Yesterday, a suicide bomber walked into the US Embassy in Turkey killing a security guard and injuring three others. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen released a statement strongly condemning the bombing on ally territory of another ally.
A Marxist group with a history of violence in Turkey claimed responsibility for the bombing. They released a statement calling the US "the murderer of the peoples of the world." The group condemned Turkey for its cooperation with the United States and for its policy of supporting Syrian rebels fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
The Turkish authorities identified the suicide bomber who killed himself along with a Turkish guard as Ecevit Sanli, also known as Alisan Sanli. Sanli was a convicted terrorist who had already made attacks on the government in Istanbul, but was released from prison under and amnesty program.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-86364-NATO-slams-blast-at-US-embassy-in-Turkey
It's really fascinating to see how embassies have come somewhat the access to "enemy" countries. No longer are there really physical direct hits (I know embassies are technically considered sovereign land), but rather more indirect/passive hits. Interestingly, I'm curious to see if there will be any NATO action besides what has been mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be interesting to follow-up on others released through the amnesty program that you mentioned. There is a fine line sometimes between trying to please the people and showing you mean business.
ReplyDeleteAnd though you didn't mention it here, I would be curious to know who built/designed the embassy, and compare it to embassies in other nations. According to some reports, the reason more people were not killed is because the bomber only got to the first set of x-ray machines (if not x-rays, then the first checkpoint of some kind). This "checkpoint" was set apart from the building itself. What security measures are in place at embassies in different countries, and how does it differ between countries? I can definitely see one country being particularly worried about a certain threat and imposing certain restrictions, while another country just says "meh".
I'm interested as well in this seemingly new pattern of showing frustration and hatred for a country, specifically the US, by directly hitting the embassy instead of the country itself. Does this still constitute as a threat on a country that should involve NATO action? What should be done to stop this pattern and what measures should be taken to follow up with those groups who are doing the harm to those in the embassy?
ReplyDeleteMake sure to put this into context. This is nothing new: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2013/01/benghazi-bs.html
DeleteThis news shocked me. It was weird hearing about a suicide bomber in Turkey. I think it should tighten its security. I wonder if this had anything to do with the Patriot missiles deployed in the country.
ReplyDelete