hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1075 of 1080 FirstFirst ... 75575975102510651072107310741075107610771078 ... LastLast
Results 21,481 to 21,500 of 21599

Thread: Jihadist Caliphate LLC. Extremist Thunderdome's everywhere.

  1. #21481
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,680
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    And if this shit wasn't already worse enough, Turkey might protentially invoke the NATO treaty:
    The situation could force the NATO member's allies to get involved, according to Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "Article five of the NATO pact states that all other countries must help to defend a country if it is attacked," Asselborn said, describing the situation as "extraordinary."
    Source
    Turkey is the one doing the attacking.
    This. They'll be told it's not an attack on their territory and thus not a valid excuse.

    Tapapapatalk
    Wouldn't want for some grenades to land in a town on the turkish side on the border now, wouldn't we. /S
    especially one inhabited by kurds, why the outrage!
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  2. #21482
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,156
    https://streamable.com/p9nod

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDmUZ8LM1Jk

    >tfw you get high and start bombing kurds but it turns out you're just watching a show at a shooting range

  3. #21483
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,968
    I mean the crowd of people with smartphones kinda gives it away.

    Also the fact that they’re not shooting at anything.

    Doesnt change the fact that the Kurds are being bombed, and I posted video of an execution on the previous page.

  4. #21484

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaztick View Post
    https://streamable.com/p9nod

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDmUZ8LM1Jk

    >tfw you get high and start bombing kurds but it turns out you're just watching a show at a shooting range
    Yeah, we need legislation to stop this shit.

  5. #21485

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    4,174
    That was fast:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middl...eporting-story

    At what point is Russia going to be fighting itself?

  6. #21486

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    And if this shit wasn't already worse enough, Turkey might protentially invoke the NATO treaty:
    The situation could force the NATO member's allies to get involved, according to Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "Article five of the NATO pact states that all other countries must help to defend a country if it is attacked," Asselborn said, describing the situation as "extraordinary."
    Source
    Turkey is the one doing the attacking.
    This. They'll be told it's not an attack on their territory and thus not a valid excuse.
    Unfortunately, that doesn't matter (anymore). 9/11 pushed the limit on that one. Art 5 was invoked, though no country/organized military force attacked the U.S.. Art. 5 now has been bended to include "terror attacks" and "sabotage".

    So as soon as a single bullet lands on Turkey territory, they've been "attacked" and at least demand that the defensive pact be enacted.

  7. #21487
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    And if this shit wasn't already worse enough, Turkey might potentially invoke the NATO treaty:
    The situation could force the NATO member's allies to get involved, according to Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "Article five of the NATO pact states that all other countries must help to defend a country if it is attacked," Asselborn said, describing the situation as "extraordinary."
    Source
    Turkey is the one doing the attacking.
    This. They'll be told it's not an attack on their territory and thus not a valid excuse.
    Unfortunately, that doesn't matter (anymore). 9/11 pushed the limit on that one. Art 5 was invoked, though no country/organized military force attacked the U.S. Art. 5 now has been bent to include "terror attacks" and "sabotage".

    So as soon as a single bullet lands on Turkey territory, they've been "attacked" and at least demand that the defensive pact be enacted.
    I disagree. 9/11 did not change Art.5. It was ruled as an attack on US soil, which it undoubtedly was. There wasn't even a need to bend the rules to cover terrorist attacks. Just have a look at Article 5:
    “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
    You may notice an absolute lack of words like nation, nation-state or country. Now you will say that the word parties here means nations, which is true. but at no point does the article mention that the attacker is a party or nation or anything.

    Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

    That source explains what mutual assistance means:

    With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

    This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

    At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
    Emphasis mine. Now look at the bolded bits. The first one means that if Turkey successfully invokes Article 5 (which requires the other members to agree), everyone else can decide to only provide thoughts and prayers. Turkey may not be able to invoke Article 5, as their war fails to secure the North Atlantic area. And then the wording of Article 5 itself is such that no other NATO member must react at all.

    But that question seems moot when Trump ordered sanctions on Turkey today.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...out-of-control
    nevar forget

  8. #21488

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,809
    So, given all you cited there (and yes, I was wrong, it was right there from the beginning, 9/11 just made it clear), what makes you think that this wouldn't make a case for Turkey to invoke Art. 5, once any of the other forces defending themselves from the Turkish invasion "attack" Turkish forces? Because I nowhere see a passage with some kind of exclusion like "except said NATO member attacked first"

  9. #21489
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,680
    they can invoke it if they want Hel, the rest of NATO would, techincally be furfilling their obligations to Turkey by sending a strongly worded letter to Assad, along with the entirety of the EU's cold war leftovers, giftwrapped of course.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  10. #21490
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,424
    NATO is like the UN - posing as omnipotent but in reality barely functional.

  11. #21491
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,651
    Similar to Russia, yes.

  12. #21492
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    So, given all you cited there (and yes, I was wrong, it was right there from the beginning, 9/11 just made it clear), what makes you think that this wouldn't make a case for Turkey to invoke Art. 5, once any of the other forces defending themselves from the Turkish invasion "attack" Turkish forces? Because I nowhere see a passage with some kind of exclusion like "except said NATO member attacked first"
    See below:
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    The first one means that if Turkey successfully invokes Article 5 (which requires the other members to agree), everyone else can decide to only provide thoughts and prayers.[...] And then the wording of Article 5 itself is such that no other NATO member must react at all.
    nevar forget

  13. #21493
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    8,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Similar to Russia, yes.
    He said functional.

  14. #21494

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    So, given all you cited there (and yes, I was wrong, it was right there from the beginning, 9/11 just made it clear), what makes you think that this wouldn't make a case for Turkey to invoke Art. 5, once any of the other forces defending themselves from the Turkish invasion "attack" Turkish forces? Because I nowhere see a passage with some kind of exclusion like "except said NATO member attacked first"
    See below:
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    The first one means that if Turkey successfully invokes Article 5 (which requires the other members to agree), everyone else can decide to only provide thoughts and prayers.[...] And then the wording of Article 5 itself is such that no other NATO member must react at all.
    Yeah, well, but given NATO was and is so eager to have Turkey as a member, I personally wouldn't bet on them outright denying anything Turkey demands. Erdogan can always pull of the "Gimme ... or else ..." and I guess Russia would be more than happy to provide some incentives to Turkey to enact the "or else..." part.

    The U.S. pulling out its troops has created a terrible mess. And I don't see no way this can resolve in a situation that's not worse than before that. And that was a worse situation to begin with.

  15. #21495
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,777
    No, NATO will not support Erdogan. Turkey's NATO membership happened during the Cold War, as you very very well know. It was done to get another front with the Soviet Union. Now Turkey doesn't even border Russia anymore, there's Georgia in between.

    Has any of the member nations applauded Erdogan for his actions? No. At most it will be tolerated because fighting Turkey won't achieve anything.
    nevar forget

  16. #21496
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Similar to Russia, yes.
    NATO has more budget.
    meh

  17. #21497

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    And if this shit wasn't already worse enough, Turkey might potentially invoke the NATO treaty:
    The situation could force the NATO member's allies to get involved, according to Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "Article five of the NATO pact states that all other countries must help to defend a country if it is attacked," Asselborn said, describing the situation as "extraordinary."
    Source
    Turkey is the one doing the attacking.
    This. They'll be told it's not an attack on their territory and thus not a valid excuse.
    Unfortunately, that doesn't matter (anymore). 9/11 pushed the limit on that one. Art 5 was invoked, though no country/organized military force attacked the U.S. Art. 5 now has been bent to include "terror attacks" and "sabotage".

    So as soon as a single bullet lands on Turkey territory, they've been "attacked" and at least demand that the defensive pact be enacted.
    I disagree. 9/11 did not change Art.5. It was ruled as an attack on US soil, which it undoubtedly was. There wasn't even a need to bend the rules to cover terrorist attacks. Just have a look at Article 5:
    “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
    You may notice an absolute lack of words like nation, nation-state or country. Now you will say that the word parties here means nations, which is true. but at no point does the article mention that the attacker is a party or nation or anything.

    Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

    That source explains what mutual assistance means:

    With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

    This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

    At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
    Emphasis mine. Now look at the bolded bits. The first one means that if Turkey successfully invokes Article 5 (which requires the other members to agree), everyone else can decide to only provide thoughts and prayers. Turkey may not be able to invoke Article 5, as their war fails to secure the North Atlantic area. And then the wording of Article 5 itself is such that no other NATO member must react at all.

    But that question seems moot when Trump ordered sanctions on Turkey today.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...out-of-control
    I've been curious, have any European countries imposed sanctions? Germany?

  18. #21498
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,525
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    And if this shit wasn't already worse enough, Turkey might potentially invoke the NATO treaty:
    The situation could force the NATO member's allies to get involved, according to Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "Article five of the NATO pact states that all other countries must help to defend a country if it is attacked," Asselborn said, describing the situation as "extraordinary."
    Source
    Turkey is the one doing the attacking.
    This. They'll be told it's not an attack on their territory and thus not a valid excuse.
    Unfortunately, that doesn't matter (anymore). 9/11 pushed the limit on that one. Art 5 was invoked, though no country/organized military force attacked the U.S. Art. 5 now has been bent to include "terror attacks" and "sabotage".

    So as soon as a single bullet lands on Turkey territory, they've been "attacked" and at least demand that the defensive pact be enacted.
    I disagree. 9/11 did not change Art.5. It was ruled as an attack on US soil, which it undoubtedly was. There wasn't even a need to bend the rules to cover terrorist attacks. Just have a look at Article 5:
    “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
    You may notice an absolute lack of words like nation, nation-state or country. Now you will say that the word parties here means nations, which is true. but at no point does the article mention that the attacker is a party or nation or anything.

    Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

    That source explains what mutual assistance means:

    With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

    This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

    At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
    Emphasis mine. Now look at the bolded bits. The first one means that if Turkey successfully invokes Article 5 (which requires the other members to agree), everyone else can decide to only provide thoughts and prayers. Turkey may not be able to invoke Article 5, as their war fails to secure the North Atlantic area. And then the wording of Article 5 itself is such that no other NATO member must react at all.

    But that question seems moot when Trump ordered sanctions on Turkey today.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...out-of-control
    I've been curious, have any European countries imposed sanctions? Germany?
    Arms embargo from UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, Sweden and Norway i think it was. And the standard "strongly worded letters" from EU official's ofc.

  19. #21499

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    4,784
    summary:

    US withdrew from Syria
    YPG/SDF made a deal with Assad
    US and EU sanctioned Turkey, which means more Russian arms sales to Turkey, Putin must be laughing.

  20. #21500
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    On the shitty side of the Alps
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    summary:

    US withdrew from Syria
    YPG/SDF made a deal with Assad
    US and EU sanctioned Turkey, which means more Russian arms sales to Turkey, Putin must be laughing.
    You forgot the 'Turkey unilaterally invades Syria', but yeah, this timeline man...


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •