Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Over 48 hours later- Mosul Still in Iraq. And no "Sunnistan" on the Horizon?

 Unless Sunnistan is a reference to Kurdistan aka the Second Israel? Because Kurds are largely Sunni Muslims- It's a good mind virus to spread around though?

Two very interesting news items regarding Turkish troop movement to Iraq and Russia's raising of the issue with the UN:

Kuna

 Iraq’s permanent representative to UN Ambassador Mohammad Al-Hakim said Baghdad and Ankara are solving the issue of Turkish troops’ presence in North Iraq in a bilateral manner. Emerging from the Security Council meeting that was held behind closed doors Al-Hakim confirmed to the press that Russia had raised the issue without consulting Baghdad and that his country (Iraq) has not yet brought it up officially at the United Nations.
I'm going to reiterate the facts; disinfo free one could say.

* Baghdad and Ankara are solving the issue of Turkish troops’ presence in North Iraq in a bilateral manner.

Al-Hakim confirmed to the press that Russia had raised the issue without consulting Baghdad and that his country (Iraq) has not yet brought it up officially at the United Nations.

“When we need, we have letters available to the Security Council but they have not been issued by Baghdad yet”
Al Hakim:* “When we need, we have letters available to the Security Council but they have not been issued by Baghdad yet”

Earlier the UN Secretary General spokesman Farhan Haq had said the US has done it’s utmost to establish the facts to the extent possible, notwithstanding the limited UN presence in the area and  the difficult security environment

“At this stage we understand that Turkish and Iraqi officials at the highest levels are currently in close contact with each other in an effort to defuse tensions and, of course,  the United Nations encourages both sides to resolve this issue bilaterally through constructive dialogue” he added

-Russia had raised the issue without consulting Baghdad according the Iraq's UN representative. Why? And in what context was the issue raised? I don't know.
-Baghdad did not raise the issue with the UN. Why?
-Baghdad and Turkey are in close contact with one another to defuse tensions. As it should be.

Recall the other day my mentioning  claims of annexing Mosul as rubbish?  And offering up alternative possibilities? PKK Occupy 3 Assyrian Iraqi Villages- Turks to Mosul and more


Simply reading the NATO MSM & alternative media,  I would not have been aware of these statements of fact from Baghdad's representative- I had to go and search for actual statements of fact from persons close to the situation. Which is my preferred method anyway...

Baghdad plays down Turkey's troops deployment in Iraq

Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday, December 8 appeared to play down a dispute between Baghdad and Ankara over the deployment of Turkish troops in northern Iraq, saying bilateral talks between the neighboring states to end the row were proceeding favorably, Reuters reports.

"We are solving it between Baghdad and Ankara bilaterally," Iraqi Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim told reporters after Russia raised the issue of Turkey's deployment during a closed-door meeting of the United Nations Security Council. "We have not yet escalated it to the Security Council or to the United Nations."
"For us, what is helpful is the bilateral discussion going on right now between Baghdad and Ankara, and it's going extremely well," he said, adding that Moscow had not consulted with Baghdad before raising the issue in the council.
But Alhakim reiterated that Iraq wanted the Turkish troops withdrawn from its territory immediately, saying the deployment was "illegal," and a violation of the United Nations charter.
Turkey has said the deployment was previously agreed with Iraq, a position U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told reporters was also her understanding. Ankara says its troops are training Iraqi soldiers to fight Islamic State militants, who have seized territory in Iraq and Syria.

Don't Miss: 

Jay Dyer/Catherine Austin Fitts: Systemic Corruption

Breaking: Russia strikes ISIS targets in Syria from Sub in Mediterranean, First Time.

Public Relations Stunt: Syrian 'rebels' let 'ISIS' fighters live

26 comments:

  1. Probably be more on this later. Just found it very interesting what Baghdad's spokesperson was saying....

    ReplyDelete
  2. So no one else finds it odd that one neighbour (Turkey) went to another neighbour's house (Iraq) allegedly uninvited but the intruded upon neighbour (Iraq) isn't bothered by this claimed intrusion? Not at all. No fuss raised. No letter. Nothing

    Because this suggests to me that Iraq wasn't really put out.

    So why did Russia raise this issue and in what context was this issue raised, without consulting Baghdad?

    I've been mulling over that concept all day today...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elijah J. Magnier ‏@EjmAlrai 16h16 hours ago
      #Baghdad municipality declared all #Turkish goods unwelcome and boycotted and call for the implementation of this decision nation-wide #Iraq

      Delete
    2. SputnikVerified account ‏@SputnikInt Dec 9
      #Turkey urges all citizens to leave #Iraq immediately over #security concerns
      http://sptnkne.ws/anZG

      but not the army..thats worrying

      Delete
  3. Just speculation here, but it might have played as Russia and Iraq talk about how they are going to deal with Turkey and the both agree to take it the UN. As Russia is on the Security Council it probably made sense for them to raise it formally with Iraq backing them up, of course.

    In the meantime, the US leaned on Abadi (who decided he wanted to live another year) to withdraw his support for the joint Russian/Iraq initiative.

    This takes the legitimacy way from Russian protest and tells the Russians that we (the US) control Abadi so forget about making deals with him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hey james!

    I really did think about the what's going on here for hours and hours and then I started thinking again about it this morning after reading your comment

    It's possible that Russia and the US are both using Turkey to get at one another?
    -Russia using Turkey to get at NATO
    -US using Turkey to get to Russia
    Putting Turkey in an extremely uncomfortable middle!

    Then of course each leader is spouting rhetoric for the domestic audience and the international audience- not the same rhetoric of course-

    But this news was blown out of all proportion and considering most of our news is NATO news tells me, the misleading was done intentionally....for the western NATO occupied audience

    ReplyDelete
  5. Explore
    http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20151210/1031518376/grey-wolves-threat-to-crimea.html

    "To begin with, it’s worth recalling that Alparslan Celik, the so-called 'Turkmen commander' who boasted that he killed the pilot of the Russian Su-24 downed over Syria by the Turkish Air Force last month, is allegedly a Turkish national, and a member of the Grey Wolves."

    Crimea power lines blown Nov 21

    hand symbol of the wolves

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Support_Activity



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. interesting...

      cause if this was a grey wolf that killed the pilot, he would have little if any allegiance to Turkey- the nation state:

      "When it comes to the Grey Wolves, one should expect anything. This is a very strong organization which has legal branches in Germany and the Netherlands," the analyst noted. "In Turkey, they are formally banned, but as we can see, they can operate quite freely in neighboring Syria. Recently, the Grey Wolves appeared in Ukraine, publically demonstrating their intensions alongside the 'Dzhemilevists'."

      "The Grey Wolves," Nadein-Raevsky notes, "have big plans, and they will stop at nothing to try to achieve them. It's necessary to understand that this is a pro-fascist, terrorist organization, dedicated toward the creation of the Great Turan State, as taught by the Grey Wolves' ideological leader, Alparslan Turkes."

      so very reminiscent of the PKK..
      notice they are embedded with NATO destabilizing forces in both instances? Ukraine and Syria?
      Doubtful that is a coincidence.

      I will check out the wiki page
      thanks

      Delete
    2. Just my two cents but a big YES the wolves are a danger to Turkey but only after they finish the Syria/Iraq project. They have been mentioned in several books and reports on Gladio and most researchers believe they are still active and being used (by NATO/US) as a counter force to the Turkish military whenever a coup is approved. That way US controls all sides of society. Same story as the original Gladio version but this one they managed to keep semi-active by moving it to places like NW China whenever trouble comes up in Turkey.
      As a side note they are thought to be the ones responsible for bringing the Chinese Uigyers to Syria not actually Turkey the state.
      The only problem is the nationalism that rose after June elections allowed them to act again without anyone connecting the dots. PKK just blamed State and Turkey blamed PKK/ISIS so the coast was clear for the wolves to play both sides at the request of their true master USA.

      Delete
    3. What Silver Palomino says makes a lot of sense to me given that the track record of the US is one of continual war-making. They are not interested in "winning" any conflict but only in causing, maintaining and extending any conflict. Their purposes are not in winning conflicts but in promoting conflicts.

      Their "order" out of other people's chaos. To be the only power left in the world after everybody else has been induced to destroy each other. So the US/israel finance and arm all these factions and set them against anyone who resists this drive into chaos and then have the factions fight each other. The object is to create destruction and confusion so nobody knows who they are really fighting against.

      Delete
    4. Hi Silver Palamino
      thanks for your input :)
      worth way more then two cents, IMO

      I`ve seen the grey wolves name tossed around but always attributed to Erdogan, like the sputnik article.

      The headline is intentionally misleading, the url indicates what the original headline was, because once one reads through the entire article then it becomes quite clear these are not Erdogan`s wolves.
      It seemed in all likelihood these are NATO`s wolves...

      would you have any additional links to information on this bunch of wolves handy?

      I think a background post of some sort is in order to give myself and other readers some sort of background

      Thanks again SP

      Delete
    5. hey james, yes it does make a whole bunch of sense...

      "Their "order" out of other people's chaos"

      exactly

      Delete
  6. Elijah J. Magnier ‏@EjmAlrai 16h16 hours ago
    #Baghdad municipality declared all #Turkish goods unwelcome and boycotted and call for the implementation of this decision nation-wide #Iraq

    ReplyDelete
  7. The former Turkish military adviser Metin Gurcan in AL-Monitor analyzes the aims of the Turkish invasion of Iraq:

    Ankara — which realizes each player in Syria and Iraq is setting up its own “boutique power base” — feels a best-case scenario for Turkey will be:
    To allow emergence of the Mosul-based "Sunnistan Autonomous Administration," which is loosely linked to Baghdad, as Baghdad's central authority is waning by the day.
    To enable cooperation between the KRG and the Sunni bodies in Syria, and the "Iraqi Sunnistan" under the security umbrella of the Turkish military.
    For Turkey to become the regional sponsor of this new three-entity structure.
    Some U.S. circles like the plan. John Bolton recently wrote an NYT op-ed To Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State which endorses the deconstruction of Iraq.
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/12/turkeys-imperial-motives-in-attacking-syria-and-iraq.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. State Dept spokesman gets personal with RT over Turkey-Iraq feud question - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMS8tYFk9Bc&feature=em-uploademail …

    ReplyDelete
  9. State Dept spokesman gets personal with RT over Turkey-Iraq feud question - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMS8tYFk9Bc&feature=em-uploademail …

    ReplyDelete
  10. The former Turkish military adviser Metin Gurcan in AL-Monitor analyzes the aims of the Turkish invasion of Iraq:

    Ankara — which realizes each player in Syria and Iraq is setting up its own “boutique power base” — feels a best-case scenario for Turkey will be:
    To allow emergence of the Mosul-based "Sunnistan Autonomous Administration," which is loosely linked to Baghdad, as Baghdad's central authority is waning by the day.
    To enable cooperation between the KRG and the Sunni bodies in Syria, and the "Iraqi Sunnistan" under the security umbrella of the Turkish military.
    For Turkey to become the regional sponsor of this new three-entity structure.
    Some U.S. circles like the plan. John Bolton recently wrote an NYT op-ed To Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State which endorses the deconstruction of Iraq.
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/12/turkeys-imperial-motives-in-attacking-syria-and-iraq.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. a trend?
    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151211/1031581603/us-gulf-troops-iraq.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. brian: mosul wasn't annexed and claims of an invasion by Turkey were greatly exaggerated- if you read the posted material you would have already grasped that concept

    ReplyDelete
  13. brian: mosul wasn't annexed and claims of an invasion by Turkey were greatly exaggerated- if you read the posted material you would have already grasped that concept

    Having watched the delighful "brian" and his antics over at the disinfo site MOA, IMHO "brian" is not very good at grasping concepts - or maybe it's more a case of "brian" being good at pretending he does not grasp the concept

    For example: I have seen him promote 2 very contradictory theories regarding the Ghouta attack, and then he attacked me when I dared point out that the theories he was promoting as complimentary were in fact contradictory.

    This leads me to conclude that "brian" is either very thick or very dishonest (or both)

    He certainly is very very anti KSA and anti Turkey. Nothing wrong with all that I guess except that I strongly suspect that he is motivated not by an outraged sense of injustice but more of a sense of being anti all things muslim.

    Never really see him posting much on the Zionists though, which fits with the obvious ANti-All-Things-Muslim he exudes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Hubris! Yes, brian looks to be doing a stellar job of making himself appear suspect or questionable.

      and btw: glad to know your still around!


      Delete
    2. hubris indeed:
      'disinfo site MOA'

      MSM may be bad, but blogs the blogs may be accumulating some real wierdos...this nameless soul has MOA as Disinfo site,which only means he doesnt agree with what B posts and decides to label B a disino agent

      the effect is to make this site look like disinfo

      its all relative

      Delete
    3. Notice how "brian" skips over the claim that he was deliberately prompting 2 completely contradictory theories on the Ghouta attack.One theory "brian" supported put the blame on Saudis, the other theory put the blame on Turkey.

      the contradictions were ignored by the dodgy "brian".

      Notice how the dodgy "brian" ignores the claim that when it was pointed out to him that he was promoting 2 very contradictory theories, rather than pause and reflect, as any genuine sceptic might do, he just went on the attack.

      'disinfo site MOA'

      Yes b is a complete "disinfo" merchant - he dabbles in "incompetence theories" all day long all the while knowing damn well that little if any of it can be dismissed as mere "incompetence".

      This has been pointed out to him many times - he ignores it completely.

      This is why none of his attempts at "prediction" ever turn out as he "predicted" while those arguing against his "incompetence theories", Penny being a perfect example, often do turn out to correctly predict events.

      The latest lie that b has decided to sell us is that the whole of events in countries near Israel can be explained by 'pipelines' rather than any reference to things like the Yinon plan.

      Dodgy 'b' of dodgy MOA fame loves to refer to Turkey and "Neo-Ottomanism", but hates to see anyone referencing the Yinon Plan and expansionist Zionism - much like yourself dodgy "brian"

      Pure lies the man is peddling

      So get lost "brian" you dodgy little turd, and f off back to that disinfo site you seem so attached to, and peddle your lies there

      Delete
    4. Hubris: "Dodgy 'b' of dodgy MOA fame loves to refer to Turkey and "Neo-Ottomanism", but hates to see anyone referencing the Yinon Plan and expansionist Zionism - much like yourself dodgy "brian"

      Noticed that did ya? Meanwhile, it's exactly the opposite and Turkey is completely under the gun, so the very idea that they are in a 'neo-ottamanism' mode is unrealistic to the nth degree.

      I had left a comment at moa when b wrote a whole piece about how Syria's war revolved around climate change and 'bad turkey' using water as a weapon

      when AGW is a pile of hooey!
      While Turkey and Syria have water issues
      b failed entirely to mention the fact that Israel stole much of Syria's water... yup that was no where to be found in his so called expose-
      Yet it's a big, big factor in the entire issue.
      Not sure if that comment was 'allowed' by b.
      Cause when I started to point out these, inconvenient to b truths, he just disallowed my comments.... I always put what ever comment I left there here- left one about the pkk being armed by the US, aka NATO stay behind style, destabilizing Turkey, that one never saw light of day at moa.

      There is lots of that kind of stuff going around...

      Delete
  14. or not
    Hassan Ridha ‏@sayed_ridha 3h3 hours ago
    Iraqis in Tahrir Square #Baghdad protest Turkish presence in northern #Iraq pic.twitter.com/F23oahXww4

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Penny- I know this is a VERY late comment and maybe irrelevant now, but from the Iraqi press reports since Turkey sent troops inside Iraq, it was not a matter of actually being invaded but the memory of all the years of US invasion/occupation are still fresh in the minds of average Iraqis. The Iraqi govt. didn't go to UN right away but after days of public protests they were forced to do more than just make speeches to the people.
    There's also something to do with the US/Iraq security agreement where US guaranteed Iraq's security and the new US appointed govt. relied on that to solve the issue which is why they asked NATO first to solve the dispute.
    But overall it still comes down to the fact that there seems to have been some amount of collusion between Barzani & either Turkey or NATO. That was what really upset the parliament members.
    I don't know if they see the whole BIG region wide picture, but they sure saw a threat of breaking up the country. Doing everything behing their backs is what has pushed them to the limit - add this to all the flights of weapons they have caught at the airport and the ones dropping pallets in ISIS territory and some Iraqis saw a hidden agenda. That forced the hand of the President to do something.
    Why Russia did it firstis anybody's guess... they know US plans and might have used the opportunity to try to open a UN discussion or the more innocent excuse of territorial integrity that US is always going on about at them??

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS