grey wolves

Standard of the 'Grey Wolves', CIA-NATO fascist network in Turkey and elsewhere in central Asia
In this episode of 'Behind the Headlines' - broadcast Sunday 29 November 2015 - editors Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley analysed the extraordinary shoot-down of a Russian Su-24 bomber in Syria by a Turkish F-16. Everyone is noting how 'stupid' the Erdgoan government is for sanctioning such an act, especially given the negative Russian reaction. But a closer look indicates that Erdogan either had no choice but to go along with the pre-planned provocation, or he was simply informed of it after the fact.

Joe and Niall go behind the headlines to identify the real orchestrators of the attack on Russia, and what this critical border incident means in the context of 'the Great Game' playing out across Eurasia.

Running Time: 01:57:00

Download: MP3

Articles by Joe Quinn on this subject:

Here's the transcript of the show:

Joe: Hi and Welcome to Behind the Headlines on the SOTT radio network, I'm Joe Quinn and my co-host this week as usual, is Niall Bradley.

Niall: Hi Everyone!

Joe: It's just two of us this week. Harrison has gone off to be a monk! No, Harrison has gone off to do some reporting for us, so he won't be back for a while, it's back to the usual dynamic duo.

Niall: Right.

Joe: With Niall as batman and me as... Catwoman. Anyway, as you've probably seen, we are scheduled to have Gearóid Ó Colmáin on the show this week but we haven't been able to get to him. He did mention he was having some computer problems. We're just going to have to wait and see if we can get him on the line, but that doesn't mean we can't just carry on here and bring you all of the latest news and analysis on the current state of global shenanigans and what it all means. That's what we do, we'll just charge ahead and say all the things that we would have asked Gearóid to say.

Niall: Yeah. So let's start with... our American listeners just enjoyed another thanksgiving and one of those crazy Black Friday follow-ups. We know a good few AMERICANS, they tell us that this is not traditional, this is a new thing.

Joe: What is?

Niall: The Black Friday cram, where they go to stores. It's gone back a few years, it doesn't have old roots or anything.

Joe: No, It's just rampant Capitalism shoved down people's throats.

Niall: Is it just me or does it get worse every year?

Joe: I dunno, there's been some pretty bad ones in the past few years. People have gone crazy, fighting and beating the heads off each other for the latest flat screen TV's, you know?

Niall: They don't even know what they're reaching out for, it's just grab, grab, grab.

Joe: No they have GPS, some shoppers radar. It's like surgical strikes on the latest flat screen TV, the one with 75% discount. You want to see all of the latest mind numbing reality TV shows in giant glorious HD, on the screen bigger than the size of your house. It has to happen.

How do you stay hooked on the main frame, hooked into the Matrix basically, if you don't have it in full glorious HD bigger than your wall?

Niall: Hahaha. Watching them scramble over each other, it's like, somebody did this montage were there's scenes from many stores and cities. I was thinking someone needs to put this to David Attenborough: "And here we see the sub species; Americana Shopaholicus, scrambling over each other as they fight for survival."

That's not what they thinking they're doing, they think they're having a bit of fun. But we talk about the break-away civilization of the Elites, this is like a break-away civilization of the masses. It's not even prompted by survival, those people don't need those goods to survive. What would they behaving like if they were actually in need of goods like water and food? You don't even want to think about that, okay.

So we were going to be discussing Gearóid based in Paris so, we were launching into questions like what's his take on what happened in Paris, what the atmosphere there is like. He's obviously not there at the moment to tell us, but I want to just say in passing that - well people were wondering about, and following the Headlines coming out of Paris about the clean-up operation afterwards.

The police on the hunt for the perpetrators - which has many bizarre twist and turns in itself. But just as a general point, not Paris, but Brussels underwent something, Belgium's Capital, last week, that was even more bizarre than the reaction that Paris went through, were the whole city was basically under, I was going to say Martial law but in brackets, because it was effectively a martial law.

For 3 days, no public gatherings where allowed, you weren't allowed to go cafes, restaurants, museums, just about many of the public spaces were closed. This mini siege was lifted and things sort of returned back to normal except they haven't, we have SOTT readers who are in Brussels and they've been telling us what they're left with 2 weeks after the Paris attacks, is just an increase of Police and Military presence in the streets. One of our readers said today he was going down to his local market, and to get into the actual square, everyone had to file up and pass through a metal detector to buy some goods on a Sunday. No one was allowed to take out a camera and photograph or film any of this. Apparently everyone dutifully obeyed, which is kind of a frightening thought,

Joe: Conditioning of the population, it's a useful test run for some future event were they would feel justified or have a justification to do that kind of thing for real. Doing it on a smaller scale based on a terror attack is useful. A useful test run to see how people would react. Of course it is obviously not as black and white as that, because in the aftermath of the Paris terror attack, the Paris police basically banned - once they imposed draconian legislation were they would raid whoever's house they want without a warrant - they banned all public gatherings for 3 months or as long as they want, basically.

Today, in the run up to the climate conference in Paris, which is starting next week I think, for a couple of weeks. There were protests, people in the streets in Paris, they were tear-gassed and water cannoned and 100 people were arrested. This happened, not just in Paris, but in several cities around the world, there was some kind of organised global warmers all got out on the streets, and they were there to protest climate change. That's what the headlines are saying: these people on the streets were protesting climate change. Down with these hailstorms and tornados and earthquakes. We've had it up to here with all those flash floods.

Niall: Stop the early snow!

Joe: Stop it, stop the early snow. They are demanding that the government do something about this natural phenomenon, the response from our governments was to beat their heads and fire tear gas at them.

Niall: Well in Paris, not the other protests.

Joe: But they would do it in other places probably.

Niall: Right. That's my question; see, because global warming is a favourable agenda for western governments. They have many good uses that they can extract from it, and they are generally happy for people to protest in large numbers - they have been.

Joe: But now it's terrorism. You throw terrorism into the mix, and you're not allowed to protest about anything. Even if it's stuff that your government wants you to protest about, because it's backing up their phony theories that they're trying to force on people about global warming and man-made climate change.

Niall: That was a severe reaction today.

Joe: Yeah it's got to the point where it's absolutely farcical because people are not even allowed to protest or they'll be attacked by police for protesting something that the government heretofore wanted them to protest about, or rather people are protesting essentially in favour of one of the big lies foisted on them by their government. They're out there on the streets in favour of a government manipulation and a lie, the government still cracks down on them, because the bottom line at this stage is, crack down on people no matter what they're doing.
They want as many examples of people being tear gassed and beaten in the streets as possible, to deter people in general from coming out into the streets, no matter what it's about.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: They don't care what it's about, we don't want this rabble on the streets for any reason what so ever. We want to have as much practice as possible, so in that sense they might want it, but at the same time they want to clamp down on it. They've had lots of practice over the past 10 years with all sorts of protesting. The G8...

Niall: Generally anti-war protests.

Joe: Yeah, but at this point, terrorism trumps all basically. If there's anybody in the streets, this could potentially be domestic terrorism so, no, no.

Niall: They went massive. I mean, Place de la République was just a sea of tear gas with the kind of protesters- they generally had, like I said they had never had a problem with before. You don't generally get anarchists smashing things at greeny protests, environmental protests.

Joe: Well people are a bit worked up these days in general, for no reason what so ever...

Joe: We have an early call here, this is Steven, hey Steven!

Steven: This is Steven, I'm very much looking forward to how your conversation evolves today because there are so many incredible topics that one can hit upon. They are pertinent and very much cogent to this particular moment. But I want to talk about this global warming. In my interpretation of it, I became a whistleblower, I fell up on my own sword a couple of years ago because I've always been concerned about how we humans impact our environment and pollution ever since I was a kid. When I look at this, I come out of intellectual moulding and tradition of the so-called progressive left. This subject about global warming, I'm very sceptical about it.

Here's my conflict; in the current situation with fossil fuels and the burning of it, and say that, yes, this is a human and anthropogenic change in our behaviour- we are putting these chemical alterations, these multitude of substances into our atmosphere and environment, from our behaviour of burning these fossil fuels. But then, when I listen to people who are climate change sceptics, as well as people who are beating the drum "Yeah we're going to tear up our planet!" I look at the way the debate is formed, I step back from that, and I'm like OK, I think this is a massive manipulation and I'm not making this determination on whether or not it is true or false that putting these substances into our atmosphere in our habits of behaviour... I'm not debating or denying that this is deleterious, it's bad, but the way that our configuration of the environment and how we effect our environment and how we produce ourselves vis-a-vis our environment and other species. I find it very disconcerting how the debate and our focus as a collective humanity, goes to this subject of "climate change". The big powers from corporations to government, which are just totally corrupt and anti-democratic, they lull the progressive left into this debate and then, OK, you're a denier!

Our focus and energies are put into this one subject and then you're a good guy or a bad guy, a white hat or a black hat. Isn't that so convenient for the powers that be, the hierarchical structures that keep us divided and dumb, isn't that so convenient for them, the powers that be, to have us all focus on this in a war-like, you're either white hat or black hat, kind of camp, the determination of it.
From my perspective of looking at the real world, having a business that tries to help people understand that the more ecological way of doing thing vis-a-vis landscaping is the more economical, better, totally logical. But everything gets focused onto these camps, of either you believe it, you want to help the new world order use this to tax and control us all. Or you're on the camp of like, "oh wow you're just a chump for buying into these new world orders, government and corporate solutions to this problem" - so that's very convenient for the powers that be, because people that care and are concerned about our fate and where we are at right now, the people that have an imagination that could do better, we're all caught up in these conflicting camps. You're a bad guy, you can deny that all of this stuff, these co2, hurts our environment, you're just a bad guy.

There are thousands of issues and concerns of how we relate to our environment, how we produce ourselves as humans day to day, our patterns of behaviours. There are just thousands of these other issues that we could focus on, that we could devote our energies toward, that would have a real life impact, but that would require democratic, solidarity, becoming more intelligent, working with people. Isn't it so convenient that we just focus on this climate change, white hat, black hat, and that's how it just rolls, that's my main insight from this dominant topic. I wanted to see how you guys react to what I'm saying here.

Niall: Well said Steven, don't anybody mistake our admittedly sarcastic opening comments, about environmental protests and so on, for a refusal or a failure on our parts to recognise that Fukushima was a crime against people of the planet, or at least a handling of the fallout from Fukushima. The BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was a crime against people, among countless others.

Where we agree with you here, is that, the reaction to it is vectored and in the end is dissipated, by the failure to recognise that the source of it ultimately comes from the top, and it is the source of all the other problems; wars, austerity measures. These things must go hand in hand. You cannot look at "climate change" in isolation, because there they have you were they want you, there they have you in a situation were it's all your fault. If you would just recycle goods properly, stop eating meats, everything will be fine - and the usual bullshit they put about how you've got to save things.

Joe: I guess from what you're saying there, Steven, it's a load of nonsense to think that the people who are on this world, the politicians actually give a shit about climate change and anything happening to the planet, regardless of what it is that humans are doing, or what they claim humans are doing to cause it. That's a ruse, they don't care right?

Steven: Yeah I totally agree.

Joe: They're happy to have these conferences like they're having in Paris next week, getting everybody together, all the politicians together to wring their hands over it and get everybody concerned about it. But that's just a way to consolidate their power, or their sense of their own power, in that "yeah we're going to do something about this, people are having this effect and you all are very bad".

Steven: Yes, I'll just say this - I'll just remind you again, I come out of this progressive left, I was never an activist in that community and as a matter of fact, as I've seen things played out, I see that there's a lot of these intellectuals who are, in my opinion, are pretty corrupt scam artists. I saw what happened with Libya, now Syria, and I see all these people that write articles like "oh it's them climate change deniers!"

There's so many things that we could do that would entail us getting off our butts, cooperating with our neighbours doing something different, but all of those interactions would be outside of this consumerist model, outside of this logic were we go to Huffington post and we see who these bad climate change deniers are. To me I'm just watching an incredible ruse being played out which perpetuates divide and conquer.

Joe: Yep. Another thing is that a vast amount of money is thrown at these measures that they put into place for dealing with climate change, all these different NGO'S and groups that investigate and study it and supposedly taking money from corporations, or charging corporations money for their carbon foot print etc. But ultimately, the majority of that money comes from the public purse. So when these politicians get worked up about climate change, what they're getting worked up about is the opportunity for them to extract more tax payer money and funnel it into private accounts and private organisations, who get rich off it. Everything that concerns politicians, and everything that they lobby for, if you look at it, ultimately is to justify more theft of tax payers' money, and the funnelling of it up into the private coffers. The more they do that the harder ordinary people have to work. That's why the most valuable resource, in terms of oil or gas or food, any kind of resources like water, the most valuable resource of this planet is human beings, and the sweat of their brow, and how much these politicians can force the ordinary people of this world to continue to work harder and harder, so the politicians get richer and richer

Steven: Yes I totally agree with that, and what I'm seeing is that this is totally corrupt, I do not buy into this carbon trading and all that. What I find interesting is that I see in everyday life how people can actually save money, they can have access to quality food with no chemicals. If only we came together in our own neighbourhoods to increase our intelligence, to learn new things, to develop solidarity and understanding that we can go around these larger structures of corporations on how we obtain our food and all that. It's totally possible and totally do-able in our everyday lives, in our neighbourhoods.

But then we have this larger subject of "climate change". It's being used to divide and conquer, to keep you focused on this larger inscrutable issue that nobody is ever going to come out with this smoking gun and say "we are definitely doing this!" Because everybody that develops any information works within these larger institutions that are tied to state power, that are corrupt. I just think that the way that the conversation rolls is that, almost everybody you ever talk to, knows that what we're doing right now, our way of being, how we produce ourselves, is unsustainable.
Whether you're talking to a very right-winger or whatever. Most people know that how we produce ourselves is unsustainable, polluting our planet, it's going to lead to all kinds of havoc and deterioration in the future.

But this larger debate about climate change totally takes our focus away from we can do right now in our neighbourhoods, both the right wing and left wing structures that are institutionalised play into it. I'm looking at the left wing progressive press, and they totally play into it and there's just a small cadre of thinkers and intellectuals that make a good living of presenting their opinions and comments, and they're making a good living on perpetuating it.

My question is this: Wow I really wanna see something change on the ground and the first thing that I need to do is recognise what I'm up against and what everybody else is up against, and that's recognising the really cynical and manipulative and fruitless dominant conversation about climate change, believers and deniers in climate change. Logically the whole argument doesn't make sense because everybody knows whether you went to college or if you graduated high school, that we always have changes in the earth's atmosphere, so there's always going to be changes in the earth's climate.

I just wanted to throw that out there, and having said that I would also like your interpretation of what happened vis a vis Russia in Syria the past week, which I know you guys are going to touch on, but when I called in yesterday to The Truth Perspective, I made a comment like wow, you know, it's really unconceivable to me that Turkey did this outside of the aegis and the control of the US government.

If that's the case, how could Turkey ever interpret that this would actually play out to Turkey's advantage? And then we have a leader in Turkey who has like neo-Ottoman, delusional, megalomaniacal aspirations. It seems to me that the US totally played this guy Erdogan, totally played him. So if that's the case, why? Because this is not going to serve Turkey's political stability and economic stability in the short or long term, because they totally alienated Russia.

What advantage, how does this play out? What is the NATO-US goals? What is the long-term game plan? What I mentioned yesterday, and I'm going to hang up after this: My interpretation with what's going on with respect to Syria and Russian etc, the US despite all of its power, all of it's hegemonic dominance that's been going on for decades, they're losing their narrative because they're so corrupt. They've made so many alliances to effect short-term goals in the middle-east that actually funded the same terrorist groups that attacked on 9/11. They painted themselves in a corner and they totally lost control of the dominant narrative that convinces the world population - nations and cultures and people - who's in the right and who's in the wrong. The US with their alliances with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, all of it comes to play to where they've totally done things to where they just don't have any prospects of turning it around and re-booting, as far as the narrative dominance of how things play out.

Joe: The US is gonna bullshit their way out of it, Steven. Or you can be sure they're going to try and bullshit their way out of it... they've got an unlimited supply of bullshit to explain themselves. Of course it's not going to hold any water, it's going to get more and more obvious as they go on. But, they're going to keep trying, listen we're going to answer all of those questions starting now, but we'll let you go.

Steven: OK thank you, bye.

Niall: Joe, we need some answers here

Joe: What are the questions?

Niall: What the hell was Recep Tayyip Erdogan thinking when he ordered a Turkish jet to shoot down a Russian jet inside Syria on Tuesday, last week?

Joe: What was he thinking? Well, first of all there's a question over whether or not he ordered anything.

Niall: But he pretty much owned it right after

Joe: Right, but here's the problem, he owned it. And I use this analogy - I'm not saying this is the exact truth but we can explore it and people can answer the questions for themselves, what's on the base of it. There's a lot more details around this going through history and going forward, even, that need to be talked about in terms of trying to understand what went on because, what went on, as you just said Niall, was extremely stupid. Or, appeared to be a very stupid thing, and still appears to be a very stupid thing, that the Turkish government or the Turkish prime minister, president or whatever.

They shoot this plane down, something shoots this plane down, for a start there's no pictures, images, videos of any F-16 shooting down he plane. OK, let's assume that's true that it was shot down by a plane, there are plenty of Turkish air bases just over the border in Turkey from where a F-16 could have gone up and shot it down, probably from Turkish airspace, they're really sneaky. As Putin said, a stab in the back, from a distance of 5-7km away...

Niall: Apparently done stealthily, because the Russians didn't pick up anything coming their way.

Joe: Well no, yeah, maybe the Russians weren't looking for it. You have to remember this wasn't a Russian jet as they keep calling it. It was a jet in the sense of a jet engine, but it was a bomber, this was a Su-24 strategic bomber, it's designed for bombing, not for engaging in dog fights, and therefore it wouldn't have the same kind of electronics to engage in that kind of air-to-air combat. So it was effectively a soft, easy target for an F-16 -which is a fighter jet- to target. A missile was fired, from probably inside Turkey, kinda standard range is 5-7km away, you would launch one of those missiles at this bomber, hitting from behind, and down it goes.

The question is, why, immediately afterwards, there was silence effectively. All we heard was that the Turkish government ran screaming the NATO and wrote a quick letter to the UN,

Niall: Which got "leaked".

Joe: Which got "leaked" by WikiLeaks. Their immediate response is, to me "oh my god, what the hell just happened, quick cover our arses! let's go and do something about this". It seems an unusual response from someone who supposedly did this coldly and calmly, with what you would expect to be an anticipation of a reaction. So that's the first thing.

The next thing then was that within the day, within 24 hours, Erdogan and this prime minister are getting all belligerent. We're not saying sorry, you say sorry, we have to protect our air space.

Niall: It's your fault.

Joe: Yeah, it's all your fault Russia, blah, blah, blah. So really rubbing the salt in the wound - a really stupid thing to do. Although understandable though because when you made an aggressive move against someone who has potential to respond to you, you have a choice to either keep the ante up or you back down, and you gotta weigh up what's the best option there, I mean what's in your best interest, it's a fait accompli, it's done.
The analogy I've been using is just proposing this scenario, Russia and Turkey are standing facing each other, Russia turns its back for a moment, someone comes in and stabs Russia in the back and sticks the bloody knife in Turkey's hand and runs away. Russia turns around and see's Turkey with the bloody knife in their hand, what's Turkey going to say? ;"It wasn't me?"

Niall: "It wasn't me!"

Joe: Or are they gonna say, "Yeah Russia you deserve that because you're... doing stuff!" But then within the past couple of days we've seen Erdogan flip-flopping again and saying.

Niall: It wasn't so bad was it?

Joe: Not just not so bad, he said that he's saddened by the fact of the shoot down, he wishes it had never happened. Is this all just posturing? If so you're not keeping your story straight here Erdogan, you're either shirt-fronting, as the former Australian prime minister would have said, shirt fronting Putin, or you're not, or you're striking a conciliatory note and you want to get over this. What is it? The whole thing was just so ridiculous and insane it's hard to figure out, to make any sense of it and to understand what the motivation was here.

Obviously Russia has responded by passing sanctions against Turkey on several different fronts, that apparently is going to hurt Turkey to a certain extent, economically. Russian, the very day afterwards, has upped its bombing in that region.

Look at it this way, this SU-24, these jets are flying and bombing in this particular area, up there in the Western corner of Syria, on the Turkish border: Turkmen mountain, where supposedly Turk men live. This plane is shut down by the Turkish, you'd think, well Turkey didn't like the fact that Russia was bombing that particular area. So they shoot down the plane. A very easily anticipated response is that Russia is going to continue to bomb, or bomb more heavily the next day. Bad idea. Turk's are stupid, right? What a ridiculous thing, you couldn't anticipate that?

Another possibility, as has been said, that Russia had been previously bombing the oil trucks that have been much talked about. These oil trucks from ISIS, stolen ISIS oil from Syria, supposedly according to Putin anyway. These long 36/40 km long trains, effectively, of oil trucks coming from Syria and going into Turkey. Putin's like, really you didn't know about this?

Niall: He apparently shows people at the G20, this photo these fighters took from 6000 metres up,

Joe: He's bombing these oil trucks as well. Someone in Turkey is not happy about that,

Niall: supposedly Erdogan's brother is involved with this.

Joe: His son. It's all kind of speculation, but it's obvious that someone in Turkey is handling stolen oil from Syria. Stolen ISIS oil, the oil that ISIS stole from Syria is being channelled into Turkey, and the Russian's are bombing it, which are pretty easy targets. Not only are they more or less civilian trucks, not military vehicles, it's also flammable liquid, so it must be fun bombing those. I would have fun bombing those.

That's been talked about as well, that this could be another reason why this is a red line, a bridge too far for the Turkish government. You're bombing our loosh, our money basically. But at the same time, what's happening here is that any of the analysis in this direction - It's really clear that you're going to piss off Russia. I mean any Russian plane you shoot down, that is engaged in a particular bombing or a particular area, if you shoot that plane down you have to be an idiot to not expect that what you're simply going to do is incur further and more extensive bombing of that area.

Niall: They apparently levelled the area where the Turkmen were the next day.

Joe: Right, so, take your pick, really. The Turk's are idiots, they're just desperate and shot down this plane because they were angry in the heat of the moment, stop bombing our oil trucks, stop bombing our Turkmen. Then they go, oh crap, we shouldn't have done that.

It doesn't sound like the kind of action that a military political leadership would take. Then we look at the results, so you've got the stupid explanation, Turkey is just stupid. Because that's what most people seem to be going with, in one sense or another. But look at the result. The best thing to do in these situations is to look at the result, what is the broad result of this shoot down of the Russian plane, apart from the continued bombing from Russia. The broad result is a souring of relationship between Turkey and Russia.

Niall: Which was doing as well as up to the south stream going through Turkey last year.

Joe: Right, pipelines going from Russia through Turkey towards Europe. It had been planned, haven't been finalized yet, but The Turkish Stream, effectively it was called, was a new pipeline coming - this was after the EU, on the orders of NATO in 2014, cancelled south-stream, which was meant to run through the Caspian sea into Bulgaria. The EU put pressure on Bulgaria to stop that, to screw the Russians over. So the Russian's said ok, Turkey let's do a deal, let's run it straight through Turkey. Turkey said OK, this was just last year. They've been talking about it even this year, finalizing details on it, Putin himself said that it was a stab in the back by accomplices of terrorists. They take actions against Turkey. Just because he said accomplices of Terrorists doesn't mean he referring necessarily to Turkey, or to the Turkish government.

Niall: But he certainly led people on to believe so.

Joe: Well, yes, by taking action against Turkey. He also said we don't have a problem against Turkish people, we have questions about the Turkish government. What does that mean?

Niall: And he reffered to the Islamization.

Joe: Right. Well this is all very cryptic, as usual, from Putin. He said he was stabbed in the back, because as far as Putin's concerned, Turkey was an ally, or more or less an ally he said. They had good relationships and it was close to an ally of Russia. By shooting down this plane, Turkey basically destroyed, or went a long way to destroy their relationship, why would Turkey do that? What's in it for Turkey?

Niall: So, we've got Turkey is stupid on one hand and, or someone else is extremely cunning and devious.

Joe: Who would want to destroy the relationship between Turkey and Russia, who benefits? Who has been trying to destroy relationships between Russia and everybody else over the past 4-5 years?

Niall: Washington.

Joe: OK, that's pretty transparent. The US has, under NATO, and as the US in itself, has many aircraft in air bases, in Turkey. We're saying the missile was fired from Turkey. The US, the Brits as well, have been flying planes from Turkey into Syria and Iraq. The question of who owned this plane is an open question, because it could have been Turkish, American, British -

Niall: Even if it was under a Turkish flag, remember back to our discussion with the NATO guy, I remember his comment about when you buy weapons in the NATO system, you also get the NATO's software etc, up to the point of them being able to remotely have control over that weaponry.

Joe: Right. So, I don't see, unless you go with that Turkey is crazy, Erdogan is nuts, or he acted irrationally in the heat of the moment, which is more or less that he is nuts. Unless you're going to go with that explanation, which doesn't seem plausible, you're going to have to look at, to a certain extent, a false flag. Yeah, a false flag effectively, Turkey's hand was forced and was forced to, in the aftermath of doing it, to make a decision.

There's a few interesting things that I want to mention. There's a picture, if you're listening to this show, I know we put up a lot of pictures on the player, but there's a picture of a group of guys in front of a flag, this guy is called in this image, his name is Alparslan Çelik. He was the guy who was on TV, which was recorded after the shoot down of the Russian plane, he had a bit of a goatee beard with a scarf on his head. He was the one who was grandstanding and gloating over the shoot down of this plane, he was claiming that him and his friends shot at the two Russian pilots. He even went as far as saying he would kill both of them which wasn't true.

This guy was clearly there to make matters worse. It's one thing to shoot down a Russian jet in contested air space, let's say, or under the claim that it had infiltrated Turkish space, and for the pilots to eject and to be left alone. It's another thing for one of them to be murdered as he parachutes down.

Niall: That's a war crime

Joe: That is a war crime, and it really pushes the declaration of war, extremely aggressive act against Russia, they really crossed the limit. So my analysis would be, at this point, that that aspect of this event, of the shoot down. The shooting of one of the pilots was a key aspect to it. I'm kind of leaving it open here to a certain extent by saying that it's possible, that Erdogan - this is a deeper conspiracy theory than the one I just presented.
Other than the false flag. It's possible that Erdogan and his government was aware of, or even sanctioned the shooting down of the plane, but was not aware, or had not sanctioned the murder of the Russian pilot, which made matters much worse.

Niall: Indeed, because on the same day of the event, they did say they were going to try and recover the two pilots.

Joe: Right, exactly, and then it later emerged, that actually one of them was dead,

Niall: And somebody had been shooting at the Russian rescue team.

Joe: Right. Not only did they shoot down the plane, but when the Russian helicopters came to rescue, one of them was attacked and blown up and one of the pilots on that rescue helicopter was killed. So, it goes from a shoot down of a Russian plane by Turkish air force,

Niall: Which might plausibly be put down to fog of war...

Joe: to the deliberate murder of two Russian service men. That puts it in a whole different...

Niall: That's someone putting a knife in Russia, twisting it and then giving it to Erdogan.

Joe: Exactly. So the point here is, who this guy was, what were his connections, this guy whole claimed to have shot this Russian pilot, who was responsible. In the picture that we're talking about, he's seen with a group of men. Behind them, there's a flag, it's a blue flag, and the most you can see on it is a white crescent moon. But just behind his shoulder you can also see what appears to be maybe the edge of a star.

A lot of people have said that this flag is effectively the flag of a group called "The Grey Wolves" - they are effectively a NATO GLADIO-type group, that was Turkey's version of NATO's GLADIO, paramilitary organisations that NATO spread around European countries after the end of the Second world war, to effectively keep all of Europe from falling under the influence of the Russian's. To keep them under NATO's banner.

Niall: Well ostensibly, in the event of a Russian invasion of Europe, for them to come out from underground. But effectively...

Joe: Well they did that pre-emptively. Any sign of any drift in any direction, anybody who has caught, who is seen as been in any way independent minded or even communist or socialist, they were targeted. Politicians, any groups were targeted and the populations of European countries were terrorised, effectively by phoney leftist groups who would carry out bombings etc, and claim that they were leftist groups but they were actually NATO groups that demonized the left - to demonize any kind of communist or socialist or independence in Europe.

So this applied to Turkey as well, very much so. These groups were in Turkey and one of them, called "The Grey Wolves" were actually associated with the National Democratic Movement, which is the 3rd biggest political party in Turkey right now. They were formed back in the 50's or 60's... [Audio cuts out]

Joe: ...BlogTalkRadio, we got cut off, we just called back in via...

Niall: We think they're in league with the NSA.

Joe: Yeah it's a conspiracy. They keep doing this to us.

Niall: Anyway we were talking about this guy who went on Turkish and international media, boasting about how he and his boys had shot at the two Russian pilots that parachuted down. Joe noticed something, something among others, they had this flag with a particular emblem on it.

Joe: It's a blue flag with a white crescent moon on it, and it looks like it also has a star. This group that I was talking about "The Grey Wolves" that were a NATO operation, NATO paramilitary operation that has existed in Turkey and is affiliated with the political party in Turkey called the National Democratic Movement, which are a radical right-wing, nationalist organisation.

Niall: The party is very much still active. The paramilitary wing, presumably is close by.

Joe: The paramilitary wing - they never went away. They've played a part in Turkish politics for a long time, right up until the present day. This group, that this guy shot down the Russian pilot, he's standing in front of the flag, it's similar to the flag of "The Grey Wolves", which is a blue flag with a crescent moon and a howling wolf in the middle of the crescent moon. He didn't have a harling wolf in his, his was a sky blue flag with a white crescent moon and a star.

That star, that flag is the flag of East Turkistan. In the image you see also that, there's four of them, two of the guys are doing their Jihadi one finger solute, "there's only one God, Allah" type of thing. But the other two guys, the guy who shot down the Russian plane, they had the "devil's horns" sticking up, right, which is used all around the world for different reasons. What he's using it for is for the symbol of The Grey Wolves. Those two horns sticking up are the grey wolf's ears.

Of course now that there's not a lot between the movement for an independent East Turkistan, and The Grey Wolves, because basically they're the same thing.

This group that I'm talking about, The Grey Wolves, and the third biggest party in Turkey, The Grey Wolves being the paramilitary wing of it, they espouse right-wing nationalists Turkish ideology, which is basically a new Turkish empire, effectively, going from Turkey all the way across into Central Asia, right over to China. The Xinjiang.

Niall: East Turkestan, that's China.

Joe: Right. East Turkistan is an area in China, right on the border with Afghanistan, it's a very small thin land border with China. And if you just follow that little channel from Afghanistan into China, you're in East Turkistan. This gives at least one good reason why the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, and still occupies it till this day.

Anyway, it's a very strange story because you have these guys in Turkey and a thousand miles away, they are lobbying for... freedom.

Niall: They have a powerful lobby in Washington.

Joe: Well, thousands of miles away in China they are lobbying, they are fighting effectively, for the freedom of East Turkistan, which is part of China, Xinjiang I think, which is the Chinese name for the region.

So this organisation that exposes the Turkish revolutionary movement to unite all Turkic speaking people, which is obviously Turkey, some of them in Azerbaijan, all of the 'Stans of the former Soviet republic, including Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, all of them, and also a chunk of China.

These guys all want to unite these people into one new Turkic empire, Turkistan empire or something, that's their ideology. That's their flag, and that guy is sitting in front of it. So this guy who shot down the Russian plane is a member of this organisation,

Niall: and wants to be seen as such, I mean if you're gonna have the flag and put it on TV...

Joe: Right. But this Grey Wolves group, they played a serious part, just to clarify here, what we're talking about is, the guy on TV who claimed he shot down the Russian pilot after the Russian plane was shot down, is a member of the Grey Wolves, which is a Turkish paramilitary organisation that is known to have been effectively a NATO-controlled group in Turkey throughout the 70's, 80's and even into the 90's.

They're basically murderers. There's claims that they've killed up to 6000 people over that period of time, through bombings, massacres, all that kind of thing. They were a real de-stabilising force in Turkey. They engaged in, or played direct roles in coups in Turkey over those years. And they're known, and it has been talked about repeatedly in the Western press, but definitely inside Turkey, and there's been public investigations into this group in Turkey, and they're very well known as being effectively controlled by NATO, or under the NATO umbrella.

This guy who is basically, who is standing there giving an interview to the media about shooting down the pilot, is a member, but one of the other things that this Grey Wolves did is they fought in Chechnya. They fought in several different places where NATO had an interest, one of them being Chechnya, they fought on the Chechen separatist side in the first and second Chechen wars.

Niall: That's why the Russian's said this area's riddled with Chechen terrorists.

Joe: Exactly, why is Russian bombing that area? Because Russian had intelligence at least that, the people that they said at the very beginning, that Russia said at the very beginning of their airstrikes, part of their reasons, well I think their main reason, was that there were Jihad terrorists in Syria that posed a threat to Russia, in terms of them being able to go to Russia after being in Syria and attack Russia.

The day that the Russian plane is shot down by an F-16, piloted by someone, this member, these guys, these Turkmen are In Syria shooting down and killing a Russian pilot, and these people have a history, the organisation that the history of fighting in Chechnya against the Russian's.

Niall: So, the plot thickens. There's another connection isn't there, this guy who spoken from the camera, this Grey Wolf, this lone wolf - he's not alone wolf of course, he's connected. He's very connected. He's the son of the former mayor of a town in Turkey. This mayor also was renowned as a right wing,

Joe: Right, I think he was a member of that MHP party. So this guy is up to his neck, he's a fully on-board signed up member of NATO's paramilitary organization inside Turkey, and he's there on scene shooting at the Russian pilot who's falling down. I mean, to me...

Niall: And internationally he's therefore posing as a rebel against the Assad regime. "Moderate Rebel".

Joe: Right. Now, where it gets complicated. Erdogan's and that clique within Turkey, what their motivation is. Do they want to protect these people? Possibly- yes. Not because they want to use them to attack Russia as Jihadis or anything like that, but they want to have people that are in some way loyal to them. I don't even know if these guys are loyal to Erdogans government because certainly, the Grey Wolves are not. They're affiliated with a party that is in opposition to Erdogan's AK party.

But if Erdogan's explanation, if his claim of having shot down, or having been part of shooting down, or having sanctioned the shooting down of the Russian plane is because, well he didn't even give an explanation, did he? What we're assuming here is that Russia was bombing somewhere along that Syrian/Turkish border, bombing people that Erdogan didn't want them to bomb. Erdogan in general, one thing we can say, he obviously wants to get rid of the Assad government, he doesn't like the Syrian government.

He's been fully supportive of the Jihadis and the overthrow of the Assad government for a long time

Niall: So his interests with the others converge.

Joe: His interests with the West converge.

Niall: And with Saudi's and Qatar's.

Joe: But Erdogan has, and the people behind Erdogan have their own interest in preventing people, the Kurds in particular, from gaining any ground or staking a claim to any kind of independent country, etc., or independent region in that area. Because the Kurds have a long history of conflict with the Turkish government and wanting their own independent country, their own Kurdistan. Kurdistan, in theory, would incorporate parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and even parts of Iran if they could get it. If you look at the map again and imagine a circle cutting off pieces of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and back to Turkey let's say, let's leave Iran out of it. Turkey, Syria and Iraq in a circle.

Niall: It's a fairly big country.

Joe: It would be if they could get some of it. It's the last thing that obviously any Turk wants, and they fought a long war with the Kurds to prevent them from getting any kind of independence.

That, I think, is where the Turk's and the West part ways. The US has been continually supporting the Kurds in their fight against ISIS. Israel is a long term supporter of the Kurds,

Niall: the US also supported the Kurds in their fight against Saddam Hussein back in the 90's.

Joe: Right. When you talk about the grand chessboard, Brzezinski's grand chessboard, or the great game whatever you want to call it. Why does Brzezinski use the analogy of the grand chessboard? Well because a game of chess, right? But if you think about chess, what do you do in chess? You move pieces to block your opponent.

Niall: And you keep in mind several moves going on, potentially.

Joe: Right, in the past their moving of the pieces of the grand chessboard has been to destabilize countries and overthrow governments etc., and they get control of the board, effectively, by taking control of certain countries. But there is another possibility, as you move your pieces on the board for example, you're creating something new on that square of the board, as a block.

If they were able to create a Kurdistan, or to create the conditions where a Kurdistan could be created, as I just described in that area, you would have a country, and they certainly hope to control it, and for it to be aligned with the West, some kind of autonomous Kurdistan. They would have an effective block for Iranian or Iraqi or Syrian gas or oil going through into Turkey, therefore into the West. They would effectively control a chunk of land, they would have created a new country effectively, right at the point where a lot of gas and oil and pipelines would be transiting.

The US Western strategy has been to fund and train the Jihad's to get rid of the Syrian government. This was the plan from the beginning. And Turkey was on board with that because everyone wanted to get rid of Assad. But as it evolved, Turkey started to become clear and they saw which way the wind was blowing, now they're splitting in terms of their goals and what they want, they're diverging from the West.

Niall: Yeah. The next day, there was an airstrike on a convoy coming from Turkey into Syria, and I couldn't be sure, but there was photo of one of the boxes that fell off one of these trucks in the convoy, and it looked like the same insignia. I'm not sure I saw a wolf, but it was the same light colour blue, crescent and star. That's opening another little can of worms that probably ties into this - the convoy was under the aegis of the IHH, which is well known humanitarian organization, NGO, Turkish NGO, nobody has owned up to bombing that convoy, but there was claim that it was not full of humanitarian aid, but weapons heading into Syria.

Joe: Yeah, so it is by definition, and almost necessarily, a very complicated situation and it's very hard to tease out, because you have shifting loyalties and changing loyalties even from day to day, week to week. People are becoming more aware that the West effectively, because of all of these regime changes are motivated and launched from the West, from the centre of Evil, which is more or less Washington and the City of London. So, when they come into a country and begin an overthrow like they have in Syria, the countries around are maybe on board at the beginning, but as things start to develop, no one should ever trust the empire because they will screw you over in a heartbeat.

But at the same time arrogance and hubris among the regional powers, leads them to think that they can, if they're aware, if they're smart enough to not trust the empire, maybe they were thinking that they can screw them over, or get what they want out of it.

Niall: Which may have been Erdogan's turn to Putin last year. I'm going to play both games.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Just to get back on the greater Turkic empire, I can just imagine this has happened before where to get somebody on board with, in this case destabilizing Syria, get rid of Assad, going to Turkish leaders. They let it be known that this is a possible future for you. They don't ever promise them exactly, but then they show them evidence of this reality, very real possibility. So the Turks will know, that the East Turkmenistan/Xinjiang lobby in Washington, has the ears of very powerful people, and therefore has American support.

So that's the end over there covered, and they've been led to believe that they will win this great glorious national goal out of it, but [the West] never had any intention of it, or could be ditched in a heartbeat.

Joe: Right. It's a bit "pie in the sky" to have this Turkic speaking people's ideology, where they're going to unite some Turkic empire from Turkey all away across to China basically, not continuous all the way, but a lot of those 'Stans and into China. I think Erdogan would have been promised something certain in the near future, or would have been allowed to believe that with the destruction of Syria, the removal of Syrian government, the change in Syrian government, and Turkey would have got a chunk of Syria. Over the boarder he would expand the Turkish territory.

But as it turns out, I think, what maybe happening is that in recent times let's say, or even now, the Turkish government is realizing it's actually opposite. That what the plan of the empire is, is to take away some Turkish territory, by creating a new Kurdistan, which they will control. This is one of the reasons why the whole plan of Iraq, going back to the late 1980's, was to break Iraq up into 3 separate parts. The typical sunni-shia divide, which they exacerbate, and make it a reality on the ground.

But certainly they were focused very much on the Kurds in the north. We're talking here like 30 years ago, they were planning break Iraq up, and give the Kurds an autonomous region, or even their own separate chunk of land in Iraq. So in 2003 you have the invasion of Iraq by the US and occupation for 10 years. I mean, the US is more or less still in Iraq, but as they leave Iraq in 2010/2011 or something, suddenly Libya and Syria kick off, more or less at the same time.

So they've done their best to destabilise and create the conditions in Iraq where they can push for the breakup of Iraq in some way, or if necessary they can ignite that again to justify it. And at the same time, right after they've done that, they're in Libya and straight into Syria. And their goal seems to be the same thing.

So I'm tending towards the Kurdish aspect here, which has been very much supported by Israel, and seems to be the agenda of the West, and Turkey is set to lose in that scenario. But it's a very dangerous game to play, because inside Turkey, NATO and the west have, for decades, fomented this ultra-Turkish nationalist paramilitary movement, that not demands not only the safeguarding of the integrity of Turkish territory and culture, but the expansion of it into these other Turkish regions.

So it's classic, these agents of empire playing two games at once - playing opposite games at once. It's very much in keeping with the way they do things. But it's just a very strange situation. There are very clear links, is what I am saying. There are very clear links between the guy who was shooting at that the Russian pilot, and NATO's stay-behind GLADIO operation in Turkey.

And as we were saying earlier on, the thing that made the shoot down of the Russian plane particularly bad was the murder of the pilot and the other guy. Of course, the helicopter that came to rescue them the day after was blown up with an American anti-tank missile, which was delivered directly to these people - dDelivered to NATO operatives, basically.

And of course, when we say NATO operatives, we don't mean conscious NATO operatives necessarily. These are people who have been funded and encouraged, armed, trained by NATO for decades, and who have their own ideology. NATO comes in and identifies ideologies and fundie religious, cultural, whatever nutjobs, in any part of the world, and then takes them to wherever its current battleground is, gives them a load of training, and then sends them back to destabilise that region. These guys are gonna do it because they're fundie nutjobs.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are fully under the control of NATO, and that they can be stopped or cancelled, or withdrawn any time they want. Because the only reason they get to go anywhere is under the aegis of NATO. But the thing is that, back earlier in Thailand, the Thailand bombing earlier this year.

Niall: A month ago, or so.

Joe: Yeah, it was just a month ago, or two maybe. The guy who did that was a Turk, affiliated with these Grey Wolves.

Niall: When you say Turk, you mean Turkish national?

Joe: Turkish national, yeah. And arrested in China afterwards, or Thailand. And he is one of these people who are pushing for independence for East Turkistan, which is in:

Niall: China.

Joe: China. Let's call it Xinjiang. It's a bad name, East Turkestan, because it sounds like it's over in Eastern Turkey somewhere, not in China. But it's because of this linguistic group of supposedly Turkic speaking people, who spread from Turkey all the way over into Western China.

Niall: Yeah, 1500 years ago! We're talking a long time ago! I mean it used to be a country or an empire that was kina central Asian, a long time ago!

Joe: Right, but this is classic NATO destabilisation, getting fundamentalist, nationalistic Jihadi nutjobs or whatever, to put pressure on the enemies of the Empire, which are China and Russia. And these people are central to that operation, that goal, and that's what they're used for.
When you look at it, NATO has and has had, for a long time, this almost unimaginable network of nut job, jihadi fundies, who subscribe to, primarily, some form of fundamentalist Islam. But in this case, it's Turkic nationalism that spread from Turkey all over into China. And they have been taken - the tie-in from that bombing from Thailand, is that Thailand, earlier this year, sent, I think it was 10 what they call terrorists, from Thailand, back to China. And they were from this East Turkestan, Xinjiang area.

The Thai government sent them back, because where were they on their way to? They were on their way to Turkey and Syria, to fight the Assad government in Syria.

These are guys from China coming from China, through Thailand, to Syria, and they get sent back. These guys were effectively this kind of Grey Wolf Turkish nationalist movement - they were affiliates of that. And they were coming to cut their teeth in Syria, and then be sent back to China to carry out terror attacks in China. So Thailand stops them and sends them back to China.

Then this bombing in Thailand, that happened a couple of months ago, was carried out, supposedly as revenge against the Thai government, for sending these guys back to China. The same East Turkestan independence movement was, I think it was last year - there was a terror attack in China where a few people got out with big long knives and chopped up about 30 people, and injured 100 more.

Those people are the East Turkestan people, who are associated, who are supposedly the same group as this guy who shot down the Russian Pilot.

Niall: Right. Well before Syria there was Afghanistan. There are reports I remember 10 years ago, even Western journalists reported on it, that there were guys coming from Afghanistan into China. But they were originally from there. See you've got a double-thing going on here. There's not only the hook, the motivational hook they get in them, based on Turkic/Nationalist/Ethnic affiliations across Central Asia, but the whole area is also Muslim! So if you can't get them for Jihad, you get them for their country and the flag.

Joe: Yeah. So the whole thing is basically a continuation of the Cold War, NATO's cold war against Russia, at containing Russia. And now it's been expanded to China, and the next battleground that they are building up, it seems, is that central Asian area, of those 'Stans that were former Soviet republics. And obviously Afghanistan was one of them, and that is designed to broaden this long term anti-Russian front, aimed at pushing Russia back and thwarting Russia at every opportunity. It's now also being expanded to include - probably planned 10 or 15 years ago - stopping China, or destabilising china.

And that's what these people do. They carry out terror attacks against anybody they deem to be their enemy.

Niall: For two weeks before the Russians went into Syria on the last day of September, they held the biggest military exercise since the 60s or maybe the 70s - ever, by anyone. Under the aegis of the Russian military, but also all of the 'Stans were involved, and a couple of other central Eurasian countries. The theme for the war games was to repel a cross-Eurasian advance of Jihadists, coming from the south to the north. The war games took place across a vast swathe of Kazakhstan, which is massive, into Russia, across much of southern Siberia - it took place in many areas. So they were simulating precisely a war game scenario, as you've just outlined.

Joe: Right, and you'd think that that's overkill for a bunch of Jihadis, right?

Niall: Right.

Joe: But, look at the plan for Syria. The goal there is to spread these Jihadis, in another kind of ISIS configuration into the former Soviet republics to over throw the government, take over the government and then to use all of the weapons that the US has been trying to foist on these countries to wage war on Russia. And if they even got that far that would be good enough,h because they would have pushed Russia back. They want to push Russia back to its borders. They want to contain it, they want to isolate and cut Russia off from the rest of the world, and the same with China.

Except on, they'll only do business with them or allow them to do business, or create conditions where they cannot do business except on Washington's and NATO's terms.

Niall: So, when Putin said at the beginning of this Russian military campaign in Syria, "we're doing this over there so we don't have to do this here", unlike rationale being used by western leaders, way off on their Islands in the North Atlantic, he actually means it, because he actually sees it coming.

Joe: Right. They're preparing well in advance, not only that but they're in Syria trying to cut it off, trying to smother it in the cradle effectively. So Russia is very clearly in the broad picture, in the big long term picture, and it's not even that long-term, Russia is protecting its national interests and border with all the countries on the border, which the US has been trying to stop for so long.

It is quite complicated, but Turkey's interests in Syria are to stick to the original plan: let's get rid of Assad and bring in some government that everybody except Russia and Iran, and Iraq can deal with. Who everybody in the West, NATO countries will like. That's what they want to have in Syria.

Niall: Presumably they never wanted to blitz the relationship they have with Russia. So, they would maybe hope they could work out some kind of deal or compromise down the line.

Joe: Right. They never expected Russia to do what it did in Syria, which is starting bombing campaigns in Syria.

Niall: I can imagine until 6 days ago, they hope somewhere to strike an accommodation.

Joe: But Turkey is playing a very dangerous game because Turkey is infiltrated and living with Western powers and influences, in the form of the NATO stay behind groups and the political party that's directly affiliated with them. Paramilitary groups able to, for example, overthrow Erdogan. Turkey wants to stick the original plan, let's just get rid of Assad and put up a new government, we'll control the border and get a chunk of Syria, Syria will be under our control. Everybody's happy right, NATO and it's Gulf ally states will all be happy because there will be a compliant regime in Syria, and we can cut off European dependency on Russian gas by having Qatari gas, at the same time we'll cut off Iran and Iraq.

Iran won't be able to supply any of its gas. There's a major field there in the Persian Gulf up in the Pars, gas will have to be shared between Qatar and Iran. Qatar wants to funnel that up to Europe through a compliant Syrian government, and Qatar, along with the West want, to stop Iran from exploiting it. Well they can exploit it but they aren't allowed to bring it through, the only way they could bring it through Europe is through Syria. If Syria is gone, in terms of Assad, and there's a NATO compliant regime in there, then it's going to go with Qatar right? And Iran gets cut off. At the same time, Iran looking East. If Iran wants to supply China, and China wants to be supplied by Iran in that direction, they have to go through Afghanistan or the 'Stans, where NATO is now in the process of fomenting a Jihadi revolution there as well.

NATO occupies Afghanistan, the most direct route from Iran to China, will be through Afghanistan, they're not going to go through Pakistan, because there's no way through there. Pakistan intelligence and government are pretty much aligned with the West. To go through that direction you have to go through India, and to get to China you have to go through the Himalayas. So the only real way is North of that, through the 'Stans, Afghanistan etc. That's why they're controlling that area as well, so basically NATO is trying to blockade China and Russia from doing deals in gas and natural resources with middle-eastern countries.

Niall: This is a long game, this goes way beyond Assad's refusal to sign the dotted line on that particular gas deal from Qatar. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but that was only one near term factor in a much bigger chess game, that's basically what we're saying.

Joe: Syria is sitting in the middle of that big chess game, and had to be dealt with. Syria, because it's a long term association, alliance with Russia, decided to stick to its guns and decided to take the moral path and say OK, we're not going to screw the Assad government. They literally said we're not going to prevent Russia from - or we're not gonna allow Qatari and middle-eastern gas to supplant Russian gas to Europe, because Europe is going a big customer of Russia, and we're not going to facilitate, or be a party to, cutting of Russian's market to Europe by allowing middle-eastern Qatar gas to get into Europe.

And right in the middle of it you also have Turkey there. Turkey has to be managed very seriously. Syria is being managed. Syria was always "just get rid of Assad" that's it, just get rid of that government, there's no way we're going to be able to deal with those people. They tried to in 2002 and 2003, when they got Blair with Assad and his wife in London and the Queen, and invited them over for tea and crumpets in Buckingham palace. That was 2002, and it was a year or two after that they realized that Assad wasn't budging, they started to prepare, what happened in 2011.

Turkey is a problem in that it is a NATO member, but it has to decide. It has long standing ties that, as we've mentioned, have been ruined this week with Russia. Russia supplies about 65-70% of Turkey's energy needs, and as Putin said, they were more or less an ally of Russia, even though they're a NATO member. NATO wanted them fully on board, effectively as the expense of Turkey, at the expense of any kind of nationalist, right-thinking Turkic government, who would have Turkey's interests at heart. There are other groups in there who don't really care, who are a little bit crazy like these right-wing nationalist Turkic speaking people, they're just a joke and they're being exploited, and they're dangerous because they can be exploited by NATO.

So, Turkey had to be forced to choose. Turkey may have been being a little ambivalent about the situation and not fully on board, thinking it could plough its own course, maybe even diverge from the NATO plan for Syria and for the Kurd - creating a Kurdistan in a part of Turkey.

They probably wouldn't say that to Turkey obviously, but the danger has always been there for Turkey, Turkey has a long standing problem with Kurds wanting independence. And they're a big proportion, about 15% of the Turkish population. That has been a real thorn in the side of Turkey all along, they've always been afraid of losing part of their territory. There are probably dealings going on in that sense, with Turkey saying "listen you're not going to do anything with Turkey, you can give the Kurds part of Syria, part of Iraq if you want, but you're not giving them part of Turkey right?" And even then, we're not very happy about the Kurds getting anything unless you keep them under control.

But as things start to involve, Turkey starts to get cold feet and starts to worry about the situation. Then, in the middle of that you have Turkey shooting down a Russian aeroplane, then you have Erdogan's very strange behaviour flip-flopping from arrogant to pusillanimous and back again.

Niall: Does Putin know all this?

Joe: Yes, look at it this way, the Russians are pretty much fully on board here. That's why they were surprised. The fact that Russia knows, in minute detail, about what's going on, the fact that they were bombing that particular area, Grey Wolves organisation, right-wing Turkish national organisation that's run by NATO, that they were in that area. As we saw afterwards by the guy who came out and was shooting at the pilot, the fact that Russia was bombing that area where they are, and that group is effectively historical and has direct ties to Western, US NATO, war on Russia in Chechnya, that they fought in Chechnya against Russian soldiers. Put it this way, the guy who shot down that Russian pilot as he was falling down in the air, that guy, it's possible that he personally, or one of his kin, 15 years ago, was shooting Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

So the fact that Russia was bombing him and his kind, is no mistake. And it points to the fact that Russia has very good intelligence about what's going on, on the ground, in the whole region, in Syria, Turkey, all over the place. But they didn't expect, I think with Putin's surprise and the whole thing about "stab in the back", is genuine. He didn't expect Turkey to have any part, or to be in a position where they could allow or they were not able to stop, or were in some way involved in shooting down a Russian plane via Turkish air force. Either that they were somewhat involved in it and crazy enough to actually do it, or they weren't able to stop it, Erdogan had so little control over the situation, or that there is such a strong 5th element within the Turkish military, Turkish intelligence i.e. a NATO element effectively, that Erdogan could not stop the shoot down of the Russian plane.

Niall: So in a way, his surprise is genuine. Putin's surprise is genuine.

Joe: Absolutely yeah. It seems like it was a very planned, sneaky attack from Turkish airspace, it doesn't even come into Syrian air space, there was just a sneaky missile to take down a Russian plane. The result is, it sours the relationship, almost possibly irrevocably,

Niall: But does Russia not have a choice in tempering its retaliation? It's retaliation seems to be full-bore. He's decided to hold Turkey responsible.

Joe: Yeah, but these people are...A big part of doing this, the strategy of these Western Empire of Chaos nut jobs, is very underhanded, very sneaky and very dirty. In that, if they can't attack you directly, if they can't just go in and bomb your country and kill you, which they can't do with Russia obviously, they have other ways of getting at you. It's like a chess game in a sense of its thinking a few steps ahead, it requires you who's being attacked to think several steps ahead as well. It's kind of a mental martial arts, you know? What they do is, they attack you in asymmetrical, non-linear way and put you in a position where you have to do something.

They shoot down Russian passenger plane over Sinai. It doesn't really achieve much, Russia isn't intimidated - it's pissed off but not intimidated. But it had to do something in response, it's got public opinion back at home. If they can't attack you directly they'll attack your public, or try and influence you by influencing your public opinion at home.

Niall: The British and American press were all "Ooh ISIS did it!" While the Russians were quiet. Here we are, telling you how, we're priming your public to accept this.

Joe: Right. And the same with the shoot down of the Russian bomber just this week, the Russian public opinion was outraged. The Russian government, Putin, has to respond to that in some way. You have to look like a strong leader and you have to do and say all the right things, the things that the Russian people expect of you. You can't seem to be weak, you can't be like "oooh, it doesn't matter" of course it matters! Iit matters to the Russian people, so it matters to you Putin, so you better strike the right tone.

The same applies to Erdogan, the same applies to everybody, all of these leaders, so called leaders of the world, they all have to appear for public consumption to be strong, authoritative etc.

Niall: OK, in the short term Russia has levelled the area in question in the North West of Syria. They've also brought in S-400 which apparently gives them basically control over no fly zones over all of Syria. Short term, isn't that something the Western powers that be not want to see happen, did they not see that coming? Now they went to send in Jets into an area in which the Russians can shoot them out the sky instantaneously.

Joe: The people we're talking about here are the people who would like to see some NATO jets shot out of the sky.

Niall: OK. It's almost like a bait: go on Russia you go right ahead and do that.

Joe: Yeah. These people are transnational, global kind of "elite", who engage in manipulation in global opinion and have this broad game they are playing, and are untouched by any national concerns, effectively. Except that, their agenda is being furthered, their agenda for the whole world is being furthered. The small details about who gets shot down, or who doesn't, who looks bad, they don't care. In fact at a certain point it's probably part of their plan to have some American planes shot down.

It's not an injury to them, they're not Americans in that sense, they're globalists. As Alex Jones would say, they control the world, or they like to think they control the world, so they operate at that level. At the local level of manipulating popular, public opinion by having terror attacks against ordinary people. At the level of overthrowing governments. At the level of having one country fight against another, including their own seat of power type thing, because they're completely untouched by all of it. As long as the actions that they take, even if it's a self inflicted wound, or appears to be to their seat of power, as long as that furthers their agenda. Because they see that when we attack ourselves in this way, two steps down the line we're pushing our agenda forward as a result, and we take the responses. We respond to this self-inflicted wound.

They basically want insecurity everywhere, they thrive on chaos and everything just being...

Niall: Strategy of tension on a global scale.

Joe: Exactly. The atmosphere in any given country or in the world, if they can get to that point, for example the atmosphere in the world, particularly in France and Europe, after the Paris attacks where so many people were killed. There was a palpable sense, this is true for any major attack where people are indiscriminately killed, their palpable sense of insecurity. These people, in some way or another, they feed on that, they enjoy it, they like it, that's when they're in the zone type thing.

The more they can do that, the better for them, that's what they're striving for, to create as much chaos and insecurity amongst the ordinary people in the world, as much as possible. They want an entire global climate of fear and insecurity.

Niall: At which point people accept 20 or 30,000 troops patrolling the streets, cafes, restaurants, museum shutdowns, not allowed to take any photos of what's going on. To the point where the mayor of Brussels said, after the 3rd day of this, "can we scale down on this because we're effectively turning the place I governed into an Islamic state." Which is kind of not the direction they want to go.

Joe: Well it is, for the powers that be. It's kind of like... they even use this term creative destruction, which is like an oxymoron, but there you go, it's a creative destruction. They want to destroy the structures and infrastructures that they set up, that they themselves played a part in setting up and now they want to break it all down again. It's like they're putting a jigsaw together and then wrecking it all so you can put it together in a different format.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And you have to wreck it first before you can be creative.

Niall: And it works for them because the last time they created, say the Middle East, they did it after having wrecked the place, and in that situation you've mass unrest and stress, terror, and that's the ideal time in which to reconfigure and recreate it.

Joe: Right

Niall: So, yes, the payoff is in the terror. These people feed on it, it seems to be their food effectively. It's pretty horrible, I mean there's no other way to explain it really, when you see what they do, you know? The western leaders, the actual politicians, are all gung-ho this week about doing their bit to defeat ISIS and Syria. What do you see going on here? I mean the Brits' are like we absolutely must bomb Syria! We just must. Today they're saying we're in danger, Britain is being threatened by ISIS in. Syria. The Germans are talking about sending 1200 air force personnel to either Turkey or Jordan. Presumably they would help the French, who are already there. What's going on here? Maybe they can, in light of what you just said, the situation is perfectly ripe for a Russian to take down a French jet, or a British or Russian or vice versa.

The problem I have with this is that it could easily create a situation that gets out of their control. Say a country in the Middle East. Iraq seems to be the next one to fall, so to speak, into Russia's fear of influence.

Joe: Yeah

Niall: I mean, that could happen any day now

Joe: Absolutely, yeah.

Niall: At which point the Kurdistan project just took a hit, because the Iraqis will be even more determined to consolidate their territorial sovereignty - to hell with an independent Kurdistan.

Joe: It went wrong for them as soon as Russia intervened directly in Syria, and they're having to, at this point, make it up as they go along.

Niall: Yeah. In terms of the narrative... Like Steven was saying, what can they do? Obama was talking about nearly a billion dollars' worth of weapons into Syria. A lot of people know what he means: he's going to send it to the people Russia is bombing. What are they hoping to get out of this? They want to meld the narrative so that Russia is doing what we're doing, and we've been doing all along. And it's going to work? People are going to accept that? At the narrative level, now...

Joe: Yeah. I think what we're seeing at this point is, you notice that they went to Vienna for these talks, there's going to be more early next year - talks about a solution for Syria. What you're seeing right now is each of the interested parties, kind of doing as much as they possibly can to influence the situation in their favour, in advance of having to sit down and talk about it. Can we sit these people down with Russia, NATO, Turkey and whoever else sit down at the table. They're going to have to say, what they present is their facts on the ground, and that will be their argument for their position.

There's no point in saying well I'd like to have this happen, Russia can't say well I'd like to have the elements of the Assad government to be in the new government, if nobody from the Assad government is there anymore. Can we bring them back? No we defeated them. They're gone, you know?

NATO can't say, well we demand that this happens, like these representatives of the "moderate rebels", take a position, if, first of all they're dead. Or there's no one to pick from, or secondly if they don't hold any territory in Syria, if they're all gone. If you get to the situation where, if Russia continues long enough, and the Assad government is still in intact, and the Syrian army controls all of the Syrian territory, NATO and Turkey won't even come to an agreement. There will be no agreement to be had.

The only situation where you could have an actual discussion about what's going to happe, in a new Syrian government, a discussion between competing parties, is if they all have some skin in the game, if they all have leverage. So at this point, with this threat effectively of having to sit down at this table to negotiate, which is what NATO hates the most, they're doing their utmost to control as much as the situation as possible, so they have as much negotiating power as possible to get what they want out of it. I can't imagine how that would actually work, but maybe...

Niall: They [Russia] are blowing the hell out of their [NATO] "facts out the ground".

Joe: The British, which is kind of indicative, if there's anything serious about it, some British general, an active one, said Brits are going to need boots in the ground to defeat ISIS.

Niall: They're glad to bomb them.

Joe: Well that's their trump card effectively, which is put NATO troops...

Niall: As human shields.

Joe: Yeah, effectively, in the country. And then say, OK, that could call a halt, that could be a trump card to call a halt, to stop the war effectively. Put a bunch of NATO troops in there. The big threat that NATO has over Russia is war with NATO, war with any NATO country, any kind of aggression between the Russian military and the NATO countries' military. That's what they're holding over Russia's head, that's their trump card. Of course no NATO country wants that to happen, including the US government.

But like we were talking about, there is this super-national clique who is effectively a wild card, and you don't know if they would be willing to go there, to really push it. Because they know that Putin and Russia is effectively a peace loving country, and...

Niall: That's their weakness.

Joe: That's their weakness. As far as this super national, transnational elite are concerned, that's Russia's weakness, and they will prod and provoke Russia with the threat of War. Some kind of a serious, Cuban missile crisis type of situation, where there seems to be a real possibility that the governments of Russia and some other NATO country, Germany, France or the UK, would be put into the position where they would find it difficult to back down.

And again, that's insecurity and fear around the world, and that's what this elite seem to enjoy, but they play this stealthy game where they push it and then back off, they seem to have some kind of goal. Of course, I'm not saying that they're all powerful. These people can and will and do make mistakes, and ultimately I think they'll fail. But they can do a lot of damage in failing, in the mean time.

Niall: Well I think we, got a few good answers there.

Joe: Right

Niall: For Steven and all our listeners, apologies again for not getting Gearóid Ó Colmáin on.

Joe: But before we go, I'm going to try and get, since we enjoyed him so much last week, I'm gonna try and get Aloysius Reilly. He's our roving reporter, this is another state of the Universe report, I hope. It's our reporter at large, Aloysius Reilly, he's a Vietnam veteran, he hangs in the swamp somewhere, but he's very clued-in on the stuff that's going on, he must be on some kind of NSA main frame, so let me see if I can get him on the phone.

Aloysius: County coroner's office: you slab 'em we grab 'em, the deader the better.

Joe: Hi Aloysius, it's actually Joe here from Behind the Headlines, about your State of the Universe...

Aloysius: Hi, oh I almost forgot. Well...

What with Turkish military more frantic than a cat trying to bury shit on a marble before you think that Mr.Erdogan is just about dumb enough to start an argument in an empty house, you might want to give pause to the grand strategy of Western powers.

See what you need it patsy and your average Turk is about as dense as a lead cheesecake, and the politicians of any country being logarithmically more retarded than their constituency, the Turkish regime was high list of people the West could afford to lose.

Shooting down Putin's SU-24 may seem about as stupid as beating on a wasps nest with a feather duster, but you forgotten the first rule of Villainy: mercilessness betray one of your own henchmen to prove to the audience how bad ass you are. This whole Syrian dust up is the perfect opportunity for some grand drama to play out, now Russia can give NATO a shoulder colder than a...

What you're watching here is political professional wrestling at its finest. Now we get to watch Putin do a heel face turn faster than the late 90's Dwayne Johnson, because a bird in the hen means you ain't gotta' beat around the bush. Putin's got Erdogan by the wavo's over this SU-24 business and he's going to milk it for all the tea in China.

Of course the back lash against Turkey has only just begun, what with Russia cancelling their VISA turnstile, Italy seizing a shipment of 847 combat shotguns on the count of a bureaucratic oversight, which is starting to look more like Turkey was supplying guns to terrorists in Belgium.
Hmm, where have I heard about Belgium lately? Oh yeah, in Paris attacks being planned by some Jihadis. Speaking of Turkey, good old Donald Trump has fallen in the polls on the count of him mocking some spasmoid, all's I can say is takes one to know one, Donny. You wanna make fun of son disabled boy? Well son, then you're so dumb you couldn't poor piss out of a boot even if the instructions were on the heel. It's one thing to make a disabled joke and include them folks in the fun, it's another thing entirely to publically mock a disabled person. On a funnier note, China has decided to set up a naval base right next to the US airbase in Djibouti which, despite what you might think is not a dance club in Harlem.
Elsewheres, one Joseph Caputo decided he'd jump the fence in the Whitehouse while draped in an American flag. The Whitehouse went on full lock down and he was arrested, it's pretty interesting how they quickly went into a panic mode the minute some yahoo scaled the fence, seems they realized the greatest danger to US president is patriotic Americans.

I've always wondered about the amount of body guards required by the American president. You'd think in a democracy that, if that many people didn't want you in charge, then they'd find somebody else. There's also something disturbingly undemocratic about such a protection scheme. If the president had to take his changes walking the streets like everybody else, he'd probably make fewer cuts to social and educational programs.
And finally the slow and torturous decline of the American spirit is best summed up in the story just out about the banning of pillow fights at WestPoint, on account of many injuries. As an aside, I hear it was actually on account of several pillowcase malfunctions among the school choir boys. Apparently they was chewed clean through. Wonder how that happened.

I don't think we look any more like wussies unless they replaced the pillow fights with a transvestite competition. I can't imagine what's worse for those boys: the fact that they were pillow fighting like a bunch of midnight golfers, or the fact that that was even too rough for the future military leaders of this great nation. God help us.

Joe: OK, that was Aloysius. Wow, that was rapid-fire. That was very insightful commentary there on...

Niall: He's got his finger on the pulse.

Joe: Absolutely yeah. Anyway, I think we're going to leave it there for this week folks. We're sorry again that we didn't get Gearóid on the show, we'll find out why and hopefully we'll get him back, we'll schedule something in the very near future.
Until then, until next week when we'll be back at the same time, same place, thanks to Steven our caller, and to you guys for listening and participating in the chat rooms. I hope you have a good evening!

Niall: Thanks y'all, see you next week!