Turkey’s nefarious role in Syria

In shooting down a Russian jet operating over Syria, claiming it had encroached Turkish airspace and ignored repeated warnings, Turkey has upped the stakes in the Syrian conflict with the world now waiting for Russia’s response.

It also begs the wider question of Turkey’s role in the Syrian conflict. Here the evidence it has played a nefarious part in supporting ISIS and other groups fighting the Assad government is compelling.

In the aftermath of a recent spate of ISIS atrocities – first the downing of the Russian passenger plane, Kolavia Flight 7K9268, over the Sinai at the end of October, killing all 224 on board, followed by the killing of 43 civilians in Beirut in a suicide bomb attack, and most recently the slaughter of 130 people in Paris in multiple suicide bombings and shootings – we now know who is serious about confronting this medieval death cult and who is not.

More, we are starting to uncover those who speak the language of anti-terrorism while in practice working to facilitate and support it.

Turkey is a key culprit in this regard. A murky relationship has long existed between Ankara, ISIS, Nusra, and other jihadi groups operating in Syria. Indeed, on the most basic level, without their ability to pass back and forth across the Turkish border at will, those groups could not have operated as easily and effectively as they had been for the past few years.

However, according to a recent report by David L Phillips of Columbia University, Turkey’s support for extremist groups operating in Syria, including ISIS, has been even more extensive than previously thought. Drawing on a wide variety of sources, Phillips reveals that the Turkish government, a member of NATO and key Western ally, has been involved in helping ISIS with recruitment, training, and has provided it with intelligence and safe havens and sanctuary. As far back as 2014 the US Treasury exposed Turkey as a major customer for stolen Syrian oil, supplied by the terrorist group.

Perhaps the most damning evidence contained in the report when it comes to Turkey’s role, is in relation to its actions and inaction when it came to the siege of the Kurdish town of Kobane on the Syrian-Turkish border in September and October of 2014.

As Phillips reveals: “Anwar Moslem, Mayor of Kobani, said on September 19, 2014: ‘Based on the intelligence we got two days before the breakout of the current war, trains full of forces and ammunition, which were passing by north of Kobane, had an-hour-and-ten-to-twenty-minute-long stops in these villages: Salib Qaran, Gire Sor, Moshrefat Ezzo. There are evidences, witnesses, and videos about this. Why is ISIS strong only in Kobane’s east? Why is it not strong either in its south or west? Since these trains stopped in villages located in the east of Kobane, we guess they had brought ammunition and additional force for the ISIS.’ In the second article on September 30, 2014, a CHP delegation visited Kobani, where locals claimed that everything from the clothes ISIS militants wear to their guns comes from Turkey.”

The world will never forget how, during the siege of Kobane, as its Kurdish defenders mounted a heroic defense of the town against thousands of ISIS fighters, armed with tanks and artillery, Turkish tanks and troops sat just over the border and did nothing to intervene.

Likewise, no one will forget that earlier this year Turkey carried out airstrikes against those same Kurdish volunteers of the PKK/YPG within Syria, while depicting them as terrorists. Turkey’s oppression of its Kurdish minority going back many years is of course a matter of record.

President Erdogan and his government has undeniably played a primary role in the destabilisation of Syria, doing its utmost to foment regime change. In fact, along with the Saudis and other Gulf monarchies, before Russia’s intervention Turkey was hovering over Syria as a vulture hovers over a dying animal, waiting for it to perish before descending to feed on its carcass.

The fact that Turkey remains a close Western ally exposes the moral high ground from which Washington and its allies have lectured Russia over its role in Syria as nothing more than a dung-heap of hypocrisy.

If the West was serious about confronting terrorism, was serious about returning stability to a region it has helped to set on fire, it would reconsider its ties to both Turkey and the Saudis, which between them have been wading in the river of blood they have helped shed in Syria and Iraq. Turkey’s claim that the Russian military aircraft it shot down had encroached on its airspace and ignored multiple warnings should be treated with the credibility it deserves, especially when we recall that prior to Russia’s participation in the conflict, Turkey’s violation of Syrian airspace and the Syrian border was happening on a regular basis.

With Russia’s presence in Syria putting paid to Erdogan’s objective of regime change, we begin to discern Turkey’s efforts to enlist the support of NATO in putting pressure on Russia to desist. It also helps to explain why the West continues to refuse President Putin’s call for cooperation and unity in the effort to eradicate ISIS and other extremist groups massacring and slaughtering their way across the country, with the intention of turning it into a mass grave.

After the mass murder of Russian, Lebanese, and French civilians by ISIS, the grounds for refusing to enter such an alliance are as indefensible as Turkey’s role in the conflict and its most recent action in shooting down a Russian aircraft.

As the man said: ‘Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.’

 

 

 

 

66 comments on “Turkey’s nefarious role in Syria

  1. Craig Murray has posted the Turkish radar track of the Russian fighter jet that was shot down. He comments:

    “It is fairly obvious from the track that the plane was operating against Turkish sponsored Turkmen rebels inside Syria, and that is why the Turks shot it down.”

    I have to say, I have no problem with that at all. Hopefully Turkey will shoot down some more Russian fighter jets.

    I was also pleased to see that the Free Syrian Army destroyed a Russian helicopter that was sent to rescue the pilots of the downed plane.

    The FSA attacked it with a TOW anti-tank missile after it was forced to land due to mechanical failure.

    What the FSA really needs is MANPADS (shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles) to defend the Syrian people against the barbaric Assad regime and its Russian backers.

    My criticism of the Turkish government is that it has complied with US-imposed restrictions on the supply of arms and failed to provide these missiles.

    I very much hope that Erdogan can see his way to defying the US and reversing that policy.

  2. Bob,

    Problem is that so much of the material that passes through Turkey mysteriously seems to end up in the hands not of the last few existing parts of the FSA but Daesh who are as likely to us it on the FSA and Kurdish forces in both Syria and Iraq as on the Shiite alliance around the Assad dictatorship.

  3. #4 Presumably you also hope that the guys who killed the pilot also cut his heart out and ate it.

    And we can safely assume that you also hope that Daesh consolidate their power and take over the whole of Syria and Iraq but won’t admit- in line with the policy of your employers.

  4. George Hallam: However, it does not square with their claim that they had warned the planes 10 times over a period of 5 minutes prior to launching the missile attack.

    The timing of this attack by the Turks is hugely significant. It came after Paris when the narrative towards Russia and Assad started to shift and at a time when the Russians had begun targeting the huge oil convoys of stolen Syrian oil by ISIS to Turkey.

    Erdogan’s treachery is no longer in doubt. The left here and throughout the West should be doing its utmost to make it the issue, exposing the rotten contradiction along the lines of the old saw: ‘With allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies?’

  5. George Hallam on said:

    John: The left here and throughout the West should be doing its utmost to make it the issue, exposing the rotten contradiction along the lines of the old saw: ‘With allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies?’

    Well, yes, I sort of agree. Though it might be useful to adopt a looser definition of ‘left’ to include others who have their doubts about mainstream policy.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12019905/Turkey-arrests-editors-over-reports-Ankara-supplied-weapons-to-Syrian-fighters.html

    http://news.sky.com/video/1595005/70000-figures-is-magical

    https://commonspace.scot/articles/3007/tory-mps-speak-out-against-david-cameron-s-case-for-bombing-syria

  6. John Grimshaw on said:

    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3bac-Grey-Wolves-Fascist-Killed-Russian-Pilot#.VlgUtRAny70

    I can’t say for certain whether this is true, but I have to say I wouldn’t be surprised. The key is his “name” Alparslan, which I have pointed out elsewhere is the same name as a long dead Seljuk hero. Now obviously the original Alp the Lion couldn’t have been a fascist because such things hadn’t been invented but the far right presumably would want to appropriate his reputation. The Grey Wolves used to be active in North London (not sure if they are anymore) and at least one NUT Jewish activist I used to know was targeted by them with sad results.

  7. George Hallam on said:

    John Grimshaw: George I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

    That is because I’m entirely clear about what I’m saying.

    I think , to use a metaphor, that a rift is opening up in the ‘political continuum’.

    Last night I attended a meeting in support of the Junior Doctors in Blackheath. The speakers were young. Fifty people were there (my count); not amazing, but respectable give the short notice. Anyway, the turnout was good enough to impress the doctors.

    The reason for telling you this is because there were two contributions from the floor that I found quite striking.

    One was from a working class man who pointed out the parallels between what was happening to doctors (and other ‘professionals’) and what had been done to manual worker twenty or thirty years ago.

    The other contribution was an attack the ‘dogma of neo-liberalism’ by a retired ‘professional’ who used to be a Conservative councillor.

    We spoke about science fiction earlier. In the first book of Pullman’s ‘His Dark Materials’ Lara sees images through the northern lights of a city skyline in a parallel universe. Lord Asriel is able to walks across into the new universe.

    I’m getting a feeling that, just now, the barriers between political ‘worlds’ are becoming unstable. If I’m right then this means that the time-warn categories, for example the left-right dichotomy, are no longer useful.

  8. #17 I would have sympathy with your point if there was anything new in the phenomena you refer to, either at home or elsewhere, as you seem to suggest.

    For example, German unification in the 19th Century was demanded by the revolutionary democrats and carried out by the authoritarian Prussian state under the Kaiser and the Junkers. Ditto universal suffrage and the welfare state.

    Many of the more revolutionary workers involved in the upheavals in Germany in the immediate post WW1 period had previously been conservative monarchists.

    When the French invaded the Rhur in 1923 there was opposition from the KPD and the NSDAP. In fact Radek of the Comintern wrote a eulogy for a young Nazi executed by the French.

    The National Socialist movement amongst Sudeten Germans (in Austria-Hungary and then Czechoslovakia) began as a movement of German workers to resist reductions in wages and conditions resulting allegedly from Czech workers working for less.

    In 19th Century England there was convergence between many in the Chartist movement and elements of the Tories against the Whigs over the issue of the Corn Laws, and the effects of the Poor Laws.

    One of the pioneers of “municipal socialism”, Joseph Chamberlain, became a leader of the reactionary pro-imperialist, anti-Irish wing of the Tories after he broke with the Liberals.

    Then there’s Oswald Mosely.

    Or we could examine the Peronist movement in Argentina.

    The potential problems with the terms left and right may be as real as you argue frequently but if they are they’re not new.

  9. George Hallam on said:

    Vanya,

    I agree that all the historical example you cite are valid.

    However, you are using quite a long time scale (apart from Peron they are pre-1945), while, of once, I’m taking a shorter view i.e. post-1945.

    Also, you are able to identify relatively well-defined social/political entities having similar aims, e.g. German revolutionary democrats and Junkers.

    What I think is new is the lack of coherence in the established social/political entities.
    * The ‘left’, as I observe it, is in total disarray. Okay, there has always been a lot of squabbling, but there was more cohesion in the 50s and 60s and far more optimism. These days a lot of leftists seem to have given up.

    * The political establishment, on the other hand, seems to be starting to break up (e.g. over foreign interventions and the EU). Yes, there were divisions over Suez, but they were resolved quite quickly. Currently, the differences are chronic.

    * popular feeling is shifting and this has created some paradoxes . There is now widespread support for some measures that could be called ‘left’ (e.g. renationalisation, opposition to privatisation, etc.) combined with others that are associated with the ‘right’ (e.g. immigration).
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/06/support-radical-left-and-right/

    I think these things are linked to some deep-rooted economic trends.

  10. Andy Newman on said:

    George Hallam,

    Well post 1945 has also seen consuderable redefinition of left and right.

    For example, the agenda of increasing social liberalism was more associated with the revisionist right than the left of the movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

    Wheras the differention between left and right in the unions and party in 1940s was often about attitudes towards the USSR.

    you of course have a point, I find myself increasngly aware of being economically and industrially on the “left” while feeling like a stranger in a strange land in a “left” obsessed by identity and individualism

  11. jock mctrousers on said:

    Andy Newman: feeling like a stranger in a strange land in a “left” obsessed by identity and individualism

    Me too, dude! Hank never sung it thattaway!

  12. George Hallam on said:

    Andy Newman: the differention between left and right in the unions and party in 1940s was often about attitudes towards the USSR.

    I don’t wish to appear ungracious, but I must point out that your comment only illustrates how confused and confusing the concept of ‘the left’ is.

    The dividing line between left and right in the unions and party in 1940s could only be said to have been about the USSR if you include Stalinists as part of the left.

    The real divisions in British politics in the (late) 1940s were about the Labour government was doing.

    For example:
    “Socialism is what a labour government does” Discuss.
    [attributed to Herbert Morrison, but I have never found an original source]

  13. Andy Newman on said:

    P
    George Hallam,

    Ahh yes, but attitudes to what the Labour government was doing were also not unconnected to the questions of commimist influence in the unions, and to the foreign policy orientation.

    Events in Eastern Europe also caused division in the British movrment and led to isolation of the pro Soviet MPs, not only Piritin and Gallagher, but also those close to them like Pritt.

  14. John Grimshaw on said:

    Andy Newman: Events in Eastern Europe also caused division in the British movrment and led to isolation of the pro Soviet MPs, not only Piritin and Gallagher, but also those close to them like Pritt.

    I agree. But from personal experience I would say that the Stalinists had a reasonable degree of influence in the Labour movement into the 1980s.

  15. John Grimshaw on said:

    Andy Newman: you of course have a point, I find myself increasngly aware of being economically and industrially on the “left” while feeling like a stranger in a strange land in a “left” obsessed by identity and individualism

    By this you mean?

  16. #23 Two of them, Solley and Zilliacus, were expelled for voting against the formation of NATO.

    Don’t know about the former but the latter was re-admitted and became MP for my constituency (before my time I hasten to add).

    He also broke with the USSR over the split with Tito.

    An interesting character, generally taking progressive positions although, like far more on the left in those days than now, he was a strong supporter of zionism. I wonder if he would still be if he was around today or whether he would be more like his successor Gerald Kaufman.

  17. #24 Does your use of the past tense mean that you don’t consider the CPB to be stalinists John 🙂

  18. George Hallam: how confused and confusing the concept of ‘the left’ is.

    As an illustration of how things can change, the hard right grouping within the Labour Party in the 1940s and 1950s, who for example opposed independence for India, had a publication called “socialist vanguard”

  19. George Hallam on said:

    Andy Newman: Ahh yes, but attitudes to what the Labour government was doing were also not unconnected to the questions of commimist influence in the unions, and to the foreign policy orientation.

    This is like trying fold the Times in a high wind.

    The “Left” is a ragbag of ideas, tendencies and groups. What’s in the bag and what’s out of it changes.

    When fascism was on the rise the term ‘fellow traveller’ was used in a positive sense. After 1945 it became a pejorative label.

    After 1956 not even communists wanted to be described as fellow travellers of Stalinism.

    John Grimshaw: from personal experience I would say that the Stalinists had a reasonable degree of influence in the Labour movement into the 1980s.

    “influence in” is not the same as “part of”

    Neither is ‘the Labour movement’ the same as the ‘left’.

  20. jock mctrousers on said:

    Do I detect a Trotkyist influence in the above discussion which I confess I haven’t read very attentively?

    Are the CPB Stalinists? Frankly who gives a? What’s a Stalinist btw? On most points the CPB seem pretty good to me – I didn’t notice them getting down with NATO like most of the Trots (except the WSWS) on Libya and Syria. I Have however noticed a reflex tendency for them to side with other ‘official communist parties’ like in S.Africa and Iraq where there is a big question mark about the role of these CPs. That’s a concrete criticism or query. ‘Stalinism’ is just an abstract insult which means nothing to, and in fact alienates, the 2 million people who marched against the Iraq War, the million who elected Jeremy Corbny…. Time to put away childish things.

  21. Andy Newman on said:

    jock mctrousers: Do I detect a Trotkyist influence in the above discussion which I confess I haven’t read very attentively?

    It is actually a bit confusing, as the bandying about of “Stalinism” is coming from George Hallam, no more a trotsyists than you or I

  22. jock mctrousers on said:

    Andy Newman,

    Hmm… the comments are closed on your new post, so here’s the remark I tried to leave there:

    Beautiful, Andy! Really impressive bit of digging. It would be nice to think that some of our MPs might read that. Fat chance.

    Andy Newman: Do you think the West really has the stomach for bombing Syrian government targets and the consequences of war between NATO and Russia.

    Unfortunately it looks like important players are chomping at the bit for just that. Cognitive dissonance? They’ve mistaken Planet Earth for a video game?

  23. George Hallam on said:

    jock mctrousers: Do I detect a Trotkyist influence in the above discussion

    Why not?

    Trotskyism in one form or another is pervasive in the UK, for example George Orwell.

    As I said:
    “influence in” is not the same as “part of”

  24. #31 My reference to the CPB and Stalinism was a light hearted dig aimed at John Grimshaw.

    He put ‘stalinist influence’ in the past tense. Given that the CP does have a respectable influence now I was suggesting that he wasn’t counting us as ‘stalinists’.

    Who said a joke couldn’t be funny if you had to explain it? 🙂

  25. jock mctrousers: What’s a Stalinist btw?

    Dimitrov had the answer
    in the struggle against capitalism we must learn pitilessly to cast aside, pillory and hold up to general ridicule all phrasemongering, use of hackneyed formulas, pedantry and doctrinairism. 
    It is necessary to learn, comrades, to learn always, at every step, in the course of the struggle, at liberty and in jail. To learn and to fight, to fight and to learn. We must be able to combine the great teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin with Stalinist firmness at work and in struggle, with Stalinist irreconcilability on matters of principle toward the class enemy and deviators from the Bolshevik line, with Stalinist fearlessness in face of difficulties, with Stalinist revolutionary realism.
” 🙂

  26. jock mctrousers on said:

    Nick Wright: Dimitrov had the answer
    in the struggle against capitalism we must learn pitilessly to cast aside, pillory and hold up to general ridicule all phrasemongering, use of hackneyed formulas, pedantry and doctrinairism. It is necessary to learn, comrades, to learn always, at every step, in the course of the struggle, at liberty and in jail. To learn and to fight, to fight and to learn. We must be able to combine the great teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin with Stalinist firmness at work and in struggle, with Stalinist irreconcilability on matters of principle toward the class enemy and deviators from the Bolshevik line, with Stalinist fearlessness in face of difficulties, with Stalinist revolutionary realism.
” :-)

    Nick Wright,

    Sounds cool enough to me.

  27. George Hallam on said:

    Nick Wright: we must learn pitilessly to cast aside, pillory and hold up to general ridicule all phrasemongering, use of hackneyed formulas, pedantry and doctrinairism.

    Well, we all try to do that.

  28. Andy Newman on said:

    Nick Wright,

    I think that reasonably a “Stalinist” might be someone historically supported Stalin during faction fights in the CPSU.

    In addition, those particularly associated with the characteristic features of Stalin’s rule, identified by Khruschev’s secret speech, such as the cult of the personality.

  29. John Grimshaw on said:

    George Hallam: “influence in” is not the same as “part of”
    Neither is ‘the Labour movement’ the same as the ‘left’.

    On your second point I agree, although traditionally the left does try to organise within the labour movement. Some leftists get themselves confused when they think that the labour movement is axiomatically left. On your first point the people I was thinking about in the 70s and 80s were definitely “part of” the Labour movement. You can do both, either or none.

  30. John Grimshaw on said:

    George Hallam: Trotskyism in one form or another is pervasive in the UK, for example George Orwell.

    I think pervasive is going a bit far George. Also Orwell is a bad example. As I’m sure you know later on in life he was an oppo for the secret services. Even I wouldn’t condone that.

  31. John Grimshaw on said:

    jock mctrousers: Frankly who gives a?

    Well if you continue to support a long dead dictator who was responsible for the murder of quite a lot of people it would rather suggest that it is a matter of some importance. Time to put away childish things?

    jock mctrousers: Stalinism’ is just an abstract insult which means nothing to, and in fact alienates, the 2 million people who marched against the Iraq War,

    Are you suggesting that all these people were followers of Stalin. The CPB is obviously even stronger than I thought!

  32. John Grimshaw on said:

    Andy Newman: I think that reasonably a “Stalinist” might be someone historically supported Stalin during faction fights in the CPSU.

    I don’t see why. Isn’t it more complicated than that? Various members of the Bolshevik Party supported Stalin at various times, including Lenin, but then changed their minds later or were executed. That doesn’t make them “Stalinists” rather I think the “Stalinists” were the ones who went along with every word and action that Uncle Joe instigated. That so many people died in the thirties suggests that many Russians didn’t want to be “Stalinists”. Beria would be my idea of a committed “Stalinist”.

  33. John Grimshaw: Beria would be my idea of a committed “Stalinist”.

    I am not sure about that.

    In the brief period when Beria was in charge he reversed a great deal of Stalin’s positions. In particular, Beria sought to reverse the line of Ulbricht in the DDR, now for all his estimable qualities, I think that Ulbricht could squarely be described as a Stalinist.

    Anyway, we are all coming to a conclusion that “Stalinism” is an historical phenomenon, that needs to be tightly contextualised

  34. John Grimshaw on said:

    Andy Newman: I am not sure about that.

    I will investigate. I was also under the impression (these two things are not related) that he was also a paedophile. That is about power and control.

  35. John Grimshaw: I was also under the impression (these two things are not related) that he was also a paedophile.

    I would recommend Amy Knight’s excellent biography, “Beria, Stalin’s First Lieutenant”.

    It is a useful book in allowing you to understand the day to day operation of the CPSU and the security services

    He was a certainly a serial rapist, who systematically abused his position in the most appalling way, but whether or not he also prayed upon children, I have no knowledge.

    He was also a vegetarian.

  36. Andy Newman: In the brief period when Beria was in charge he reversed a great deal of Stalin’s positions

    There is even the suggestion that Beria was a kind of early Gorbachov with plans to restore capitalist property relations. Who knows? Maybe Francis can enlighten us?

  37. John Grimshaw on said:

    Andy Newman: Anyway, we are all coming to a conclusion that “Stalinism” is an historical phenomenon, that needs to be tightly contextualised

    I think so Andy. As I have said elsewhere I also think fascism is a specific phenomena and we on the left shouldn’t bandy it around as a describer of all the things we don’t like.

  38. George Hallam on said:

    john Grimshaw: Interesting but I wouldn’t be surprised

    I think that this is more than interesting, it is very important.

    At a very early stage we have clear evidence that the official narrative about a potentially dangerous incident is false.

    Without making any claims that Syria and Vietnam are the same, we can note that it took 39 years before it became accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (the excuse for US stepping up its war on Vietnam) never happened.

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

    We have got this about the downing of the Russian Su-24 within a couple of weeks.

    We shouldn’t let it get lost in all the blather about someone going to a Christmas fundraiser,

  39. John Grimshaw on said:

    I understand a Russian warship has fired “warning shots” at a Turkish fishing boat which came to close. Forgive the pun but fishier and fishier!

  40. George Hallam on said:

    We all know where IS gets its TOW anti-tank missiles. But where do all those pick-ups that they use as portees come from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portee

    Apparently the answer is: “The same place.”

    This has just appeared in the New York Times.

    A Texas plumber has filed a lawsuit against a car dealership after a used truck he traded in showed up on the front lines in Syria being used by Islamist fighters, with the logo and phone number of his company, Mark-1 Plumbing, still visible on the doors.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/texas-plumber-sues-car-dealer-after-his-truck-ends-up-on-syrias-front-lines.html?_r=0

  41. John Grimshaw on said:

    George Hallam,

    🙂 The TOW missiles were presumably supplied deliberately by the US either directly or via “allies”. Is the US government pressuring car sales lots to send backies to Turkey?

  42. John Grimshaw on said:

    Cavalry[edit]

    Portee cavalry is horse cavalry – both the horses and their riders – carried in trucks or other carriers. The cavalry is thus mechanized for strategic and operational movement, and horse-mounted for tactical deployment. Portee cavalry units were briefly tested in the American army during the interwar transition between fully horsed cavalry and fully mechanized cavalry, but were generally found to be overly complicated and not worthwhile.[5][6][7]

    The ancient Greeks who settled in Cyrenaica used to use horse pulled “flat bed” carriages to manoeuvre their hoplites around.

  43. George Hallam on said:

    John Grimshaw: The TOW missiles were presumably supplied deliberately by the US either directly or via “allies”. Is the US government pressuring car sales lots to send backies to Turkey?

    Not just used pick-ups; new ones as well’

    US foundation-funded Public Radio International (PRI) reported in a 2014 article titled, “This one Toyota pickup truck is at the top of the shopping list for the Free Syrian Army — and the Taliban,” that:

    Recently, when the US State Department resumed sending non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels, the delivery list included 43 Toyota trucks.

    Hiluxes were on the Free Syrian Army’s wish list. Oubai Shahbander, a Washington-based advisor to the Syrian National Coalition, is a fan of the truck.

    “Specific equipment like the Toyota Hiluxes are what we refer to as force enablers for the moderate opposition forces on the ground,” he adds. Shahbander says the US-supplied pickups will be delivering troops and supplies into battle. Some of the fleet will even become battlefield weapons..

    The British government has also admittedly supplied a number of vehicles to terrorists fighting inside of Syria. The British Independent’s 2013 article titled, “Revealed: What the West has given Syria’s rebels,” reported that:

    So far the UK has sent around £8m of “non-lethal” aid, according to official papers seen by The Independent, comprising five 4×4 vehicles with ballistic protection; 20 sets of body armour; four trucks (three 25 tonne, one 20 tonne); six 4×4 SUVs; five non-armoured pick-ups; one recovery vehicle; four fork-lifts; three advanced “resilience kits” for region hubs, designed to rescue people in emergencies; 130 solar powered batteries; around 400 radios; water purification and rubbish collection kits; laptops; VSATs (small satellite systems for data communications) and printers.

    Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
    http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/the-mystery-of-isis-toyota-army-solved.html

  44. “Louis” here again. I beginning to like you guys less and less. And you do engage in blocking completely harmless comments like it’s a sport.