Suruc Bombing a False Flag?

130Kph

This report gives the justification for Turkey carrying out its first air strikes in the US-led coalition against the Islamic State just this Friday as due to

Turkey's increased involvement in the war on IS began in July in the wake of a suspected IS bomb attack in the Turkish town of Suruc which killed 32 people.

Turkey's military response was almost immediate and could plausibly be described as suspicious.

Does anyone think this Suruc bombing could have been a false-flag? If so, by whom?

Dannyboy83

130Kph wrote: »

This report gives the justification for Turkey carrying out its first air strikes in the US-led coalition against the Islamic State just this Friday as due to

Turkey's military response was almost immediate and could plausibly be described as suspicious.

Does anyone think this Suruc bombing could have been a false-flag? If so, by whom?

Not really, there was a recent car bomb attack not far from Kobani and a border clash between the Turkish military and the Islamic State.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/analytical-guidance-turkey-intensifies-its-role-syria
Turkey's policy change toward the Islamic State solves two problems at once. Turkey's primary focus was on removing the al Assad government in Syria and avoiding a full-scale fight with the Islamic State. This kept domestic security relatively stable early on in the Syrian conflict. But the Islamic State's expansive territorial growth and aggressiveness toward other rebels (including many Turkish-backed groups) eventually became intolerable for Ankara. Taking military action against the Islamic State should eventually bring relief for the northern Syrian rebels fighting both the Islamic State and Syrian government forces. This brings U.S. and Turkish interests into alignment, and Ankara likely hopes that the degradation of the Islamic State will lead to a coherent rebel force that can focus solely on Syrian government forces. The cost of Ankara's policy change, however, is that the Islamic State will strike back. Some attacks on Turkish soil have succeeded, but internal security forces are working hard to mitigate their effectiveness, and Turkey has the force structure and experience to handle internal militancy.

Here is Stratfor's decade prediction for Turkey:

https://www.stratfor.com/forecast/decade-forecast-2015-2025
We have entered a period in which the decline of the nation-states created by Europe in North Africa and the Middle East is accelerating. Power is no longer held by the state in many countries, having devolved to armed factions that can neither defeat others nor be defeated. This has initiated a period of intense internal fighting. The United States is prepared to mitigate the situation with air power and limited forces on the ground but will not be able or willing to impose a settlement. Turkey, whose southern border is made vulnerable by this fighting, will be slowly drawn into the fighting. By the end of this decade, Turkey will emerge as the major regional power, and Turkish-Iranian competition will increase as a result.

MrPudding

130Kph wrote: »

Turkey's military response was almost immediate and could plausibly be described as suspicious.

Why suspicious? Because it was immediate? I would expect that they would constantly be planning missions they might wish to carry out should circumstances arise. I would expect that this type of scenario would be fairly high on their list of possibilities. Give that, I would be not in the least bit surprised at the rapid nature of the response give. That it was likely simply carrying out an existing, off the shelf plan that would have require little or no planning.

Military forces can move pretty quick when they need to, remember the falklands? Argentina invaded on the 2nd of April, the British naval response left the uk on the 5th. Unless you think the falklands was false flag too...

MrP

130Kph

On the surface this appears to be ISIS bombing inside Turkey to draw Turkey into the war because they as a group just enjoy fighting with everyone!!!

Turkey has a formidable military & is in NATO and only the maddest of the mad would go out of their way to draw that sword down on themselves.

ISIS appear to have claimed responsibility for it alright. But the bomber was an ethnic Kurd from Turkey – with links to ISIS!!

But, this event could have been instigated by
• other shadowy actors within Turkey or
• others acting on behalf of the Turkish government/army or
• a cabal of international arms dealers or
• Assad military intelligence (he understands Turkey wants him gone) or
• Kurdish extremists or YPG who want to push Turkey into the fight against ISIS
who needed a mass casualty bombing to get the public to support military action against ISIS – especially if lots of body bags start coming back from the frontline in future.

Also, the choice of targeting members of a Turkish political party is also a suspicious choice for ISIS – it would have been easier to just bomb any place with crowds of people inside the border.

So what it comes down to is :-
Does one think ISIS really is this much of a death cult pursuing their own annihilation at top speed or
Are there other shadowy conspirators involved?

Dohnjoe

130Kph wrote: »

Does one think ISIS really is this much of a death cult pursuing their own annihilation at top speed

Pretty much yes. ISIS are at war with almost everyone, including Al Qaeda. They are largely made up of men who actually welcome death, they constantly state that they "value death more than we value life". Disaffected young men with nothing suddenly find they have weapons, houses, cars, sex slaves, status, a purpose.. and their death is religiously justified in a warped sense. They are highly motivated, well trained, well armed.. almost completely autonomous and self sufficient, 30 odd thousand of them

They want to carve out a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate or die trying, and the more "infidels" they can draw into the conflict, the better.

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pretty much yes. ISIS are at war with almost everyone, including Al Qaeda. They are largely made up of men who actually welcome death, they constantly state that they "value death more than we value life". Disaffected young men with nothing suddenly find they have weapons, houses, cars, sex slaves, status, a purpose.. and their death is religiously justified in a warped sense. They are highly motivated, well trained, well armed.. almost completely autonomous and self sufficient, 30 odd thousand of them

They want to carve out a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate or die trying, and the more "infidels" they can draw into the conflict, the better.

Jesus, sounds like the perfect enemy for endless war... it couldnt have worked better for the US/UK if they armed them and then indoctrinated them thru various forms of sanctions, physical attacks & psy attacks on an entire religion.

... hang on a minute :eek:

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

it couldnt have worked better for the US/UK

Alternatively, it's just a massive headache for all countries involved. Iraq is heavily fragmenting, eroding the fragile democracy that the US and UK pumped so many billions into and wasted so many of their own lives

Syria has completely fractured, the largest humanitarian disaster in the world, the US has to spends billions on the refugees and the ongoing Arab coalition to bomb ISIS, which is largely futile. Not to mention all the cash they have to spend on arming the Kurds, who after the dust settles are going to want their own autocratic state creating even more headaches in the Middle East

We have millions of refugees coming into Europe, the UK gov under pressure has just said they will take 20,000 and probably a lot more in the future

We have foreign nationals, Brits and US citizens, getting beheaded on camera, and both powers, the US and UK impotent to stop it. ISIS are butchering people, destroying ancient temples and influencing major foreign attacks (Charlie Hebdo, Tunisia, Suruc, etc) - which the major powers are unable to stop

ISIS are sharpening the sectarian lines between Sunni and Shia, just like their precursors did in Iraq

Yeah maybe it's a dream scenario for arms companies that have always profited from every conflict ever and will always profit regardless. But it's a severe migraine for the US/UK administrations.. and just about every other country involved

I know it's fun to turn it on it's head and pretend it's all some greater plot, just really it's just a ****storm that no one has any control over, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah maybe it's a dream scenario for arms companies that have always profited from every conflict ever and will always profit regardless. But it's a severe migraine for the US/UK administrations.. and just about every other country involved

I know it's fun to turn it on it's head and pretend it's all some greater plot, just really it's just a ****storm that no one has any control over, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better

like you said.

i dont for one minute mean obama or cameron when i talk about 'them' or 'they' as i dont consider them decision makers. im sure those puppets are pulling their hair out at all this.

Dohnjoe

It's worth bearing in mind there are many more non-arms companies and corporations that certainly don't benefit during war/instability/economic downturn resulting from conflict

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's worth bearing in mind there are many more non-arms companies and corporations that certainly don't benefit during war/instability/economic downturn resulting from conflict

but if you look closely at the obama back room, the usual military/industrial ties are there, strong as ever. they have trotted out ex brass like anthony zinni and jack keane to the media, with a clear intention of beating the war drums.

even if you dont want to go looking, the fact that 618 billion was spent on the (non black) military budget, says it all. that kind of money does not suggest a defensive position.