Murder, Inc. vs. Dutch Schultz

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Nov 30, 2015 at 10:54

Hi, Moh

I'm surprized you haven't done your homework here; I expect better of you.

"(ISIS) are in no position to be making bargains with Russia."

ISIS has tremendous leverage in the Caucasus -- which includes the ability to wreak havoc in Moscow and other cities via Caucasian Muslims. Also, Turkey has Russia in check in both Syria and Iraq: They might be weaker than the Russians, but they have the US firmly behind them. Turkey is not Syria, where Obama can declare red lines and then retract them. Turkey has Europe by the balls with the refugee weapon, and has us deeply entrenched there with joint ventures and intelligence sharing. Add to this, the fact that Turkey and ISIS are Sunni states; and that Syria is overwhelmingly Sunni. Russia is in a very poor position, on two fronts. They can go "Boom! Boom!" all they want; but they cannot go the course.

Russia has already systematically leveled Raqqa, a city of 200,000: "I don't think that is correct. Can you list your sources on that?"

Easy to check:

Russia has hit the ISIS 'capital' Raqqa with cruise missiles - just hours after saying the passenger jet brought down in Egypt had been bombed. The strikes come after it was revealed French jets had pounded targets in the terrorists' Syrian stronghold, including a command centre and a recruitment base for jihadists.

-- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321624/France-launches-wave-bombing-raids-Syria.html (includes pix)

As for the extent of the destruction, cf.

Russia Destroys Islamic State In Raqqa? Moscow Claims It Disrupted Command Centers, Sent ISIS Leaders Fleeing From Capital City

-- http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-destroys-islamic-state-raqqa-moscow-claims-it-disrupted-command-centers-sent-2192510

Those articles, and many others, are from non-Russian sources. The fact that the French are also deeply involved, makes it unlikely that it is a pure fabrication. I agree with you, that Raqqa is not exactly "flattened", as DEBKA claims; but I believe they are fully capable of this. As for being "strung up at the UN", that unenviable vulnerability is reserved for Americans and Jews. You continued,

"(we were unable to hold South Vietnam) ... Not because the US physically could not do it - but it was hamstrung by politics and having to adhere to the Geneva convention"

I beg to differ, on both counts; and I was an Interpreter/Translator in Vietnamese Language in the US Army at the time. We were beaten militarily in Vietnam: after ten years of continual, heavy fighting, we were unable to dislodge the Communists from over half the country; and they had an unlimited supply of manpower from the North, besides being more popular than the Americans in the South. We rented motel rooms for our negotiators in Paris weel-to-week, deluding ourselves that we could wrap things up quickly; the Vietnamese side took out a long-term lease. We had the support of 12% of South Vietnam, the Catholics; but the Viet Cong had been fighting for liberation of the country since 1941. As for observing the Geneva Convention, et al, that didn't hamstring us at the many "My Lais" we committed; and our very presence in the country went counter to the 1954 accords that called for country-wide elections in Vietnam. The VC adhered to their part of the bargain, but the South renegged. I'm a Yank, and I accept the fact that we lost.

The Russians likewise lost in Afghanistan, and they know it. They aren't up against a radical group of a few thousand fighters: Before they finally throw in the towel in Syria, they will be up against a couple hundred million Sunni Muslims. All the Sunnis hate Assad; and the more the Russians support him, the more they will hate them too. You went on,

Peshmerga is an army of Kurds. What makes you think they have any allegiance to Turkey?

As I said, do your homework. The Peshmerga are under the command of Masoud Barzani, who is under the thumb of Turkey. He and his family are kept in power by profits from smuggling oil from the KRG and from the ISIL-controlled areas through Turkey. Kurdistan has been divided for decades, and easily manipulated by outside powers. Good sources are:

Kurd Net and The Rojava Report .

You went on,

"Turkey cannot go on making dangerous unilateral decisions to attack places (or Russian aircraft) then turn around and say 'look, Nato, we're a member, now you have to come and protect us'. Turkey cannot break Nato rules without consequences and if it left Nato - it would be fair game for Russia."

We are talking, I presume, about the same Turkey that brazenly invaded and occupied norther Cyprus under the noses of our Greek NATO allies who were adamantly opposed to this. Russia can't touch Turkey, and they know it. Putin isn't an idiot. He even restrained himself in Ukraine, which isn't even a NATO ally, but satisfied himself with taking a little bite or two. You went on,

"Turkey seems to be always acting deviously. The pathetic excuse was offered the other day that it 'didn't know whose planes' were allegedly flying over its territory. So it didn't check to see if it was French or US planes - and its airforce was so inept it could not recognise the profile of an Su24."

I don't doubt that Erdogan is being disingenuous. To his defense, the Syrians also fly Russian aircraft, and they have a history of straying over Turkish airspace. Even so, as Mr. Putin was quick to point out, the 17-second incursion posed no threat to Turkey; and Turkey has violated Syrian airspace repeatedly without reprisal.

Turkey is not the "good guy" here, by any means. Neither are the Russians involved for altruistic reasons. This is Murder, Inc. vs. Dutch Schultz, and I'm not rooting for either side.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".