Quote Originally Posted by Azor View Post
Well, Ankara has been fighting the PKK and PYD at the expense of the campaign against Daesh.,..
No. Ankara was - for years - negotiating with the PKK, while at the same time calling for the USA and others of its Western allies to help it solve the situation in Syria. For years. In 2011, in 2012, in 2013, in 2014 etc.

The West refused, and - and against any logic - continued to ignore the situation in Syria even when millions of Syrians poured over the border into Turkey, an then continued pushing further west and north, putting the Turkish economy under immense strain.

And when this was not enough, the West ignored the Russians exporting at least 25.000 of their Wahhabists to Syria, where these joined the Daesh and Nusra - both of which came into being foremost thanks to the Assad regime.

And when that was not enough, the West - but the USA in particular - started acting as if Assad regime is entirely irrelevant, as if there is no popular uprising nor 'civil war' in Syria, as if there is no Iranian military intervention in Syria, and as if Turkey should neither have its own national interests inside Turkey, nor for its neighbourhood.

And when that was not enough, the US military - violating US laws - entered cooperation with the PKK, while using bases inside Turkey.

And when that was not enough, the Turks were told to shut up and tolerate the PKK, to shut up and tolerate 4 millions of Syrian refugees inside Turkey - and then also accused of cooperation with Nusra and Daesh, and this despite perfect clarity that Erdogan and his AKP are on the list of enemies of these two (visible also through the fact that the elements of Turkish society that do cooperate with the HTS, for example, stand in opposition to the AKP).

So, now replace 'Turkey' with 'USA' - or any other nation coming to your mind - and then tell me: who to hell would've tolerated that any more?

Interesting. Turkey is transformed from an empire into a republic and the Turkish nation and state are absolved of collective responsibility. That’s a neat trick.
No, it is not. The blame for genocide of Armenians is on Turkey and Turks, no doubt about this. And, sooner or later, they'll accept their responsibility.

It's just a piss-poor excuse, misused for demonizing Turkey and completely ignoring Turkish interests. An act that's ruining relations between the West and that country for decades in advance.

Now tell me, please: in whose interest is that?

Who says that? That’s a ridiculous assertion.
sigh... Do I really have to waste even more time with discussing that topic further in-depth, too...?

Get yourself at least 'Arabs and Israelis for Dummies', and read: everything is nicely based on documentation.

There was cleansing but not genocide. The aboriginals cleansed European settlers...
'Aborigines' - in the USA...? Well, thanks for a reminder, but I didn't even try to add them to the equation.

Any other topics we can cover before we return to Turkey? I thought your soft spot was for Sunni Arabs...
And you were wrong with thinking that way. My soft spot is humanity and freedom, and opposition to any kind of oppression. It just so happens that some of Sunni Arabs are between plenty of other people who are opressed.

But then, that's something you don't think about, and thus can't understand me.

On the contrary, the death toll of Arab and Palestinian civilians at Jewish and Israeli hands is fairly well-known. Most of the casualties inflicted by the Israelis were combatants.
Oh, but 'sure'...

The point is that the Turks – not unlike the Russians – have difficulty with their history and collective responsibility...
Wrong. Their governments have such problems, because both of them need chauvinists to keep themselves in power.

Such as who?
Are you the government of the USA...? Any of European governments? At least representative for any such bodies...?

Not reading carefully or just taking things too personally?

Either way, I've got no time for that. So, just one more point:

Because the FSA’s priority would be to defeat pro-Assad forces
... What's wrong with that?

...involve the U.S. in regime change – albeit the Syrian state has long since collapsed – and possibly burden the U.S. with occupation and reconstruction...
Who told you that?

...while Daesh is still in the field.
Aha, and what was first, FSyA or the Daesh?

I mean: is it too much to ask you to at least pay attention at the chronology, i.e. the time-line?

Are you really that poor at 'connecting dots' as to fail to understand that the Daesh could've been easily prevented by supporting the FSyA and removing Assad on time?

If Iran were not Assad’s primary backer, the U.S. could orchestrate a palace coup d’état for an Alawi leader content with an Alawi rump state.
...which wold change absolutely nothing.

But then, it's meanwhile typical for you - yes, this time: 'for you' - to be unable to think beyond, 'replacing one dictator of the minority through another dictator from the same minory'.

If the U.S. turns on the arms spigot to the FSA, Iran will simply intervene with regular forces.
What 'regular forces', PLEASE?

Azor, would you like to tell me, you've really got not even that much clue about the Syrian civil war as to know a) it's not the Iranian military, but the IRGC - indeed: IRGC-QF - that's responsible for such Iranian operations like the one in Syria, b) this IRGC-QF deployed its first two 'regular' (IRGC) brigades to Syria already in 2012, and c) that Iran is running a full-blown military intervention in Syria at least since early 2013?

If so, sorry, but we need not discussing this topic until you inform yourself properly.