Interesting piece: Will Turkey be America's new point man in the middle east?

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well i'm not very well versed on Turkey, so I'll take your word for it. Can you link me info that Russia is destabilizing Turkish politics? Russia generally sucks at soft power and subversion, that's the domain for the UK-US-Israeli axis who have been perfecting the art for centuries.

As for the Turkish military, they have the second largest military in NATO. The Turkish army has 2000+ tanks and many more APCs and IFVs. I think they can field 15-20 combat brigades in the field. The air force is impressive as well, with 4th and 4++ generation fighters like the F-16 and F-15. All their equipment is Western made.

The Turks wasted the Syrian army recently, killing as many as 2000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks, trucks and artillery. So I don't know where you get the info about them being humiliated by Syria. This analysis shows that if all powers remained neutral, Iran could not stop Turkey from conquering Syria.

That said, Turkey is in dire demographics straits. Turks despite the name are not really Turkic. They're mostly Greeks and Armenians mixed in with a lot of Slavic blood due to slavery. The Turkish upper castes were practically white due to breeding with slavic slave girls. Sultan Suleman had red hair and blue eyes.

The Western Turks in my estimation are relatively high IQ(perhaps 92-94ish) but are dragged down by inbred and semitic Kurds. Kurds are 20-25% of the population and have a TFR of 3-4 while Turks have 1.5. The country might not last long.

However I wouldn't underestimate them. Their whiteness means that they're more effective Islamic supremacists. But except the Kurds, are there any real secessionist movement in Turkey? The country's economic straits are dire with the Lira collapsing but the country is still holding together

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Turks despite the name are not really Turkic. They're mostly Greeks and Armenians mixed in with a lot of Slavic blood due to slavery. The Turkish upper castes were practically white due to breeding with slavic slave girls. Sultan Suleman had red hair and blue eyes.

Thats true of some Turks, but certainly not all. Their ethnicity has changed somewhat over the course of the centurys, due to their disgusting habit of acquiring sex slaves from the Balkans and Crimea. Miscegenation doesn't make them white, though, despite what you claim. Beneath all the miscegenation, Turks are still the same as their filthy ancestors.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This disgusting habit is nothing unique to them. The mongols did it, as did the Aryans. The Aryans upon conquering a land would essentially takeover the women there. This happened in Brazil, India, Iran and many other places.

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Its not really the same thing. The Ottoman slave trade was unrivaled in its magnitude, longevitiy, and brutality. All non-muslims living inside the empire could be taken at will as slaves. The Ottomans occupied the Balkans and the Crimea for centurys, and sold slavic women abroad as sex slaves. This was the very definition of a rape culture.

What the Spanish did in South America isn't even in the same level. They practised polygamy with the native women, and took many wives. They never sold them abroad as sex slaves. (The Spanish did use the natives for forced labour, though, and they also enslaved blacks)