians, to capture territory in the Middle East.
Another explanation is the adage “divide and conquer.” By killing Karlov, ISIS may have hoped to sever the alliance between Russia and Turkey. Putin has not yet indicated whom he believes is responsible for the assassination. He could end relations with Turkey for allowing the murder of a Russian on Turkish soil, especially by a Turk. Or, he could enhance the assault on ISIS. If Russia wages a battle against Turkey, then Russia could be weakened by diverting resources to fighting Turkey. Whether fighting two wars would weaken Russian enough for the rebels to win is questionable, but circumstances may be dire enough for rebel forces to try anything. Reducing the Turkish front would further help rebel forces.
Another explanation is the murder was a simple counterattack on Russia, as someone else in this community already mentioned. Putin does not come across as someone easily intimidated, especially after he annexed Crimea and has been fighting ISIS since the latter threatened to attack Russia.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 10:45 (UTC)Well, ISIS has failed. We talked about this here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/2163628.html).
There won't be any battle of Russia against Turkey. Russia has used the murder of their diplomat to extort concessions from Turkey on the Syrian issue. The ceasefire agreement that both Russia and Turkey brokered was signed a few days after this assassination, which shows there were no consequences, apart from Russia gaining the upper hand at the table and ending up in the stronger position.
If ISIS really wanted to hurt Russia, they would've organized terrorist acts on Russian territory. They haven't.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 11:12 (UTC)They tried recently but failed (if believe FSB)
This murder should be CIA and Obama to “divide and conquer”. I think this most probable.
Second possible purpose is legitimate NATO intervention to Syria
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 12:07 (UTC)This murder should be CIA and Obama to “divide and conquer”. I think this most probable.
If by this you mean that the CIA and Obama organised the assassination of the Russian Ambassador on Turkish soil to "divide and conquer" something (the Russian-Turkish "alliance" perhaps?) this seems a trifle unlikely after the film of the murder and the assassin. Divide and conquer what though? Syria? I'm a bit confused here.
Second possible purpose is legitimate NATO intervention to Syria
Well, given the fact that NATO has avoided becoming involved up to now (unlike Russia) this seems an argumentum tu quoque rather ahead of and divergent to the facts.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 12:14 (UTC)Apply this to yourself reasoning
> NATO has avoided becoming involved up
if they avoided there would not be any of their ships, planes and their puppet "rebels"
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 12:56 (UTC)Apply this to yourself reasoning
If by this you mean I should apply Occam's razor to the situation or some other form of analysis, I'm happy to. Please explain your reasoning and which forms of analysis you are using. Because I don't quite see what you're saying. My fault obvs.
You still haven't answered my question though: what is it that Obama and the CIA are trying to divide and conquer? Syria? Turkey? Russia? The Russo-Turkic alliance complete with airplane disasters?
if they avoided there would not be any of their ships, planes and their puppet "rebels"
The Syrian rebels have an Airforce and a Navy now? Full of ex-NATO capital ships and planes? Gifted them by our generous governments?
Honestly. The Sunni majority in Syria rebelled against the Shia leadership after long-term drought and an asymmetric distribution of resources favouring the minority Shia population. The Yanks and some other parts of NATO gave and sold the Sunni rebels various arms, mainly via Saudi Arabia. What happened to the arms when Turkey used the Syrian civil war as an excuse to go after the Kurds became interesting. But you seem to imply that all this is a deep strategic plan to divide and conquer something as yet unspecified.
Divide and conquer what exactly please? Or, to use the vernacular, your slip's showing.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 13:06 (UTC)> The Syrian rebels have an Airforce and a Navy now
English really is not my first but now you are just pretending
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 13:36 (UTC)Divide and conquer? Who exactly is doing the dividing and conquering?
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 13:49 (UTC)I think the most probable variant is CIA and some part of USA political elite who prefer strategy of play in new Cold War.
> Turkey is a member of NATO. Russo-Turkic alliance is fragile
First alliance is old but falling, second is fragile but rising. It is enough motive for attempt to reverse these trends.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 14:21 (UTC)How is the Russo-Turkic alliance codified? The two are not the same.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 14:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 14:37 (UTC)Turkey is a signed-up fee-paying troop providing member of NATO. The NATO alliance take precedence according to the treaty itself.
So who is undermining alliances?
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 16:48 (UTC)USA supports Kurds, enemies of Turkey, USA protected Gülen, enemy of Erdogan
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 17:24 (UTC)One of the things about the Anglo-Saxon meltdown is that it had many differing predicates which all coalesced in two massive protest votes. But one of the main of these predicates was a lack of trust: a lack of trust in the political process; a lack of trust in information; a lack of trust in experts; a lack of trust in the executive; and a lack of trust in law-enforcement.
Now IMO we need to foster trust. But even I am cynical as to some people's motives for action. Trust seems absent, somehow.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 17:50 (UTC)Law-enforcement is possible only if there exists the force to en--force anybody. Or else there will be single law that is law of power. In politics there is not superior force like God or powerful aliens.
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 15:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 15:47 (UTC)Why not blame the Martians this time, you know, just for a change?
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 16:44 (UTC)not for all, it is too stupid exaggregation
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 18:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 18:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/1/17 13:03 (UTC)It's not as if NATO was marching into the Ukraine. Or even had made significant deployments in Syria, unlike Russia; unless you are claiming that Turkey, as a member of NATO, has deployed its troops. In which case any Turkish alliance outside NATO divides NATO, and you have your eye to the wrong end of the telescope.