Turkish PM fumes at West

TURKISH Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Western powers were "keeping mum" over mounting bloodshed in the Middle East, warning that they would "pay the bill" by facing more terrorist attacks, Anatolia news agency reported.

"Bombs are exploding, innocent people are being killed, infrastructures are being destroyed... The powerful continue to crush the weak, but unfortunately those who hold the power in the world are keeping mum," Mr Erdogan said in the northeastern city of Artvin.

(snip)
Mr Erdogan complained that violence in the Middle East was also damaging the United States' efforts to enhance democracy and human rights in the region, hinting that Ankara might reconsider its role in such initiatives.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19806210-1702,00.html

I was wondering when Turkey would get into the mix of this in the ME. The 'other' Arab nations will rumble even more now since Israel is pushing the 'buttons' harder now as Bush backs that action.

When this Turkish PM sees fit to actually do something to stop terror, only then is he allowed to criticize. Outside of that, he's an armchair QB with no authority on the matters. Let's see how he deals with non-stop 24hr/day terror. What a windbag.

We agree that to counter windbag accusations Erdogan should put the Israel terrorists under economic sanctions and promise NATO military support to Lebanon if Israel continues its aggression.

Right.....God knows Israel is in Lebanon hellbent on destruction of random Arabs for no reason whatsoever. You should thank God you don't live under constant daily threats to your very existence.

Lebanon's pro-Western government came to power following the February 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, which led to Syria's withdrawal of its forces from its smaller neighbour, ending a 29-year occupation.

"We have many reasons to expect much more from the Security Council," said Mahmoud, an ambassador who was sent from Beirut.

And from the United States?

"They were always supportive in the last 1 1/2 years, but when it comes to Israel it seems things change," he said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6C062C97-F8D0-42B9-89A1-1C4D6963D512.htm

All Israel will accomplish by killing innocent Lebanese is the toppling of Lebanon's pro-Western government and its replacement by a radical Islamic regime.

fighting terrorism. Have you ever heard of the PKK?

on Turkish territory because the Turkish drive for nationalism-based oppression hasn't eased enough, or has set fault lines that won't dissolve easily.

If it were Turks attacking Kurds on Kurdish territory, for all the same reasons, it wouldn't be terrorism.

Both would be wrong. Asymmetrical perceptions caused by asymmetrical chauvinisms. Even leaving the historical grievances aside.

But I note that Hezbollah's lobbing katyushas at Israeli civilians wasn't terrorism. It simply was, part of the background, like rabbits eating grass in the field. The way nature and nature's God intended things to be.

for example have been put into two interpretations. They are going along with the Bush juggernaut until it crashes. Or they had a rather feeble game going on with the Iranian position, playing the ones trying to defang the nuclear ambitions of Iran. If the latter, that has gone up in smoke, that subtle approach that presumed- rather stupidly- that Junior could again be defeated, this time decisively, in the UN. Like the Dems in 2004 they learn that even seeming hubristic idiots change tactics when slapped in the face.

Expect more impotent posturing from Europe, more market jitters with no power bloc willing to take the economic heat of bringing Bush plans down. Bush has fewer allies than ever and doesn't want or need them as he leans on his impregnable fall back position- raw military and economic power. World leadership unfortunately sees those as absolute although a huge populist stand up could make the few tyrants step back and down.

All those in the ME speaking up in anger and dismay are Haile Selassies before the League of Nations. As usual they are right and the majority of world leaders are wrong. Since this has happened before there is no justification for such conventional wisdom. They are more complicit in the crimes than ever before in history and for less reason than ever.

interfere in any substantive way with the USA's self-destructive activities. An analogy would be the US's attempts to encourage the disintegration of the USSR.

I am just suggesting that there might be other explanations for the rather passive resistance to Mr. Bush. Your comments about the inherently unimaginative and cautious nature of the global "elites" are well taken too, of course. I think myself that a major reason why the global economic system continues to lurch along is the absence of any alternative that serves the interests of those same "elites", in other words inertia.

The EU or the rest of the Quintet have been playing possum on the Israeli file for quite sometime...I'll assume they are as complicit as the US, it is just most EU players have a larger opposition to Israel's actions than in the US, so they have move more cautiously in their 'support' for appearance sakes...

But if you notice, the Quintet was rather sheepish over it's response to it's own recommendations being ripped up by Sharon and Bush -- in fact they seem to go along with any major change in the 'peace process' no matter how at odds it is with their initial proposed plans and never draw a line in the sand and suggest that 'THIS IS what we require'. Israel tells them to mind their own business regualrly and ne'ry a word of protest from the Quintet -- regardless of which type of government is in Europe.

Note Mitterand wasn't anymore effective in a "french' position than Chirac, even though both love to tell the French how different they are during elections. Same as Shroeder in Germany? Did that social democrat do anything different than the rightwing Merkel that just captured power? Was Major any different than Blair? Was Clinton's policies appreciatively different than Bush? Is the Russian response any different under capitalism than it was under communism? Not really...

You would think that different leaders with different political ideologies might see things in the ME differently and then reflect that new thinking at any number of international forums on the subject -- but they all do the same thing and never break the mold.

Sure, his rhetoric was tough but he hasn't taken any action. If he thinks Canada or France could end this crisis he is badly mistaken. Only the USA has the ability to make a serious effort to foster peace in the region. Unfortunately, Bush cut and run from peace efforts in the region in 2001, eliminating the opportunity that existed due to the work of Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton. It is tragedy that Arafat didn't accept the offer he got in 2001. That was the best offer the Palestinians will ever get.

Why doesn't he address that ?

I hate Hyocrisy in politics

and they are up to no good with their own terrorism against Suni, Turkmen, Shia, and Christians in Iraq, not to mention their shenanigans in Iran.