If you really want to discuss this, number one enemy for the Turkey are the Kurds, that is an undeniable fact. And ISIS members, from all over the world, travel to the IS through Turkey. Now question, why would turkey fight against ISIS when they in fact fight against the Kurds and Assad (Turkey again is against them)... And why are these terrorist beheading western hostages and release NATO member Turkey's 49 diplomats for nothing... Of course there is a game, and of course the US knows about it... the question is how much media talks about it, hence how much the people are informed...

Both our comments are correct... My point is, Turkey is a NATO ally helping a NATO enemy fight against Kurds who are NATO allies in this fight. In days gone by that would have been unacceptable...

I already know the answer to my question. I just needed to write it down to to get it off my chest.

I wasn't trying to argue or state the opposite to your message. I have been monitoring this whole "war" for a very long time. And it is very disgusting how the West plays games for their own interest, while thousands of people are suffering horrible consequences of the war. If you use twitter, there are pretty good accounts (undeniably genuine, but ignored from the mainstream media), tweeting first hand news from the region. When Syria was fighting against ISIS, the west were calling them rebels, now after a few beheadings ISIS became the "enemy"... Peace is not what the west seeks, it's an uninteresting situation (take Ukraine as another example). War and conflict is what's interesting, maybe because it's good for the economy, I can't tell for sure, but it is a fact and everyone can see it.

Search for pictures of Iraq from the years of Saddam reign, and compare to the current ones. Then compare the non-military casualties and deaths and the condition of people. One would wonder why no media is blaming the west for the current situation, which is many times worse... It's just too big of a topic to discuss, but in the long run there is no good that can be seen in the action of NATO in the region. Only deconstruction and destabilization...

And getting back to your question, Turkey is playing the dirties game here. They pretend to be the good guys, but absolutely no action shows their good intentions. There are dozens of pictures being tweeted weekly, on how ISIS members cross the border with turkey, or how a train crosses the border carrying tanks. One can be fake, two, but dozens? And new ones coming nearly every day? But for the media, nope, turkey is a clean country, our friend... yeah right...

ISIS is backed by a number of countries that are theoretically on the Western/NATO side (Saudi Arabia etc.) and opposed by a number of people who supposed to be enemies (Iran, Hezbollah, Syria etc.).

In fact Saudi Arabia is the main source of funding for Islamic fundamentalism globally - it is no accident that OSama bin Ladan and all the 9-11 bombers were Saudis. They were former allies of the US and received US backing when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Rich Saudis (not officially government money - but you cannot really separate the powerful from the government in a feudal state) finance the spread of Wahhabi Islam throughout the world and they are particularly keen on wiping out Shiites.

ISIS shares the same beliefs as and practices at the Saudis - Saudi Arabia also executes non-Muslims (if they are citizens), gays, etc - but it does it quietly and in smaller numbers (because most have been killed already or are very secretive and are are not caught).

Once public outrage has died down I am fairly sure the West will do a deal with ISIS and it may even become and ally. Islamic fundamentalism provides a stable form of government (the Saudi regime has been there for decades) and therefore stable policy in the region, which is what Western strategy is aimed at producing.

War and conflict is what's interesting, maybe because it's good for the economy

Partly - undoubtedly conflict is good for ordnance manufacturers - but I think the predominant thinking right now is "divide and conquer".

If medium-sized regional factions across the rest of the world are all squabbling with each other, then the Atlantic Powers can exploit the situation and get ahead.

Previously the strategy was to fund (or at least tolerate) socialist strongmen (Hafez al-Assad, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein) to keep those same regional factions (like the Muslim Brotherhood) down.

That policy was actively ditched in March 2003 at the start of Gulf War II. Presumably because, having spent 5 decades commercially colonising what they could of East Asia, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe, the Atlantic Powers saw the Gulf Region as the next territory for a bountiful harvest. The socialist strongmen had to be removed before that could happen.

The unsolved problem is that with the socialist strongmen in place no commercial colonisation can take place. But without the socialist strongmen, there's nothing to keep down the regional factions.

A brilliant letter on the subject, that apparently first appeared in a British newspaper has been circulating. I found a transcribed version:

Are you confused by what's going on in the Middle East?

Let me explain:

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against the Islamic State. We don't like IS, but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like.

We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against IS.

So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.

And all this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went to drive them out.

Do you understand now?

By Aubrey Bailey,
Fleet, Hants.

My gut tells me the western coalition against ISIS is mostly theater, for now. The reason for that is ISIS is primarily attacking Iranian proxies like Syria, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia army/militias and Iranian fighters (Quds?).

If your number one goal in the middle east is to diminish Iranian influence in the region, you keep ISIS strong because they are doing the heavy lifting...

If the world becomes troubled by your secret ally, ISIS, you might form a coalition to GET ISIS but ultimately you just selectively bomb a few empty Humvees here and there. And maybe even use the pretext to bomb Al Qaeda, or any other target you'd like to get...

Unfortunately, no one really wants to see the Kurds succeed at anything... not the Turks, nor the Iraqis, nor the Iranians, nor the Syrians... not even the US (except for maybe Joe Biden).

Sure, everyone is more than happy to rely upon the Kurds when they think they can use the Kurds (Iran during the Iran - Iraq war, the US at present).

Governments give enough aid to the Kurds so that they can go out and fight their mutual enemies, but not nearly enough aid for them to set up a really viable, independent state.

We can't assist the Kurds to set up a really viable, independent state.

If we did that, the Scots might get ideas.

Unfortunately, no one really wants to see the Kurds succeed at anything...

Spot-on Planet13. Sykes-Picot divided Kurdistan four ways leaving the Kurds to fight on four different fronts. I have confidence they have a solid foothold in north Iraq and when it really hits the fan over there, most of Kurdistan will be reunited...