Last week's false flag story of baseless Middle Eastern provocation refuses to go away. Even after, in a shocking turn of events, US intelligence confirmed this weekend that Syria's version of events surrounding the downed Turkish F-4 jet story was the right one all along, pulling the media narrative rug right from under Hillary Clinton's provocative feet (and making others wonder just which country is the only one that stands to benefit of NATO does pull Article 4 or 5 and does invade Syria on now invalidated and false premises), today we read that Turkey continues to try to escalate. From the BBC: "Turkey has scrambled six F-16 fighters jets near its border with Syria after Syrian helicopters came close to the border, the country's army says. A total of six jets were sent to the area in response to three such incidents on Sunday, although there was no border violation, the Reuters news agency quoted the statement saying. On Friday, Turkey said it had begun deploying rocket launchers and anti-aircraft guns along the border in response to the downing of its F-4 Phantom jet." Of course, without an actual confirmed provocation, such as the one Turkey itself pulled against Syria, it is left with the same media rhetoric that continues to expose just one side of the Syrian story - the Western media spun one. "Turkey has strongly criticised Syria's response to the 16-month anti-government uprising, which has seen more than 30,000 Syrian refugees enter Turkey." Fair enough, we do however wonder what Syria would say about Turkey's treatment of Kurdish minorities. Finally, confirmation that just as we first suggested two weeks, this whole incident has been nothing but a provocation stage test to get NATO involved without any of the facts being on the table, comes from no other source than US military intelligence.
From the WSJ:
U.S. intelligence indicates that a Turkish warplane shot down by Syrian forces was most likely hit by shore-based antiaircraft guns while it was inside Syrian airspace, American officials said, a finding in tune with Syria's account and at odds with Turkey.
The Turkish government, which moved tanks to the Syrian border after the June 22 incident, says the debris fell in Syrian waters, but maintains its fighter was shot down without warning in international airspace. Ankara also has said the jet was hit too far from Syrian territory to have been engaged by an antiaircraft gun.
Damascus has said it shot down the plane with an antiaircraft battery with an effective range of about 1.5 miles.
"We see no indication that it was shot down by a surface-to-air missile" as Turkey says, said a senior defense official. Officials declined to specify the sources of their information. The senior U.S. defense official cautioned that much remains unknown about the incident.
And finally the truth:
A former senior U.S. official who worked closely with Turkey said he believed the flight's course was meant to test Syria's response. "You think that the airplane was there by mistake?" the former official said.
"These countries are all testing how fast they get picked up and how fast someone responds," said a senior U.S. official. "It's part of training."
The Turkish official said the plane wasn't on a surveillance mission. "All NATO members have condemned the Syrian hostile act and have supported Turkey," the official said.
Gee, let's see here: confirmed self-defense and yet "all NATO members" are promptly on the side of the aggressor. How original. Finally, there's this:
The U.S.-Turkish relationship is unlikely to be affected by the apparent discrepancies in accounts of the downing of the jet. Cooperation between Ankara and Washington has grown closer in recent months, after a period of significant strain in 2009 and 2010.
That marks a turnaround for Turkey, which 18 months ago moved to cultivate relations and trade with neighboring Muslim regimes, including Mr. Assad's, while downgrading ties with former ally Israel, raising concerns in Washington.
Which begs the question: now that the US has openly sold Turkey down the river, was this whole plan merely one spun out of that other "former ally" which after seeing its provocative clout vis-a-vis Iran's "despotic dictators" evaporate, is urgently trying to come up with other locus of potential warmongering?
Of course, as long as NATO has the back of any aggressor no matter what the facts say, all is good.