[shna]

I am a native Turkish speaker and I listened the recording. For one thing I did not hear anything you would not expect to hear from most of the statesman in the west in a similar situation.

Conversation is about the future stance of Turkey for the civil war in Syria and lack of enough resolve for the last 3 years to intervene properly, and that does not mean directly involving but not supplying ammo to rebel groups against Assad regime. They are complaining that the civil war took a turn toward total destabilization of the region, especially after Al-Qaeda linked group called ISIL[1] started taking over anti-Assad rebel groups. They fear that if ISIL becomes an armed power next to Turkey's border it will be a huge security concern. The head of intelligence agency says that if Turkey going to engage against them in the future it should be done so on their terms but not the other side's choosing. The mention of alleged provocation of the head of intelligence by his minions firing rockets from the Syrian side into Turkish side is correct. He says his men can do that. However he says that in the context they want to be the one starting the assault on ISIL, not the other way around. They argue that if they should wait for the ISIL to attack first. So again it is about engaging al-Qaeda linked group but not starting war with Syria. In this recording foreign minister mention that they want to avoid any conflict with Syria due to their capabilities. I do believe that any war with Syria destabilizes Turkey grossly and it is definitely something they would want to avoid and they did.

The al-Qaeda linked group (ISIL) invaded one the Syrian village about [4] 30-40km away from the Turkish border about a week ago. And like many Turkish I learned something new last week. In that village there's the tomb[2] of the grandfather of the founder of Ottoman Empire. Surrounding of that tomb which is a tiny tiny land in that village belongs to Turkish Republic. The monument is protected by Turkish soldiers who reside there permanently. After ISIL invaded the surrounding village they demanded [5] that Turkish soldiers leave the monument. However that land is part of Turkish sovereign land and Turkey reacted that she would intervene forcefully. Even we have been reading that couple of F-16 fighters are kept ready to take off on the tarmac and special ops can intervene in 90 seconds.

In the recording, foreign minister mentions the option of intervention to ISIL using the Tomb as an excuse, even if they do not attack monument and the soldiers. They mention that world would support such intervention since this is a al-Qaeda linked group. So they would like to attack ISIL fully in the whole region.

They are not warmongering against Syria, and they fear that ISIL's presence could become permanent and can become something of huge security concern for years to come.. In the recording, head of Turkish intelligence mention about lack of resolve of the government. He says if they did not intervene while thousands of people died, still attack on the Tomb of Suleyman Shah is a weaker argument to start an attack.

Probably we need to consider how US would react if an Al-Qaeda linked group starts taking over northern villages of Mexico while a civil war is going on in there.

However the main post is about YouTube ban due to this recording. I just wanted to give another perspective.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_L... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Suleyman_Shah [3] https://plus.google.com/109044970213631232914/about?gl=us&hl... [4] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tomb+of+Suleyman+Shah/@36.... [5] http://www.worldbulletin.net/turkey/132062/isil-deadline-for...

[yawz]

> I did not hear anything you would not expect to hear from most of the statesman in the west in a similar situation.

What are you talking about?!?

The head of secret service states: "If need be, I'll send 4 lads to Syria. I'll make them fire 8 rockets back to Turkey in order to produce a valid reason to go to war. We can make them attack the Soliman Shah mausoleum"

Is this NORMAL in your opinion? Does that have anything defendable?

[vlahmot]

Many times in history people lie or scheme to go to war. For instance the Gulf of Tonkin incident that prompted US entry into Vietnam, or the sinking of the Lusitania before the US entry into WWII where the German government placed ads in newspapers telling people not to get on the ship as it would be sunk.

[pessimizer]

>Probably we need to consider how US would react if an Al-Qaeda linked group starts taking over northern villages of Mexico while a civil war is going on in there.

Why would "al-Qaeda linked" groups be considered more dangerous than the mass-murdering cartels? Mexico is almost a failed state and we haven't invaded.

[notahacker]

Unlike Islamist terror groups' views on secular Turkey, the mass murdering cartels have no particular interest in US regime change. That said US military units can and frequently do carpet bomb parts of Latin America with herbicides as part of the War on Drugs, so it's a stone cold certainty that the US military has discussed strategies for targeting Mexican cartels and what level of provocation/support would be needed to prompt direct military involvement.

If US politicians were publicly stating willingness to intervene militarily in Mexico to protect a purely symbolic target, as appears to be the case here (link [5] above) I'd expect that behind closed doors leaders would be discussing what would be necessary to win international support, and sceptics would be expressing similar cynicism about whether the talking tough was really more about domestic politics.

[shna]

There is not a civil war in Mexico, is it? Mexican government is not bombing Mexican cities with fighter jets either. 120,000 (actually 658,000 if proportioned it to Mexican population) people have not died in Mexico in the last 3 years, and 3 million (12 million) people have not displaced as refugee in bordering countries either. Would you like me to go on?

Mexican government is fully cooperating with US and not acting like an enemy towards US, eh?

[pessimizer]

>There is not a civil war in Mexico, is it?

Depends on who you ask.

>120,000 (actually 658,000 if proportioned it to Mexican population) people have not died in Mexico in the last 3 years

No, more like 100,000 in eight. What's your threshold?

>3 million (12 million) people have not displaced as refugee in bordering countries either.

http://usopenborders.com/2012/04/160000-mexicans-displaced-i...

edit: I'm not using Mexican figures to say that fabricating evidence in order to invade is wrong - it just is. I'm saying that using the US as a justification is illegitimate. The US has a record of invading countries in order to enrich itself. To say that Turkey is invading for the same reasons that the US invades is to say that Turkey is going to lie to its own people and the world in order to make a resource grab. That's awful, and a lot of people think that Blair and Bush should be in prison for it.

[shna]

Nowhere I said Turkey should invade or anything. This is a bit getting out of hand. I just wanted to draw attention giving an example. However creating a temporary buffer zone where a terrorist group already taken control of is not unthinkable either.

[3327]

Your text seems almost like Turkish gov't pawn propaganda.

a 4 hour account, and a very well put together defense of the recording. Any one that speaks Turkish and listened to the full recording will not mistake the following for anything else, "I can send 4 of my guys there (Syria) to fire rockets".

>For one thing I did not hear anything you would not expect to hear from most of the statesman in the west in a similar situation.

So lets cut the bullshit. Attacking your own people to create fear and thus justify war means is TERRORISM.

[shna]

Yes, if you take the sentence out of its context and clip it that how it sounds. You have every right to criticize what's in that recording, but you should do it honestly. The rest of the statement you omitted is "they would fire 8 rockets into empty lands".

Here's the Turkish statement he (the head if intelligence) made in the recording:

"Biz gerekçeyse gerekçeyi üretiriz, ben öbür tarafa 4 tane adam gönderirim, 8 tane boş alana füze de attırırım."

So he intends to say that he would send 4 of his men but have them send the 8 rockets to empty lands.

In other part of the speech he is more concerned about human life. He says along large swath of the border millions of people's life are at risk that should be enough for intervention but on the other hand we're talking of the Tomb and 22-28 soldiers over there (this is not a translation of the following but gist of it).

Turkish: " yani işte vatan toprağının işte bu oda kadar yaklaşık 10 dönümlük bir yer için silah kullanmayı göz önüne alıyoruz, ordaki 22-28 tane askerimizin şeyi için, yahu kaçbin kilometre vatan toprağı var sınırda kaç milyon insanın hayatı için almıyoruz"

Full text of recording in Turkish:

https://eksisozluk.com/27-mart-2014-ahmet-davutoglu-ses-kayd...

[shna]

People are already afraid of stray bullets and artillery shells on the Turkish side. Even couple of people died because of that. In a border town called Reyhanli, 60 people already died because of car bomb.

What these people in the recoding are talking to find a more legitimate reason to intervene on the the other side of the border, especially to ISIL. Something that world can back them. They are not looking for war with Syria. Minister of Foreign Affairs says:

"zaten adamların kapasitesini bildiğimiz için biz girmeyelim diyoruz."

"since we know their[Syrian] capability we say we should not get involved".

So they do not want to get involved (create a circumstance) for an all out war but use other options like manufacturing ammo and selling them since Qatar is already out for purchase. Here's the Turkish for that part:

"şimdi bakın efendim. mke bizim sayın bakanın emrinde değil mi efendim? efendim yani şu anda parayla katar mühimmat arıyor. peşin para üretsin versinler. sayın bakanın emrinde."

[vajorie]

seems u listened the first part. also, seriously, learn critical thinking.

[shna]

I listened both videos. It is apparent that you either did not listen it or did not read my comment completely. Why don't you show us your critical thinking while linking it to the text without fabricating anything.