Michael Collins
(3/30 Washington, DC) Will NATO take any action to censure Turkish officials for planning to attack and kill their own citizens? Turkey joined NATO in 1952. (Image:Nätverket Ofog)

The following exchange took place at meeting of senior Turkish government officials last week:

Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister - Ahmet Davutoğlu
"Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us."

Turkish Chief of National Intelligence - Hakan Fidan
"I'll send 4 men from Syria, if that's what it takes. I'll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary." Transcript here or here

The Turkish intelligence chief planned to send a covert team into Syria for the sole purpose of firing missiles at a city or cities in Turkey. Syrian terrorists were to be named as the culprits. Why?

The officials plotted to attack their own country and injure/kill their own citizens for political advantage in local elections on March 30. The AK Party faced a serious challenge following weeks of leaked wiretapped conversations exposing pervasive AK Party corruption. A rapid, violent, and strong response by embattled Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would have made the party look strong and distracted from the real issues in the elections.

When factions within a nation cause their nation to be attacked and then blame the attack on another nation or group, it is called a false flag attack.

The meeting tape was released on YouTube two days ago. President Abdullah Gul verified the authenticity of the tape when he called its release "an act of espionage." In order for release of the audio file to be counted as espionage, the meeting must have taken place.

NATO rules

The North Atlantic Treaty was ratified in 1949. Turkey was a founding member. In the founding treaty for NATO, members pledge "to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." North Atlantic Treaty, Washington, DC April 4, 1949

We are safe to assume that plotting to fire missiles at your own citizens to boost elections odds represents a flagrant violation of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Without any doubt, the four senior Turkish officials at the meeting plus Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul, who failed to condemn the false flag plan, are all guilty of violating the letter and the intent of the NATO charter.

This sounds like an open and shut case. NATO officials must be working away at censuring the Erdogan-Gul government with a threat to expel Turkey from the alliance if any of the plotters remain in the government.

NATO behavior

Based on recent history, NATO has no basis to sanction or expel Turkey for the false flag plan

NATO engaged in a devastating air campaign against the Libyan government under the guise of a neutral "no fly zone." This effort was responsible for the rebel victory. We know now that:

"Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force." Kuperman, Alan. "Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene." Policy Brief, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, September 2013.

Not only was the "no fly zone" a support operation for regime change, it was based on blatant distortions and faulty information.

Key leaders of the NATO alliance were adamant about blaming the Syrian government for the August 2013 chemical weapons attack on civilians in Damascus. Secretary of State John Kerry was thoroughly convinced that the Al-Assad government was responsible:

"We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas… Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area." Secretary of State John Kerry, White House, August 21, 2013

Kerry's assertion relied on an 8 km delivery path for the chemical weapons, placing the origin in Syrian government-controlled territory. Subsequent weapons analysis (using the UN report) demonstrated that the missiles carrying chemical weapons had only a 1.75 to 2.25 km boundary range. Further, there was no Syrian dominated territory within 2.25 km radius, which represents the outside boundary from which the rockets could have been launched. Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013, Richard Lloyd, Tesla Laboratories, Inc. and Theodore A. Postol, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

These scientific finding raise serious questions about the source of the missile attack. The findings raise absolute concerns about the willingness of the U.S., France, and other NATO nations to attack Syria based on analysis that these nations knew or should have known was fundamentally flawed. The press and public were given inaccurate information and when it was clear that it was flawed, no corrections were offered.

The NATO nations knew or should have known the real nature of events in Libya. They knew that their no fly zone was really a military operation to secure a rebel victory. They knew, without any doubt, that the presentation of "facts" to the press and public was wildly inaccurate.

How can NATO punish Turkish officials for a planning a false flag attack when the leading members of the alliance engage in violent actions against other nations for political gain based on distorted and misleading presentations to the press and public?

END

N.B. For a fuller picture of false flags in NATO countries, see NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe by Daniele Ganser

Creative Commons 3.0