• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eight wounded in Istanbul bomb attack near military post

treehouse

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
283
Reaction score
79
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Eight people were injured when a bomb-laden car was detonated near a military post in the Sancaktepe district of Istanbul on the afternoon of May 12, Istanbul Governor Vasip Şahin has stated.

Şahin said five soldiers and three civilians were slightly injured in the blast.

The governor said the explosion inside the parked car occurred at around 4.45 p.m., after a shuttle bus carrying military personnel departed from the İsmail Hakkı Tunaboyu military post.


Eight wounded in Istanbul bomb attack near military post - LOCAL

The key ally of USA is terrorising Turkey with weapons given by USA, which is a NATO member, and therefore a shame.
 
Eight wounded in Istanbul bomb attack near military post - LOCAL

The key ally of USA is terrorising Turkey with weapons given by USA, which is a NATO member, and therefore a shame.

Why did Turkey decide to attack the Kurds? All they needed do was continue the autonomy discussions. There was civil peace and the domestic situation was calm. At the same time we are trying to help the opposition fight against the oppressive Syrian dictatorship and one of the best fighting forces is that of the Kurds. What do those schnooks in Ankara do? They attack our allies after stalling and hampering our engagement against isis. The Turks used to be good allies.
 
Why did Turkey decide to attack the Kurds? All they needed do was continue the autonomy discussions. There was civil peace and the domestic situation was calm. At the same time we are trying to help the opposition fight against the oppressive Syrian dictatorship and one of the best fighting forces is that of the Kurds. What do those schnooks in Ankara do? They attack our allies after stalling and hampering our engagement against isis. The Turks used to be good allies.


Is USA fighting against muslims in Syria? Is USA in fight against all muslims?

Is USA a NATO member, and therefore using Incirlik base and getting intel. from Turkey?
 
Last edited:
Why did Turkey decide to attack the Kurds? All they needed do was continue the autonomy discussions. There was civil peace and the domestic situation was calm. At the same time we are trying to help the opposition fight against the oppressive Syrian dictatorship and one of the best fighting forces is that of the Kurds. What do those schnooks in Ankara do? They attack our allies after stalling and hampering our engagement against isis. The Turks used to be good allies.

Erdogan lost seats in an election. Started a war with the Kurd's, new election, more seats gained. But he wanted enough to amend the Constitution, which he did not achieve.
His pliant PM, who in reality has all the legal powers resigned. The President has few powers, but he still runs the place.
 
Is USA fighting against muslims in Syria? Is USA in fights against all muslims?

Is USA a NATO member, and therefore using Incirlik base and getting intel. from Turkey?

What's that?
 
When you ''dare'' to answer, We will solve the biggest misunderstanding between us.

I am not sure, I understand, what you mean. Where's the dare?
 
I am not sure, I understand, what you mean. Where's the dare?

Is USA fighting against muslims in Syria? Is USA in fight against all muslims?

Is USA a NATO member, and therefore using Incirlik base and getting intel. from Turkey?

You have not answered the questions. when you do, i promise to explain the point if still not understood.
 
Is USA fighting against muslims in Syria? Is USA in fight against all muslims?

Is USA a NATO member, and therefore using Incirlik base and getting intel. from Turkey?

You have not answered the questions. when you do, i promise to explain the point if still not understood.

I do not really understand, what you are trying to get at. The US is not "fighting against muslims in Syria" or anywhere else. The enemies of our country can incidentally be Muslims, but except for some idiots the US has no real gripe with religious folks. And sure the US has a contract with its ally and uses its bases in Turkey. Everyone knows that. So what?
 
I do not really understand, what you are trying to get at. The US is not "fighting against muslims in Syria" or anywhere else. The enemies of our country can incidentally be Muslims, but except for some idiots the US has no real gripe with religious folks. And sure the US has a contract with its ally and uses its bases in Turkey. Everyone knows that. So what?


''Turkey is not "fighting against kurds in Syria" or anywhere else. The enemies of our country cannot even incidentally be kurds, but except for some idiots Turkey has no real gripe with ethnic folks''


Turkey is in war with kurds as much as USA is in war with muslims.

USA presidents or any one in the state have never said such things like Turkish presidents or any one in the state have never said. In the same way, I have never said Turkey targets kurds, but i spesifically call a terrrorist organisation, which is PYD(PKK), just as USA calls it ISIL or Al-qaeda.

However, some people here do interestingly portrey the situation like ''PKK = kurds''
However, the same ones see ISIL≠ muslims.

How should we call it? Ignorance...hypocrisy...?
 
''Turkey is not "fighting against kurds in Syria" or anywhere else. The enemies of our country cannot even incidentally be kurds, but except for some idiots Turkey has no real gripe with ethnic folks''


Turkey is in war with kurds as much as USA is in war with muslims.

USA presidents or any one in the state have never said such things like Turkish presidents or any one in the state have never said. In the same way, I have never said Turkey targets kurds, but i spesifically call a terrrorist organisation, which is PYD(PKK), just as USA calls it ISIL or Al-qaeda.

However, some people here do interestingly portrey the situation like ''PKK = kurds''
However, the same ones see ISIL≠ muslims.

How should we call it? Ignorance...hypocrisy...?

That is true. The Kurds are less the problem than their ie so many of them wanting an autonomous region. But there is a difference to the fight with ISIL. While the Kurds and their PKK militants were being peaceful and had adhering to the ceasefire agreement or minding their own business in Iraq, the Turks attacked them. The PYD is not even the same organization as the PKK, though, there are connections. What the Turks just don't want and are willing to kill to stop happening is that the Kurds get a Homeland on the turkish boarder or/and an autonomic region in Turkey
 
That is true. The Kurds are less the problem than their ie so many of them wanting an autonomous region. 4- But there is a difference to the fight with ISIL. 1- While the Kurds and their PKK militants were being peaceful and had adhering to the ceasefire agreement or minding their own business in Iraq, the Turks attacked them. 2-The PYD is not even the same organization as the PKK, though, there are connections. 3-What the Turks just don't want and are willing to kill to stop happening is that the Kurds get a Homeland on the turkish boarder or/and an autonomic region in Turkey

''That is true. The muslims are less the problem than their ie so many of them wanting an autonomous region. But there is a difference to the fight with PKK. While the Muslims and their ISIL militants were being peaceful and minding their own business in Iraq, the USA attacked them. The ISIL is not even the same organization as the Al-Qaeda, though, there are connections. ''

I am waiting for you to prove those numbered claims, and an explanation for the 4.th claim of yours. Could you please use legal terms, proven facts, reports, evidences?
 
''That is true. The muslims are less the problem than their ie so many of them wanting an autonomous region. But there is a difference to the fight with PKK. While the Muslims and their ISIL militants were being peaceful and minding their own business in Iraq, the USA attacked them. The ISIL is not even the same organization as the Al-Qaeda, though, there are connections. ''

I am waiting for you to prove those numbered claims, and an explanation for the 4.th claim of yours. Could you please use legal terms, proven facts, reports, evidences?

Too much work looking for the articles in the internet. But, if you brows Foreign Affairs and the main national news sites going back these past 10 years, you will find the information. It isn't, after all, secret or even privileged knowledge. It is more the general type.
 
Too much work looking for the articles in the internet. But, if you brows Foreign Affairs and the main national news sites going back these past 10 years, you will find the information. It isn't, after all, secret or even privileged knowledge. It is more the general type.

I have never been in such debate in which the other side makes claims, when asked proof, evidences etc. she asks me to search myself...
 
I have never been in such debate in which the other side makes claims, when asked proof, evidences etc. she asks me to search myself...

On principal I do not let discussants push me to collecting general knowledge for them. I have found it is in many cases a fool's errand for a troll or a waste of time, as it is never read and responded to.
 
On principal I do not let discussants push me to collecting general knowledge for them. I have found it is in many cases a fool's errand for a troll or a waste of time, as it is never read and responded to.

In a proper debate, there are always two sides, but many results in the end; one of which is ''weak debater'' with cheap words but no proof or evidences to back.

In this case, who is the weak debater here?

In principle I barely answer weak debaters in my life, from when proven so on.
 
In a proper debate, there are always two sides, but many results in the end; one of which is ''weak debater'' with cheap words but no proof or evidences to back.

In this case, who is the weak debater here?

In principle I barely answer weak debaters in my life, from when proven so on.

Then you know how the Turks have acted and you are just trying to be a nuisance?
 
Back
Top Bottom