Tuesday, June 28, 2016

More gun explosive vest violence

Terrorists attack Istanbul airport, up to 50 people dead.

Update - I wonder if this was the proximate cause: "Turkey, Israel sign deal to normalize ties after six-year rift".


RebeccaH said...

Turkey was having problems with terrorists and suicide bombers long before they signed the deal with Israel. I'd say it's because of that, that they did sign the deal with Israel. Turkey has suddenly realized that maybe fundamentalist Islam isn't such a good idea after all.

Veeshir said...

Yeah, I'd say it has nothing to do with Israel.

The odd part is that Turkey has occasionally acted like ISIS' friends.

The problem with Islamic terrorists is that, as we all know, there is no sin worse than having almost the same religion so they go after everybody not affiliated with them.

bruce said...

Well said all, but I think Paco is on to something: the fanatics in this type of Islam have a tendency to hyper-regulate even their friends, handing out punishments for "transgressions".

Just heard the details and it was as bad as it could have been, with tactical delayed explosions when crowds gathered, running from the other explosions and gunfire. Terrible.

JeffS said...

Turkey is fast becoming an Islamic state, after decades of secularism. But I imagine that they are worried about Iran and stability in Syria. They have that much in common with Israel.

Official Spokesjerk said...

We may never know why this tragedy occured, but we stand with the people of Turkey. And in a few days, we'll stand with the people of someplace else as we not know why these natural disasters happen and declare sadness not anger.

HAL9000 said...

Maybe this will encourage Turkey to stop helping ISIS export its oil.

It's interesting to look at the Middle East from the point of view of historical geopolitics. There have always been three main centers of power in the region, Egypt, Anatolia (Turkey) and Mesopotamia (Iraq and Eastern Syria). The Persians conquered all three and Persia became part of the Eastern power center. Alexander the Great did so too, but his empire fell apart into the three blocs PDQ after he died. The Romans conquered two of them and tried many times to conquer the third, but succeeded only briefly under Hadrian. The Arabs conquered two of them (Egypt and Mesopotamia) then split up into the component parts again, and the Turks later got Anatolia and Egypt.

These three centers have fought each other through almost all of history. Generally the cockpit of struggle is in Syria. This pattern is a continuing one dating back at least 3500 years. The ruler of Anatolia competes with the ruler of Egypt who competes with the ruler of the Eastern center who competes with the ruler of Anatolia. This pattern was holding even in the 19th century, where the Turks were hostile to Persia and the ruler of Egypt (Muhammed Ali Pasha) fought the Ottoman Turkish Sultan in the 1830s and 40s.

This pattern seems to be reasserting itself, with slight alterations. Egypt no longer has a direct path to the other two, since Israel is in the way (or buffers Egypt from them, depending on how you look at it). Turkey and Iran are beginning to reassert their hostility towards each other over Iran's spread into Iraq and Syria. One difference now is that Persia (Iran) is now something of a power center in itself, and Mesopotamia is downgraded as an independent power center since the fall of Saddam.

Looking at it from this point of view, it's a good thing for the Arabs that Israel won in 1948 and later. Had the Arabs exterminated Israel's Jews, they would have fallen out over the spoils of the Palestine Mandate, and Egypt's path to the north would be open, able to expand into the Levant to be threatening to Turkey, Iraq, and Iran (in their eyes). It would not have been long, I think, before a great, intramuslim war broke out. Since the main strategy of Arab armies seems to be the competitive slaughter of civilians, the bloodshed would have been ghastly. What a picture: Israel, savior of the Arabs.