Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey and the Foreign Minister, Davutoglu, are continuing to call for a military strike against Syria. These two political leaders have peddled anti-Syria rhetoric for more than two years. Therefore, the Erdogan government is itching to get involved in Syria providing other Western powers join in. However, how moral is it that a conduit for sectarianism, terrorism, and sedition, can be so outspoken about human rights when the very same nation is helping in the destabilization of Syria? President Putin of the Russian Federation is firmly rebuking nations like America, France, Turkey and the Arab League for their collective anti-Syria agenda. Putin states that the “Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions.” “In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense.” “So I’m convinced that is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict.” However, despite the Erdogan government alienating Turkey throughout the region, it is clear that the current ruling party is still intent on overthrowing the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria at any cost. This reality means that NATO is also being seen openly to be a conduit for al-Qaeda, various other terrorist groups and extreme sectarianism. Strangely, or cynically, it is surprising that a member of NATO is not being attacked by the international media for allowing terrorist forces to have a free hand in Syria. After all, surely this violates the doctrines of NATO but at no time is Turkey being threatened by expulsion from this military bloc therefore what does this say for NATO? Davutoglu in the past raised many other false flags against Syria therefore the latest chemical attack issue provides Turkey with another shot at the bow. The foreign minister stated that “From our point of view, based on evidence gained by our intelligence services and experts… there is no doubt, it is clear the regime is responsible.” “Unfortunately after 10 days (since the attack), we have not been able to reach an agreement” In the past when the chemical issue was raised then clearly the United Nations (UN) hinted towards so-called opposition forces being responsible. The UN human rights investigator, Carla del Ponte, stated that“according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas.” Therefore, it appears that the Free Syrian Army (FSA), al Nusra, and other terrorist and sectarian groups, have a free hand. This free hand applies to utilizing chemical weapons, killing people based on sectarianism, beheading individuals and other brutal realities. Of course, this isn’t implying that so-called opposition forces are being encouraged to use chemical weapons – this isn’t the case. However, when video footage and photos show terrorists and sectarians handling chemical weapons and threatening to use them; then clearly you have no recompense. In this sense, it does imply that various terrorist groups will be backed come what may. On a different issue, and one which Putin is hinting at, it isn’t beyond the imagination that terrorist and sectarian groups would try to raise a false flag. After all, if the Syrian armed forces were going to use chemical weapons, then surely they would have used them when under heavy attack and in areas of importance? Also, if the Syrian armed forces were using chemical weapons then how come you have no footage of the army using gas masks when attacking terrorist and sectarian forces? Likewise, why would the Syrian army risk collective suicide by killing innocent civilians so close to Damascus and at a time when the military have the upper hand? It is worth pointing out that during the Iran-Iraq war it is clear that Gulf and Western powers had good relations with Saddam Hussein. It is known that vast numbers of Iranians were killed by chemical weapons but this didn’t stop major Gulf and Western powers from supporting Iraq. Also, Syria supported Iran therefore this nation knew that they faced nuclear NATO on its doorstep, nuclear Israel and a chemical weapons power in Iraq. Therefore, with Syria being located in a very strategic and hostile region; then any weapons that could neutralize the many threats to the sovereignty of Syria were on the agenda in this period of history. After all, when Iranians and Kurds were being killed by chemical weapons, it is clear that many Gulf and Western powers weren’t too alarmed. The Washington Post in 1990 stated about Saddam Hussein that “He began to put his program into practice in the mid-1970s, secretly launching projects to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, intelligence sources say.” “Some of those weapons are already available and likely to be used by Iraq in any military showdown with U.S. forces. The bleak irony is that much of the technology and expertise that created those weapons was bought by Iraq in the West, sometimes by deception but often with the silent acquiescence of Western governments. Those sales continued even after Saddam’s regime was accused of using chemical weapons against Iran and Iraq’s own Kurdish citizens.” The connection linking al-Qaeda affiliate groups and Turkey should shame NATO and all nations which are in league with anti-Syrian forces. Al Monitor states that “Fighters coming via Chechnya and Afghanistan are met at the Syrian border. There are intelligence officials there. Those crossing the border inform the intelligence people of their affiliation and under whose command they will be. Then, they cross the border and report to their units.” Further in the same article it is stated that “There are al-Qaeda mujahedeen from Afghanistan and the Caucasus fronts who come with their families. Most of them settle in Syria. There are hundreds of militants who come the same way from Northern Africa, the Caucasus, Europe and Afghanistan. They simply cross the Turkish border and join the fight.” In reality, it is clear that not only is NATO Turkey allowing sectarian and terrorist forces to enter northern Syria but this nation is also a conduit for major military arms which are being utilized by al-Qaeda affiliates. If Turkey is so concerned about human rights then why is this nation allowing al-Qaeda affiliates and other brutal terrorist groups to utilize the geography of Turkey? Similarly, why isn’t NATO putting pressure on Turkey if this organization is against terrorism and sectarianism? Despite the many ratlines linking Turkey with much of the carnage in Syria it is clear that this nation is still playing “the humanitarian card” alongside taking the “high moral ground.” However, how moral is it to allow forces to utilize your country in order for brutal Takfiris and al-Qaeda linked groups to behead minorities and cause untold suffering to the people of Syria? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833 http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/80361/World/Region/No-doubt-Syria-carried-out-chemical-attack-Turkey.aspx http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/07/al-qaeda-militants-syria-turkey-border.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/wartech091790.htm leejay@moderntokyotimes.com http://moderntokyotimes.com