http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/turkey-coup-live-updates-explosion-8431256
QuoteBREAKING: Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim says a group within the military engaged in an attempted coup.
Well this is going to end well.
2016 sure is a shit year.
Sounds like shit is going down for real. I'll get to see my first Turkish military coup. :)
It's kind of a requirement in their constitution, isn't it? That if the Prime Minister starts to try to make the country non-secular, the military is supposed to stage a coup to oust him/her. Yes?
It's strange that I'm actually rooting for the Turkish military here. But I am not sure they are going to succeed...
I am pretty sure they will not succeed. But either way this is going to get really ugly.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 03:27:58 PM
It's strange that I'm actually rooting for the Turkish military here. But I am not sure they are going to succeed...
Not that strange.
Quote
9.28pm 21:28
Military claims takeover of Turkey
The Turkish military says in a statement that it has taken over, according to Reuters.
Quote from: Maladict on July 15, 2016, 03:31:37 PM
Quote
9.28pm 21:28
Military claims takeover of Turkey
The Turkish military says in a statement that it has taken over, according to Reuters.
Let's hope is true. Erdogan is really, really, really not the right guy for Turkey in these turbulent times
How much popular support can there be expected for the military in this situation?
Too early to have any legit information but everything I'm reading suggests only a small portion of the military is involved, which means it is probably doomed to fail.
I wouldn't put it past Erdogan to have staged a "Reichstag fire" style coup so he can come back and increase his power even further, maybe this time aimed at weakening the rest of the military.
Looks like Languish may get what it wants. Maybe a lot of people will die as well.
Quote from: Tamas on July 15, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: Maladict on July 15, 2016, 03:31:37 PM
Quote
9.28pm 21:28
Military claims takeover of Turkey
The Turkish military says in a statement that it has taken over, according to Reuters.
Let's hope is true. Erdogan is really, really, really not the right guy for Turkey in these turbulent times
Yeah because a military coup is the right thing for Turkey. Come on.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
Looks like Languish may get what it wants. Maybe a lot of people will die as well.
So right Raz this totally made my day. :rolleyes:
QuoteLATEST: The Greek military has put its forces on alert following reports of an attempted military coup in Turkey
BYZANTIUM RETURNS! :w00t:
Turkish media is reporting there's a hostage situation at a military command building, and that "Erdogan is safe." So this is likely a small and ineffectual attempt. Any serious coup would've had enough of the military involved that they'd have been able to take Erdogan into custody immediately, since that hasn't happened I think it has little chance of success.
I don't think a coup would be good for Turkey; but Erdogan is a terrible force in Turkish history.
Erdogan is on vacation outside of Turkey, isn't he?
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 15, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: Maladict on July 15, 2016, 03:31:37 PM
Quote
9.28pm 21:28
Military claims takeover of Turkey
The Turkish military says in a statement that it has taken over, according to Reuters.
Let's hope is true. Erdogan is really, really, really not the right guy for Turkey in these turbulent times
Yeah because a military coup is the right thing for Turkey. Come on.
Erdogan will die or be couped. He will not leave powe any other way now, ever
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:42:39 PM
Yeah because a military coup is the right thing for Turkey. Come on.
Righter than Erdogan. It's a shame on Turkey that the military has been its strongest democratic institution, but it is what it is.
Quote from: merithyn on July 15, 2016, 03:46:34 PM
Erdogan is on vacation outside of Turkey, isn't he?
No clue--I don't follow his movements. But if he was then I'd say the band of officers who staged this have severely miscalculated. Even if they get a form of upper hand, with Erdogan out of country he'll be able to become a seriously destabilizing force against the military junta, and possibly be the ideological leader of a civil war. The only way this would've "worked" would be for Erdogan to wake up with guns pointed at him and overwhelming military force seizing key organs of state ASAP.
It does sound like in addition to the hostage situation at Military HQ the military has also seized the state broadcaster.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 03:40:47 PM
I wouldn't put it past Erdogan to have staged a "Reichstag fire" style coup so he can come back and increase his power even further, maybe this time aimed at weakening the rest of the military.
That was my first thought.
QuoteBREAKING NEWS: TURKISH BROADCASTER TRT IS UNDER ARMY CONTROL.
QuoteThe Turkish army has taken over the state broadcaster TRT, will make an announcement soon
I thought it was interesting the military was able to shut down all internet in the country so quickly.
Tourist season is now over in Turkey.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:50:40 PM
I thought it was interesting the military was able to shut down all internet in the country so quickly.
I'm sure every country has the ability to do that by flipping a switch.
I wonder, looking back in ten years, will 2016 be seen as a freak year when everyone entire bonkers, or a slow buildup to a chaotic and sad decade
Bosporus bridges closed, tanks at Istanbul airport, some activity in Ankara; might this be a regional based coup, in reaction to the hard-line conservative forces Erdogan is whipping up.
If your a Liberal, gay or transgender person living in Istanbul, who do you support in this power struggle?
Is Erdogan in the country?
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:50:40 PM
I thought it was interesting the military was able to shut down all internet in the country so quickly.
The government has that ability and had used it many times.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
Looks like Languish may get what it wants. Maybe a lot of people will die as well.
So right Raz this totally made my day. :rolleyes:
Made some people's day.
Just what the region needs at this moment... :(
Even if the coup succeeds, I can not see this end well and peacefully, given Erdogans support from a significant part of the population. And if the coup fails, we may soon see a Turkish version of the Ermächtigungsgesetz.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see the AKP fall, but I had hoped for a democratic defeat.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2016, 03:59:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
Looks like Languish may get what it wants. Maybe a lot of people will die as well.
So right Raz this totally made my day. :rolleyes:
Made some people's day.
Well why don't you talk to them instead of lumping us all together for your own self-congratulatory bullshit?
Just a thought, could NATO become involved in this somehow?
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 15, 2016, 04:01:43 PM
Just what the region needs at this moment... :(
Even if the coup succeeds, I can not see this end well and peacefully, given Erdogans support from a significant part of the population. And if the coup fails, we may soon see a Turkish version of the Ermächtigungsgesetz.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see the AKP fall, but I had hoped for a democratic defeat.
Pretty much.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:02:43 PM
Just a thought, could NATO become involved in this somehow?
It's external enemy only, isn't it?
Quote from: Tamas on July 15, 2016, 03:56:27 PM
I wonder, looking back in ten years, will 2016 be seen as a freak year when everyone entire bonkers, or a slow buildup to a chaotic and sad decade
shit's been going down for about a decade now given 2003, the colored revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, Iran, the arab winter, now this...
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:02:43 PM
Just a thought, could NATO become involved in this somehow?
No - I believe several countries (including Turkey) have had coups succeed while being NATO members - Turkey, Greece, Portugal.
Yeah pretty sure NATO getting involved in any way is not allowed.
Of course NATO would be stupid to do anyway.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 15, 2016, 04:04:06 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 15, 2016, 03:56:27 PM
I wonder, looking back in ten years, will 2016 be seen as a freak year when everyone entire bonkers, or a slow buildup to a chaotic and sad decade
shit's been going down for about a decade now given 2003, the colored revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, Iran, the arab winter, now this...
By the previous century's standards, ours has been a century of sweetness, peace and light so far. :lol:
I'm reading that the military has now occupied the JDP (Erdogan's party) offices and sent people home. Looks like whatever this is, it's big enough that it's spreading.
The claim is that Erdoğan was indeed outside the country.
QuoteThe full Turkish military statement reads: "Turkish Armed Forces have completely taken over the administration of the country to reinstate constitutional order, human rights and freedoms, the rule of law and general security that was damaged.
"All international agreements are still valid. We hope that all of our good relationships with all countries will continue."
The Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is on holiday and outside the country. Reuters has quoted a source within his office as saying that he is safe.
I'm reading reports that he is either in Mongolia or in Bodrum (Turkish Aegean coast).
Also, if the airforce is along for the ride, it's can't be that small.
I can see maybe some of the logic in waiting until he's out of the country, you feel you can take control quickly and then just declare him persona non grata, the hope being he agrees to live out his life in exile.
The problem as I see it, is I don't see Erdogan doing that. If this coup is successful he'll be a dangerous figure, if I were couping I'd want to take the President into custody as my first step.
#Turkey on Twitter is a worrying read right now.
Broadcaster on State TV is reading a statement "under orders of the military." Says that the country is now under control of a "Peace Council."
I'm hearing there is air force involvement, but not which side they are on. If the Turkish air forces are part of the coup then I'd say it's likely it succeeds. But as of now it's still possible to me it's just a smallish group of soldiers lead by a few angry officers who stormed a couple office buildings. If that's the case Turkish forces will probably come down on them hard in the next few hours.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 04:13:24 PM
I can see maybe some of the logic in waiting until he's out of the country, you feel you can take control quickly and then just declare him persona non grata, the hope being he agrees to live out his life in exile.
The problem as I see it, is I don't see Erdogan doing that. If this coup is successful he'll be a dangerous figure, if I were couping I'd want to take the President into custody as my first step.
Can go either way. I imagine it's a lot easier to execute a coup when the strongman leader is not in the immediate vicinity. It may be enough just to sever the leader's connection to his power base for a couple of days, by then he's lost his alpha dog status and is irrelevant.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 04:13:24 PM
I can see maybe some of the logic in waiting until he's out of the country, you feel you can take control quickly and then just declare him persona non grata, the hope being he agrees to live out his life in exile.
The problem as I see it, is I don't see Erdogan doing that. If this coup is successful he'll be a dangerous figure, if I were couping I'd want to take the President into custody as my first step.
I agree.
The issue is that, without having him physically under their thumb, he will be a focus of countercoup loyalty. Given that he's the legitimate head of the government (whatever you happen to think of him), this I think reduces the chance of the coup spreading beyond its initial conspirators.
But again, to early to call.
I blame the EU. If only they had let Turkey in we wouldn't have this mess.
Reading this: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4t12h3/turkish_military_blocks_istanbul_bridges/
QuoteEDIT 19: The President's office is still claiming the attempted coup is not by mainstream Turkey military, but a splinter group, and the government is still in control. This looks like absolute bluster. Clearly, military forces have grabbed major locations and there seems to be fighting between different military units. Just the military versus the police.
EDIT 20: Erdogan to make a statement imminently. Sounds like the military's claim to be controlling the whole country is exagerration. They have Ankara and Istanbul, and key airports. Not clear if they have control elsewhere, but surely it is only a matter of time.
EDIT 21: Police guarding the presidential palace, loyal to the government, have been disarmed.
EDIT 22: It seems like the senior layer of the military have taken control, holding hostage the handful of very top leaders appointed by Erdogan. But be sure, this isn't a small faction as the government claims: it's a united military.
EDIT 23: The US is in a difficult situation. They have troops in Turkey as part of NATO bases, but they're not allowed to operate in countries with illegitimate governments. Suspect they'll be removed in a few days.
EDIT 24: Government buildings elsewhere in Turkey have been surrounded by the police (who are loyal to the government). This really shows how it's nonsense that there's a split in the military. If there was, there would be military forces protecting the government, but they're being forced to rely on the police instead.
If it's military versus police that only ends one way, and damn quickly.
Another risk with Erdogan out of country is he's still President, legally--if there was a split among the military he'd be able to give orders to loyal units who would attack the coup forces. But it does sound like the first thing the coup did was seize military HQ and put the military chief of staff in custody (presumably an Erdogan loyalist), so it's possible the coup's leaders effectively took over military CnC first and the mainline troops are going to simply follow orders from whoever is in charge within the military (but not perhaps, the political leadership.)
Quotetion as the government claims: it's a united military.
EDIT 23: The US is in a difficult situation. They have troops in Turkey as part of NATO bases, but they're not allowed to operate in countries with illegitimate governments. Suspect they'll be removed in a few days.
What is an illegetimate government, really? if NATO countries officially recognize the new government, it won't be illegitimate anymore.
The view I get from my turkish friends is they would probably support this.
To western eyes the esteem people hold atta turk and Turkish nationalism and all that.... it just looks utterly bizzare and scary.
But in the context of a modern 1st world land sharing a country with a Islamic 3rd world mess..... it does sort of make sense in light of erdogan
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2016, 03:59:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
Looks like Languish may get what it wants. Maybe a lot of people will die as well.
So right Raz this totally made my day. :rolleyes:
Made some people's day.
Well why don't you talk to them instead of lumping us all together for your own self-congratulatory bullshit?
I'm not the one popping corks, and you should have logged your complaints the last time we had this debate.
There's signs of a big explosion in Ankara, photos of a large cloud in the distance.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnbyrNPW8AAnfSv.jpg)
QuoteBreaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: Photo Shows Thick Black Smoles From Blast In Ankara, Turkey. breaking911.com/gunfire-heard-... (@SputnikInt) pic.twitter.com/wRWL7waRMk
I can't vouch for the report, photo or above quoted tweet.
People rushing to get cash from ATMs and fuel from gas stations.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnbzW-FW8AA-o7L.jpg)
Danish veteran war reporter live on phone from Istanbul reporting heavy gunfire in the Asian part of the city.
So putting 1 in 5 of your generals in jail on (probably) mainly trumped up charges doesn't make your army loyal; who would have guessed? :hmm:
Quote from: Liep on July 15, 2016, 04:28:33 PM
Danish veteran war reporter live on phone from Istanbul reporting heavy gunfire in the Asian part of the city.
Asians are normally so polite. :(
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 04:24:22 PM
There's signs of a big explosion in Ankara, photos of a large cloud in the distance.
QuoteBreaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: Photo Shows Thick Black Smoles From Blast In Ankara, Turkey. breaking911.com/gunfire-heard-... (@SputnikInt) pic.twitter.com/wRWL7waRMk
I can't vouch for the report, photo or above quoted tweet.
allegedly that's a police station :hmm:
There are some very unconfirmed rumors that Erdogan has been arrested.
It's interesting that he has not made any statement yet.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:30:15 PM
There are some very unconfirmed rumors that Erdogan has been arrested.
It's interesting that he has not made any statement yet.
Quote
The Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said that the coup is the work of a minority within the military.
Speaking to CNN Turk, he adds: "We will overcome this."
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:30:15 PM
There are some very unconfirmed rumors that Erdogan has been arrested.
It's interesting that he has not made any statement yet.
I just saw him on television via Skype on the host's iPhone.
Yeah, seems he is up now.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2016, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:02:43 PM
Just a thought, could NATO become involved in this somehow?
No - I believe several countries (including Turkey) have had coups succeed while being NATO members - Turkey, Greece, Portugal.
Correct.
In at least one successful Turkish coup (1980 I think), Washington was informed an hour or so beforehand, to prevent incidents.
Doesn't look like a man in power.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cnb6G91XYAAUG90.jpg)
He's said for people to "go out into the streets and resist."
That is a grave sign for him--when you control the organs of state power you don't need or even want the public out causing trouble.
He should seek refuge with Mutti.
Wondering how German Turks will react tomorrow. Erdogan is hugely popular with them.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 04:37:44 PM
Should seek refuge with Mutti.
Speaking of which, have the visa restrictions for Turks to enter the EU been lifted yet?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 04:36:12 PM
He's said for people to "go out into the streets and resist."
That is a grave sign for him--when you control the organs of state power you don't need or even want the public out causing trouble.
Yeah, that sounds fairly desperate.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 15, 2016, 04:38:30 PM
Wondering how German Turks will react tomorrow. Erdogan is hugely popular with them.
How will Turkish Germans react?
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 04:37:44 PM
He should seek refuge with Mutti.
Oh Merkel would absolutely love to have Erdogan groveling at her feet, given how extremely hostile his government has been towards Germany in the past weeks. ;)
Quote from: Liep on July 15, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
Doesn't look like a man in power.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cnb6G91XYAAUG90.jpg)
At least he's not speaking through Grindr.
Apparently Snapchat and Steam are not blocked in Turkey. :P
QuoteApparently Erdogan is seeking asylum in Germany after being denied landing in Istanbul.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 15, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 04:37:44 PM
Should seek refuge with Mutti.
Speaking of which, have the visa restrictions for Turks to enter the EU been lifted yet?
NBC is reporting that Erdogan's seeking asylum in Germany. :lol: :wacko:
I think I still have an Efes Dark in the beer fridge to toast the coup.
https://twitter.com/24heuropegr/status/754068512088489985
Quote#Turkey Erdogan in airplane, refused landing at #Istanbul, now trying to seek asylum in Germany, US defense officials say, @MSNBC
Strange to think that I would at least be sympathetic to a military coup in Turkey. Back in the late 1990s or early 2000s I thought that a then moderate AKP breaking the hold of the military on society would be a good sign towards democracy. But these days, a military dictatorship seems preferable to Erdogan...
Footage of civilians trying to block tanks on Sky News. I hope the orders are to not fire on civilians under any circumstance.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:42:39 PM
Apparently Snapchat and Steam are not blocked in Turkey. :P
QuoteApparently Erdogan is seeking asylum in Germany after being denied landing in Istanbul.
Excuse me for a moment...
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
There is this vague feeling that a coup is semi-constitutional at this point, given that Erdogan is unravelling so much of Ataturk's legacy.
well, if the coup succeeds, hopefully it works out for turkey :)
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 04:43:23 PM
NBC is reporting that Erdogan's seeking asylum in Germany. :lol: :wacko:
:hmm: Eh, doesn't he have any other countries that like him better than we do...? :huh:
First news I read was that bridges in Istanbul were closed and shooting and airplanes for some reason I thought of an attack by ISIS or pkk
Quote from: Zanza on July 15, 2016, 04:49:32 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 04:43:23 PM
NBC is reporting that Erdogan's seeking asylum in Germany. :lol: :wacko:
:hmm: Eh, doesn't he have any other countries that like him better than we do...? :huh:
Boris is already working on a new limerick.
Quote from: Liep on July 15, 2016, 04:45:33 PM
Footage of civilians trying to block tanks on Sky News. I hope the orders are to not fire on civilians under any circumstance.
Someone got shot: https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/754066725776289793
QuoteTurkish Army shot pro-Erdogan fanatic who ran at army positions screaming "Allahu Akbar"
Quote from: Zanza on July 15, 2016, 04:49:32 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 04:43:23 PM
NBC is reporting that Erdogan's seeking asylum in Germany. :lol: :wacko:
:hmm: Eh, doesn't he have any other countries that like him better than we do...? :huh:
Well, he recently hammered out a deal with Israel, maybe he could go there. ;)
Unconfirmed reports helicopters firing on coup forces at the TRT (State broadcaster) building. Adds muddle to the debate as to whether this is military vs Erdogan or a small faction of the military vs Erdogan and the rest of the military.
I think the problem with this coup, is even if successful, Erdogan has successfully stoked Islamism for over a decade in Turkey. His supporters won't be like Turks of generations past, lots of them could very well become outright Islamic terrorists fighting the new regime, which will degrade quality of life in Turkey immensely.
Quote from: Zanza on July 15, 2016, 04:49:32 PM
:hmm: Eh, doesn't he have any other countries that like him better than we do...? :huh:
What's one more Islamist refugee to Germany? :sleep:
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 15, 2016, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 04:42:39 PM
Apparently Snapchat and Steam are not blocked in Turkey. :P
QuoteApparently Erdogan is seeking asylum in Germany after being denied landing in Istanbul.
Excuse me for a moment...
:lmfao:
One more Al-Quran thumper from Turkey in Germany won't make a difference indeed. :P
PS: Dammit Legbiter beat me to it! :(
#ConspiracyTheory: Why did France close its consulate in Turkey two days ago? (From the reddit hordes.)
Has any part of the US administration condemned this coup, because from what I heard Kerry say, the Obama govt appears rather stand-offish.
If the coup succeeds, I reckon it'll get a diplomatic reaction similar to the one endured by the Sisi regime in Egypt.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
#ConspiracyTheory: Why did France close its consulate in Turkey two days ago? (From the reddit hordes.)
If Flanby can successfully coup Turkey I am impressed. :lmfao:
I think with a NATO ally and it being Turkey the U.S. won't say anything of substance until it's clear who will win. They are major allies--we need to be on good terms with whoever wins. If it's Erdogan we release a supportive statement about rule of law, stability etc. If it's the military we probably issue a statement saying something like "we support the Turkish people and hope for a swift restoration of democratic government."
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 04:55:51 PM
Has any part of the US administration condemned this coup, because from what I heard Kerry say, the Obama govt appears rather stand-offish.
If the coups successful I reckon it'll get a diplomatic reaction similar to the one endured by the Sisi regime in Egypt.
If the coup succeeds they will have always been for it and if the coup fails they will have always been against it. ;)
If this coup succeeds expect plenty of evidence, real or made up, to presented showing was Erdogan in league with ISIL.
Reuters
Quote
EU source says Turkey coup bid looks substantial, 'not just a few colonels'
A coup attempt in Turkey involves a substantial part of the military and "not just a few colonels", a European Union source monitoring events in the EU candidate country said on Friday.
"It looks like a relatively well orchestrated coup by a substantial body of the military, not just a few colonels," the source told Reuters.
"They've got control of the airports and are expecting control over the TV station imminently," the source said, shortly before state television TRT broadcast a military declaration of martial law.
"They control several strategic points in Istanbul. Given the scale of the operation, it is difficult to imagine they will stop short of prevailing," the source said.
Another European diplomat said he was attending a dinner with the Turkish ambassador in a European capital when they were interrupted by messages on their mobile phones.
"This is clearly not some tinpot little coup. The Turkish ambassador was clearly shocked and is taking it very seriously," the diplomat told Reuters as the dinner party broke up
Crazy. My taxi driver was just telling me about this in his broken English and I had no idea what he was talking about.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
If this coup succeeds expect plenty of evidence, real or made up, to presented showing was Erdogan in league with ISIL.
Probably responsible for Izal as well
Germany has said NEIN to Erdogan according to MSNBC.
Pictures of civilians taking over a tank. I guess Erdogan's cunning plan is working?
Unfortunately if the coup fails, Erdogan is likely to just become an outright dictator in response. This will be the last justification he needed (and why I at first had a vague thought maybe he was behind some tiny little faux-coup for just this reason), so as much as I think a coup is not a good thing for Turkey, now that it's started I almost have to hope it succeeds because the opposite is probably a "lasting despotism" akin to Putin's Russia.
And now just saw one of my good friends is currently in Istanbul airport...
Quote from: Maladict on July 15, 2016, 05:01:39 PM
Pictures of civilians taking over a tank. I guess Erdogan's cunning plan is working?
Possibly is--I have to assume the soldiers in the streets were given orders to not fight civilians, so it's possible if they surrounded a tank the only option they'd have was to get out of it and surrender it since they couldn't very well start running over civilians.
If there are explosions at TRT which we know the coup seized, that suggests to me someone is assaulting their position with decent firepower. If that's the case it may indeed just be a small junta trying this.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 15, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
If this coup succeeds expect plenty of evidence, real or made up, to presented showing was Erdogan in league with ISIL.
Probably responsible for Izal as well
That's rough stuff, though maybe they won't be able to make the dirt stick to it?
With the mass demonstrations for Erdogan in the streets, if the military is truly united their only mechanism to win would be to disperse the crowds--which will be a blood path similar to those we saw in Ukraine's Maidan.
Just saw a short video of bursts of air-to-ground tracer fire on TV. Looked like a helicopter gunship's canon.
QuoteIgnore photos being circulated of extremely large demonstrations. These are from last year.
FS Boris Johnson response:
Quote
@BorisJohnson 13m
Very concerned by events unfolding in #Turkey. Our Embassy is monitoring the situation closely. Brits should follow FCO website for advice
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2016, 05:04:11 PM
And now just saw one of my good friends is currently in Istanbul airport...
Hope your friend is okay. I am sure the army wants the airport protected, however.
I'm hearing reports military tanks firing around the airport; other reports about heavily armed police units in APCs rallying. Things could get ugly.
I am glad we have the steady hand of Boris Johnson leading the Western Allies in these troubled times.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:17:15 PM
I'm hearing reports military tanks firing around the airport; other reports about heavily armed police units in APCs rallying. Things could get ugly.
Reuters and Anadolu report helicopters firing on the police HQ and tanks firing near the parliament.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 05:18:53 PM
I am glad we have the steady hand of Boris Johnson leading the Western Allies in these troubled times.
Brexit is indeed looking more and more like excellent timing.
^_^
Everything I'm reading suggesting more fighting at the airport--I have to imagine it's seen as a major strategic point for the pro-Erdogan police. With it under police control they could probably more easily move pro-regime forces into the capital to help fight the military, I would think.
So what are the odds of a stalemate devolving into an eventual Syria situation in Turkey?
Quote from: Legbiter on July 15, 2016, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 05:18:53 PM
I am glad we have the steady hand of Boris Johnson leading the Western Allies in these troubled times.
Brexit is indeed looking more and more like excellent timing. ^_^
I've always believed that brexit will look like pretty small beer as the next few years unfold.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 15, 2016, 05:19:52 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:17:15 PM
I'm hearing reports military tanks firing around the airport; other reports about heavily armed police units in APCs rallying. Things could get ugly.
Reuters and Anadolu report helicopters firing on the police HQ and tanks firing near the parliament.
Reuters witness says one helicopter:
Quote
Reuters World
@ReutersWorld
MORE: Military helicopter opens fire over Turkish capital Ankara - Reuters witness
Also Washington's assessment:
Quote
Reuters World
@ReutersWorld
United States believes coup attempt underway in Turkey, unclear who is winning - U.S. government sources
2:47 PM - 15 Jul 2016
It's possible Tamas--but if the military is truly united behind the coup then I don't see the police forces winning long term, they'll just be massively outgunned. So they'll lose the cities and military bases, but it's possible Erdogan loyalists could go all partisan on them, in which case Turkey will be a bad place for a long time.
Quote from: Tamas on July 15, 2016, 05:23:41 PM
So what are the odds of a stalemate devolving into an eventual Syria situation in Turkey?
This would make NATO intervention much more likely as well. Oh, and did someone mention refugees?
If it becomes an actual civil war NATO has to get involved somewhat since we have bases there, even if it's just to leave the country.
I'm now hearing of a civilian versus military clash at the Bosporus bridge. This is where things can get really ugly. Obviously the soldiers could disperse the crowds, but that creates a major problem because mowing down a crowd of civilians will make it much more likely this goes from being a potential coup to a potential civil war.
Mosques are also blaring call to prayer and saying to take to the streets for God and the President. So this is likely to end well. :ph34r:
Smart Turkey watchers are saying this thing is likely stillborn. CHP and Gul are both coming out against it. Not a lot of signs that the military is trying to take power outside of Istanbul and Akara and it is obvious that Erdogan has some firepower.
I'm hearing reports of full auto gunfire in Beyoglu and the brdiges. This is already ugly. I suspect we're already looking at a thousand dead. Rumor is Hulusi Akar died in an attempted abduction.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:28:49 PM
Mosques are also blaring call to prayer and saying to take to the streets for God and the President. So this is likely to end well. :ph34r:
I'm shocked, shocked to hear mosques supporting an islamist in power.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:26:34 PM
If it becomes an actual civil war NATO has to get involved somewhat since we have bases there, even if it's just to leave the country.
I'm now hearing of a civilian versus military clash at the Bosporus bridge. This is where things can get really ugly. Obviously the soldiers could disperse the crowds, but that creates a major problem because mowing down a crowd of civilians will make it much more likely this goes from being a potential coup to a potential civil war.
Could also turn into the end of the coup pretty quickly. Hard for a military to stay united when they're ordered to fire on civilians.
Well I don't think a Turkish civil war was on anyone's radar, but now, if things go very badly wrong then who knows?
Not sure the region or western policy in the ME could endure another Syria like civil war. I'd expect to see UN authorised intervention to stop one escalating into such a disaster.
Apparently Erdogan has now asked for asylum in Britain. :D
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 05:30:39 PM
Well I don't think a Turkish civil war was on anyone's radar, but now, if things go very badly wrong then who knows?
Not sure the region or western policy in the ME could endure another Syria like civil war. I'd expect to see UN authorised intervention to stop one escalating into such a disaster.
On which side would the UN intervene - neither choice would be particularly attractive.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 05:32:24 PM
Apparently Erdogan has now asked for asylum in Britain. :D
Are these comedy tweets? :P
I think he'd be better off asking to stay in Scotland.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 05:32:24 PM
Apparently Erdogan has now asked for asylum in Britain. :D
He should give Putin a call.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2016, 05:32:24 PM
Apparently Erdogan has now asked for asylum in Britain. :D
Londonistan makes sense. :)
Spellus last seen among Turkish troops in Thrace attempting to have them declare him Emperor.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2016, 05:29:35 PM
Smart Turkey watchers are saying this thing is likely stillborn. CHP and Gul are both coming out against it. Not a lot of signs that the military is trying to take power outside of Istanbul and Akara and it is obvious that Erdogan has some firepower.
I'm hearing reports of full auto gunfire in Beyoglu and the brdiges. This is already ugly. I suspect we're already looking at a thousand dead. Rumor is Hulusi Akar died in an attempted abduction.
I tend to agree, especially if we don't hear of any widening moves by the military. Right now we know they seized military HQ, the airport in Istanbul, the TRT offices and the AKP offices. But that was all a good bit ago. If that's all they're going to do then likely there aren't enough of them mobilized to take the country, especially if they're facing heavy resistance.
Support the military. Islam is the enemy.
Lots of live video up on reddit now, tanks running over cars on the streets, apparently the Turkish Air Force is bombing the Intelligence HQ now.
However this ends this is now pretty serious, and likely to see a lot of dead people.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2016, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 05:30:39 PM
Well I don't think a Turkish civil war was on anyone's radar, but now, if things go very badly wrong then who knows?
Not sure the region or western policy in the ME could endure another Syria like civil war. I'd expect to see UN authorised intervention to stop one escalating into such a disaster.
On which side would the UN intervene - neither choice would be particularly attractive.
Well we're not there yet by a long stretch and this coup could well fizzle out, but given Erdogan's character I think he'd pull the country down around his ears rather than give up power. So if it gets very bad, they should intervene on the side most likely to win quickly in any substantial armed confrontation, for the sake of the civilians.
Hearing reports of an F-16 attacking the Presidential Palace in Ankara.
Video on reddit now of a crowd of protesters being fired into, people dropping. :(
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:37:20 PM
Video on reddit now of a crowd of protesters being fired into, people dropping. :(
:(
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2016, 05:34:32 PM
Support the military. Islam is the enemy.
Well I don't think it matters who we support.
Kurdish opposition party has come out against the coup.
I have to assume that's something as they have no love of Erdogan, suggests maybe they're trying to side with who they think is going to win.
Maybe this firing on civilians is a sign of weakness from the coup troops, if they had overwhelming power and control they could afford to use non-deadly force?
QuoteThe commander of Turkey's First Army, Gen. Umit Dundar, said on live television that the Turkish army does not support the coup launched against the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, multiple journalists reported via Twitter on July 15. Dundar's comments indicate that not all elements of the Turkish military support the coup, which opens the possibility for a counter-coup.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:39:45 PM
Kurdish opposition party has come out against the coup.
Won't save them if the coup fails.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 05:40:58 PM
Maybe this firing on civilians is a sign of weakness from the coup troops, if they had overwhelming power and control they could afford to use non-deadly force?
Exactly what I'm thinking.
Right, if they had the whole military they'd have back up, they could even afford to leave public spaces and regroup while reinforcements arrive. But if it's just a small contingent then they can't flee any of the strategic points they've taken because they need to hold them to keep the coup alive. If that's the case they have little option other than trying to disperse a building mob around them with lethal force.
So it sounds like this was more than just a few guys, enough to make it serious, but not with the support of the full military--which means their chances of success are much, much lower. I'm not sure a small coup like that can truly work in modern Turkey, the military would have to be unified to take Erdogan out.
I'd be surprised if all the military were behind this. I'd expect Erdogan to have installed as many loyalists as possible during his years in power.
Just heard on Euronews that Erdogan blames also Gülen for the coup.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 15, 2016, 05:46:18 PM
Just heard on Euronews that Erdogan blames also Gülen for the coup.
Total fantasy.
I have a MASSIVE war boner right now.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 05:41:56 PM
QuoteThe commander of Turkey's First Army, Gen. Umit Dundar, said on live television that the Turkish army does not support the coup launched against the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, multiple journalists reported via Twitter on July 15. Dundar's comments indicate that not all elements of the Turkish military support the coup, which opens the possibility for a counter-coup.
Is this a "there are no American tanks in Baghdad" kind of announcement or legitimate - only time will tell.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2016, 05:47:35 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 15, 2016, 05:46:18 PM
Just heard on Euronews that Erdogan blames also Gülen for the coup.
Total fantasy.
Sounds like typical Erdogan propaganda but yes, unlikely to say the least.
Rumor is that this is already over. Coup leaders surrender.
:(
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2016, 05:50:04 PM
Rumor is that this is already over. Coup leaders surrender.
No man is more accursed than the hype slayer.
If the coup fails, blame it on Greece/Byzantium.
Constant calls to prayer from mosques mixed with pro-Erdogan messages and calls to flood the streets. Nasty business. Definitely going to be a huge swing to Islamic influence if Erdogan wins you would have to imagine with this much support being shown.
My twitter is exploding. I'm just giving you guys the cliffnotes.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 15, 2016, 05:52:38 PM
Constant calls to prayer from mosques mixed with pro-Erdogan messages and calls to flood the streets. Nasty business. Definitely going to be a huge swing to Islamic influence if Erdogan wins you would have to imagine with this much support being shown.
Hagia Sophia will be re-converted and it will likely be covered=i e the mosaics and other Christian art will be plastered over or destroyed. That's been in the works for a decade. I argued at a party last night that this was inevitable in the next 5 years but now probably sooner.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2016, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 15, 2016, 05:52:38 PM
Constant calls to prayer from mosques mixed with pro-Erdogan messages and calls to flood the streets. Nasty business. Definitely going to be a huge swing to Islamic influence if Erdogan wins you would have to imagine with this much support being shown.
Hagia Sophia will be re-converted and it will likely be covered=i e the mosaics and other Christian art will be plastered over or destroyed. That's been in the works for a decade. I argued at a party last night that this was inevitable in the next 5 years but now probably sooner.
EU to send a stern letter condemning it but not interrupting EU entry negotiations.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2016, 05:50:04 PM
Rumor is that this is already over. Coup leaders surrender.
That, of course, is also the rumour you'd spread if you were anti-coup and things were uncertain.
Doesn't, of course, mean the rumour is false.
It sounds like the military is divided, so I seriously doubt this coup succeeds.
Unfortunately this means Turkey will now become essentially a fascist country with strong Islamist influences. The idiots who attempted this have a lot to answer for, to be honest.
Breaking News:
QuoteThere is now a very real threat that Queequeg will go full Byzantine within the next 30-60 minutes, bystanders and civilians are advised to seek shelter in calmer threads.
I imagine that is a certain outcome.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 06:04:02 PM
Breaking News:
QuoteThere is now a very real threat that Queequeg will go full Byzantine within the next 30-60 minutes, bystanders and civilians are advised to seek shelter in calmer threads.
I used to argue sarcastically that the only real way to have Middle Eastern and Balkan peace is by restoring the Empire. I no longer think that is sarcasm, but just a factual statement because the Empire coming back is about as likely as the entire region avoiding becoming Greater Somalia.
CNN is showing people marching and chanting walking into and through the Istanbul airport.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 05:24:41 PM
Washington's assessment:
Quote
Reuters World
@ReutersWorld
United States believes coup attempt underway in Turkey
2:47 PM - 15 Jul 2016
Wow, the Administration is really going out on a limb there. I guess next they'll put out a release saying that the US believes that fire is hot, and that drinking bleach is probably not a particularly good idea.
EDIT: Apparently the Administration just announced support for Erdogan. That is going a bit out on a limb; gotta say I'm surprised.
White House released a statement saying that Turks should back the elected government.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2016, 06:20:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2016, 05:24:41 PM
Washington's assessment:
Quote
Reuters World
@ReutersWorld
United States believes coup attempt underway in Turkey
2:47 PM - 15 Jul 2016
Wow, the Administration is really going out on a limb there. I guess next they'll put out a release saying that the US believes that fire is hot, and that drinking bleach is probably not a particularly good idea.
Of course the Administration has also recently said this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CncRPOTXYAUvWAY.jpg:large)
I'm used to getting ninja'd 'cause I type too slow; looks like I typed too fast this time.
more evidence that the coup doesn't have a chance :P
Yeah, it's looking dead.
Yep, this bitch is over. The General in charge of the 3rd Corps of the Turkish Army is ordering soldiers back to barracks. Reports that coup aircraft are being shot down. The press agent for the Intelligence Ministry is saying the government is in full control and the coup is crushed. Germany and the U.S. have both released statements saying they support the government (they likely would remain quiet until they were pretty sure Erdogan was going to survive, because they would have to work with the junta if Erdogan was successfully deposed.)
I'm not so sure. Seems very early to make such a call. The PM also said all aircraft that fly over Ankara will be shot down. Doesn't sound secure to me.
So they helicopter being shot down was not just on the side of the coup, but contained coup plotters? Am I hearing this right?
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 15, 2016, 06:38:57 PM
I'm not so sure. Seems very early to make such a call. The PM also said all aircraft that fly over Ankara will be shot down. Doesn't sound secure to me.
I don't think it is. Such situations favor those who seem to have the momentum. Obviously being unable to enforce the martial law is not a show of strength. Police clearly seem in control based on what I see on CNN.
Yeah, and for police in APCs and with small arms to be able to beat back the military means not much of the military was involved. Any serious concentration of the Turkish Army would've mopped up cops armed like that pretty damn quickly.
In Ankara the Turkish Parliament building is apparently being shot at by a helicopter and smoke is seen coming from it. At the same time, regime-controlled media is reporting an "emergency session" of the legislature. Surely the legislature isn't going to meet with their actual building under attack.
Also when this ends, think about the grave nature of the damage already inflicted. In an evening Turkey's mlitary HQ has been the site of a hostage attack and probably damaged. The state broadcaster was seized, the intelligence HQ was bombed, there was heavy fighting in the Presidential palace, at the major airports in Istanbul and Ankara, and the Parliament building is now apparently on fire.
Big hangover/cleanup.
That also implies that the military would be willing to use massive amounts of deadly force. With the mosques calling people to the streets, Erdogan calling everyone to flood the streets, the police had huge numbers of human shields if the military didn't want to escalate to that level of violence. It certainly wasn't well thought out at the least.
Sounds like letting Erdogan call people to the streets was a fatal mistake, if the military had the opportunity to arrest him.
Turkish news channel NTV is showing videos of small groups of disarmed military personell being led away by police officers.
The coups military forces must be stretched really thin for this to happen.
The only hope for the coup is if the same popular uprising happens on the other side in the morning.
I mean with Erdogan out of the the capital and possibly out of the country he may not have been easily arrested. But it calls back into question the timing of the coup. If they could storm the Presidential palace, the military HQ, the TRT building, the AKP building, and take two major airports they probably had enough manpower to bust into the Presidential palace while Erdogan was there, at some other time, and take him into custody.
With him not taken out he was likely able to coordinate with his Islamic allies, and also was able to send orders to different parts of the Turkish military. If he had been taken out immediately, then the other parts of the Turkish military would be looking at a different situation, the coup would have control of the capital and Istanbul with the President in custodyl, and it's quite possible the generals might have sided with the coup at that point and Erdogan would be in prison for awhile before probably being exiled.
It also looks like they made other strategic mistakes, like seizing state run TRT but not (theoretically independent) NTV. NTV is independent but has effectively always ignored the worst of Erdogan's abuses, either out of fear of being shut down like other media outlets or out of genuine pro-Erdogan sympathies. NTV functioned effectively as a mouth piece for the regime, showing regime loyal people on the airwaves giving people orders to go to the streets, and also reporting negatively on the success of the coup very early on.
@MI
yeah, over a live stream, I saw a crowd stomp a soldier then shoot him in the head. the people rallied pretty well/quickly.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 15, 2016, 06:46:26 PM
That also implies that the military would be willing to use massive amounts of deadly force. With the mosques calling people to the streets, Erdogan calling everyone to flood the streets, the police had huge numbers of human shields if the military didn't want to escalate to that level of violence. It certainly wasn't well thought out at the least.
I mean at the end of the day a coup is the illegal, violent overthrow of a government. Probably shouldn't try one if you don't believe your men are willing to get blood on their boots. Coups are nasty things. It's not likely they'd have had to massacre thousands and thousands, but to deal with the crowds they'd probably have to kill dozens or hundreds (most humans will flee if the huge crowd they are in gets lit up with gunfire.)
I've seen a few videos of independent, solo soldiers being attacked by crowds or arrested by police, but with no context. I can't imagine the "in force" deployed troops that seized various strategic points would've let that happen without shooting back. It makes me wonder if individual soldiers were coming in from home or whatever when they heard the coup started and trying to link up, and were waylaid by angry crowds. If so there was some serious miscommunication somewhere.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 06:53:20 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 15, 2016, 06:46:26 PM
That also implies that the military would be willing to use massive amounts of deadly force. With the mosques calling people to the streets, Erdogan calling everyone to flood the streets, the police had huge numbers of human shields if the military didn't want to escalate to that level of violence. It certainly wasn't well thought out at the least.
I mean at the end of the day a coup is the illegal, violent overthrow of a government. Probably shouldn't try one if you don't believe your men are willing to get blood on their boots. Coups are nasty things. It's not likely they'd have had to massacre thousands and thousands, but to deal with the crowds they'd probably have to kill dozens or hundreds (most humans will flee if the huge crowd they are in gets lit up with gunfire.)
The '97 "coup" was remarkably bloodless. They might have been banking on the same thing for this one.
It's a high stakes bluff. It works if people are scared to call it, but it fails once there is a belief that it's all it is.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2016, 06:57:32 PM
It's a high stakes bluff. It works if people are scared to call it, but it fails once there is a belief that it's all it is.
I guess the plotters had a hard time believing an Islamising palace-building cosplay-maniac dictator is what the people of Turkey want. Now they now. And the world knows as well.
I think they underestimated the peoples' response. beyond a few instances, the soldiers probably weren't all too willing to shoot into a crowd, or anticipating the need for it. once you secure your objectives, then what? those crowds got bigger and bigger, and the gunfire didn't seem to disperse them all too much (at least on the streams I saw).
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2016, 07:00:03 PM
I think they underestimated the peoples' response. beyond a few instances, the soldiers probably weren't all too willing to shoot into a crowd, or anticipating the need for it. once you secure your objectives, then what? those crowds got bigger and bigger, and the gunfire didn't seem to disperse them all too much (at least on the streams I saw).
Maybe. But I have yet to see a crowd bigger than a few hundred people. Let's not declare a victor just yet.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 15, 2016, 06:55:43 PMThe '97 "coup" was remarkably bloodless. They might have been banking on the same thing for this one.
maybe, but mass media has come a long way since then. it's so much easier to get a crowd going these days.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2016, 06:52:20 PM
@MI
yeah, over a live stream, I saw a crowd stomp a soldier then shoot him in the head. the people rallied pretty well/quickly.
Nasty shit. But the AKP has a core of well organized and pretty fanatic supporters that were used in attacks on critical newspapers in the past (like Hürriyet in 2015). A colleague of mine with Turkish roots translated some of their chants back then. Stuff like "We'll die for Erdogan, we'll kill for Erdogan."
Al Jazerra showing live shots of Taksim square, only a few dozen, maybe 200 hundred people, otherwise largely deserted; lots of people standing on the sideline waiting to see what way the wind blows?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 15, 2016, 05:46:18 PM
Just heard on Euronews that Erdogan blames also Gülen for the coup.
Well that is just awesome. He has been bizarrely coming after my friends in Texas any way he can recently. This should only increase his paranoia.
Obama backs the Islamist. Hmm...
More aerial bombing in Ankara, two more large explosions reported.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2016, 07:31:24 PM
Obama backs the Islamist. Hmm...
:tinfoil:
At last, proof that Obama is muslim! :lol:
I guess we'll wait until 2020 then.....
(https://s32.postimg.org/uyy8mmnl1/image.jpg)
Hm, a Turkish reporter has said coup forces have shut down his newspaper, and it appears that the same forces shut down CNN Turk just a minute ago. It's odd that if the coup is reeling they'd be wasting resources on media outlets. Makes me wonder if we're in a weird place where the coup is too weak to succeed but too strong to just disappear. Even if it's just five of six hundred soldiers totally shutting them down could take a lot of killing and a lot of dead people all around.
While I don't like coups, and don't like Islamists (I'd be cool if all of them died in a horrifying way), I have to give props to the AKP supporters, they have balls of steel. Pictures of dudes laying down right in front of tank tracks to stop them from moving.
I cannot imagine the lambs that populate America doing jack shit to stop a military coup.
Hell of a thing to wake up to. :unsure:
QuoteGen. Wesley Clark on CNN saying the coup plotters made "a lot of mistakes—not arresting the president, not shutting off the internet..."
Heh, Wes is correct, but it's a little concerning a retired General is arm-chair quarterbacking a coup.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2016, 08:01:58 PM
Hell of a thing to wake up to. :unsure:
You should start a thread about it. :P
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2016, 07:31:24 PM
Obama backs the Islamist. Hmm...
Backing American interests.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 08:10:22 PM
QuoteGen. Wesley Clark on CNN saying the coup plotters made "a lot of mistakes—not arresting the president, not shutting off the internet..."
Heh, Wes is correct, but it's a little concerning a retired General is arm-chair quarterbacking a coup.
Hans would agree. Seedy thinks you're the devil.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2016, 07:31:24 PM
Obama backs the Islamist. Hmm...
Backing American interests.
His interpretation of American interests.
Wes couldn't even take Pristina's airport. SAD!
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 15, 2016, 08:34:12 PM
Wes couldn't even take Pristina's airport. SAD!
James Blunt FTW. :bowler:
Quote from: citizen k on July 15, 2016, 08:33:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2016, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2016, 07:31:24 PM
Obama backs the Islamist. Hmm...
Backing American interests.
His interpretation of American interests.
Which is a correct and intelligent interpretation.
kind and sensitive person.
It's alright. Anzu was out of the country at the time, and is safe.
Quote from: Lettow77 on July 15, 2016, 08:47:26 PM
It's alright. Anzu was out of the country at the time, and is safe.
Thank GOD
Wait...who is Anzu?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2016, 08:32:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 08:10:22 PM
QuoteGen. Wesley Clark on CNN saying the coup plotters made "a lot of mistakes—not arresting the president, not shutting off the internet..."
Heh, Wes is correct, but it's a little concerning a retired General is arm-chair quarterbacking a coup.
Hans would agree. Seedy thinks you're the devil.
If Hans was in the Turkish military, he would have just gotten Erdogan fired.
The video MSNBC was showing of soldiers surrendering makes things look pretty bad for the coup.
It's dead, it's been dead for a while. Maybe it's the best they could do after Erdogan pre-emptively cracked down on them, but that was not nearly enough.
I'm still hoping for a sudden resurgence during the daytime, but I'm not holding my breath. :(
Damn. What a buzzkill.
Worst coup ever.
Hey, at least a lot of people died, that should make you guys a little happy.
Turkey seems to have irrevocably turned a corner towards Islamism. That really sucks. How do we kick them out of NATO?
Question: Why is it "Islamist"? Have announced a theocracy? Forced religious conversions? Mandatory mosque attendance? Why don't you break it down for me.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2016, 12:51:09 AM
Worst coup ever.
Yeah. I mean, I am no expert on coups, but even I know that one of the first things they should have done was to arrest the president. That they didn't do it is baffling.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2016, 07:31:24 PM
Obama backs the Islamist. Hmm...
Bro, I think you and I have a history here. I think I got some Republican cred. So I feel justified in telling you you might be jumping the shark this election.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 01:11:28 AM
Question: Why is it "Islamist"? Have announced a theocracy? Forced religious conversions? Mandatory mosque attendance? Why don't you break it down for me.
An Islamist is someone who is willing to commit violence to fulfill what he conceives to be the will of Allah.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 12:52:31 AM
Hey, at least a lot of people died, that should make you guys a little happy.
Well at least Raz can do a victory dance about this.
I dread the implications of this.
Yeah...while I doubt the earlier suggestion that it was a "Reichstag Fire" kinda plot, a lot of the fallout will likely be the same nonetheless.
So it failed. That's an anti climax.
That it was a erdogan conspiracy seems to be a strong view in turkey.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 16, 2016, 01:26:09 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2016, 12:51:09 AM
Worst coup ever.
Yeah. I mean, I am no expert on coups, but even I know that one of the first things they should have done was to arrest the president. That they didn't do it is baffling.
This is looking like enough of a fiasco, that even if they got Erdo, I think they'd still fail, just a bit bloodier (including a likely dead Erdo), but with his cronies and sympathetic generals still coming out on top.
Erdogan has a cult of personality going, if the coup had failed but killed him in the process I'd probably still view that as a net win.
To be honest I do question NATO's position with Turkey, we've never had an openly fascist NATO country and now we will. I mean Turkish membership in NATO has had a ton of geopolitical advantages but if it becomes an alliance in which we're bound to defend a fascist country from attack it just leads me back to questioning the value of NATO going forward--something I already question given most European states do not take NATO obligations seriously and just view it as a mechanism to get guaranteed American protection.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2016, 02:37:16 AM
Erdogan has a cult of personality going, if the coup had failed but killed him in the process I'd probably still view that as a net win.
To be honest I do question NATO's position with Turkey, we've never had an openly fascist NATO country and now we will. I mean Turkish membership in NATO has had a ton of geopolitical advantages but if it becomes an alliance in which we're bound to defend a fascist country from attack it just leads me back to questioning the value of NATO going forward--something I already question given most European states do not take NATO obligations seriously and just view it as a mechanism to get guaranteed American protection.
The alternative is to kick Turkey out of the alliance, so that they can join Russia? Why can't you have a fascist NATO country? :unsure:
Join Russia in what? This isn't the Cold War. The biggest value Turkey ever offered was as a site for US ballistic missiles--something that we no longer even need in Turkey.
Turkey is a platform in the Middle East, which is where the fun is nowadays. Granted, it's a tremendously unreliable ally in that regard, but chucking it away wouldn't make things better.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2016, 02:37:16 AM
Erdogan has a cult of personality going, if the coup had failed but killed him in the process I'd probably still view that as a net win.
To be honest I do question NATO's position with Turkey, we've never had an openly fascist NATO country and now we will. I mean Turkish membership in NATO has had a ton of geopolitical advantages but if it becomes an alliance in which we're bound to defend a fascist country from attack it just leads me back to questioning the value of NATO going forward--something I already question given most European states do not take NATO obligations seriously and just view it as a mechanism to get guaranteed American protection.
Wasn't Portugal a dictatorship when it joined?
Quote
Wasn't Portugal a dictatorship when it joined?
It was dictatorship with the dressing up of a democracy, so pretty much what Turkey will end up with.
Franco was reportedly offered membership, too.
QuoteHere's a breakdown of the death toll in the Turkish coup, as provided by General Umit Dundar, the newly appointed acting chief of the general staff. More than 190 people dead:
41 police officers,
Two soldiers
47 civilians
104 people described as "coup plotters."
A further 1154 people have been wounded.
Quote from: celedhring on July 16, 2016, 03:08:26 AM
Quote
Wasn't Portugal a dictatorship when it joined?
It was dictatorship with the dressing up of a democracy, so pretty much what Turkey will end up with.
Franco was reportedly offered membership, too.
Greece was a semi-democracy till the Colonels' coup in 1967 too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoviescene.co.uk%2Freviews%2F_img%2F4885-2.jpg&hash=17363e5a16c486c093572065d1c123c670048765)
QuoteThe Turkish government has indirectly accused exiled Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen of being behind the coup.
Minutes ago, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said any country that would "stand by" Mr Gulen "won't be a friend of Turkey and will be considered at war with Turkey".
Mr Gulen lives in self-imposed exile in the United States.
He has previously been described as Turkey's second most powerful man.
Ice pick time.
Turkey might win a war against the US. Swedish computer simulations have coughed up stranger results.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 07:56:31 PM
While I don't like coups, and don't like Islamists (I'd be cool if all of them died in a horrifying way), I have to give props to the AKP supporters, they have balls of steel. Pictures of dudes laying down right in front of tank tracks to stop them from moving.
Yes. Also beating on the tanks with sticks.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2016, 06:02:37 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2016, 07:56:31 PM
While I don't like coups, and don't like Islamists (I'd be cool if all of them died in a horrifying way), I have to give props to the AKP supporters, they have balls of steel. Pictures of dudes laying down right in front of tank tracks to stop them from moving.
Yes. Also beating on the tanks with sticks.
Well, Greece might even have won against them.
One analysis is that the coup was not the secular military, but Gulenist Islamists within the military.
QuoteThere are multiple indications that followers of the Gulen movement embedded within the military are spearheading the coup attempt. The Gulenists are an Islamist movement that has built up significant influence in Turkey since the 1970s. They started with the gendarmerie, where they could take advantage of lax background checks, and gradually worked their way up the military chain of command. When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan felt that the Gulen movement had become too powerful, relations started to fray between the ruling party and the Gulenists. Starting in 2014, massive purges took place to whittle down Gulenist influence in the media and government.
But the Gulenist influence in the military was not fully purged. This may be because of the large amount of blackmail that the Gulenists retained on major military figures to prevent their own dismissals. In essence, an Islamist faction within the military that has deeply alienated the secular strongmen within the armed forces is the one leading the challenge against Erdogan. In other words, it is not a coup backed by Turkey's secular political, military and civilian opposition. This is already evidenced by signs of a countercoup led by a number of military commanders and the national police, as well as by the main secular opposition Republican People's Party leader saying it is against the coup.
As we saw in Turkey's 2015 elections, when the Justice and Development Party won 49.5 percent of the vote, the country is deeply polarized among secularists, Islamists, Kurds and nationalists. Turkey has a number of fault lines that breed opposition to Erdogan's Islamist-leaning political agenda and neo-Ottoman foreign policy direction, but on the other side of those splits are a substantial number of supporters who legitimately support the president. Moreover, there are many Turks who are anti-Erdogan yet also anti-coup, and who remember the deep economic and political instability of Turkey's coup-ridden past. This coup attempt is the product of an Islamist division within the military – and divisions within divisions do not spell success for a coup.
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/why-turkish-coup-will-likely-fail?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article (https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/why-turkish-coup-will-likely-fail?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article)
stratfor :rolleyes:
To be philosophical about it, a democracy that relies on army coups to defend itself is a pretty shitty and brittle democracy. It only take one failed coup or one failure to coup in a timely manner to permanently remove the army's ability to defend the democracy. If Turkey couldn't develop another democratic institution during all those decades it had, then maybe democracy was always doomed.
Looks like the purges are beginning, starting with the justice system. According to NTV around 2750 judges have been sacked.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2016, 06:14:28 AM
One analysis is that the coup was not the secular military, but Gulenist Islamists within the military.
If the Islamists hate him and the secularists hate him, then where does his mass support come from, hmm. :yeahright:
So.yup. The latest is that it isn't the secular military but some rival Islamicists who did this.
Which is a relief if true.
Though sounds a bit too perfect for getting the people onside.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 16, 2016, 07:12:44 AM
Looks like the purges are beginning, starting with the justice system. According to NTV around 2750 judges have been sacked.
For what a shitty coup it was, there were certainly a very large number of judges involved in it. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2016, 08:36:41 AM
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 16, 2016, 07:12:44 AM
Looks like the purges are beginning, starting with the justice system. According to NTV around 2750 judges have been sacked.
For what a shitty coup it was, there were certainly a very large number of judges involved in it. :P
Turkey is going to be a very sad place. A pretend-democracy dictatorship that will put Russia to shame, fighting a civil war against Kurds and being harassed by ISIS.
The only way I am going to be fine with all that if Erdogan re-conquers the Middle Eastern territories of the Ottoman Empire and keeps order :P
But now the secularists and anyone else who could stop Erdogan is going to get sacked.
The secular army should have joined in then brushed aside the Gulenists once Erdogan was out. Now they'll get purged.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 01:53:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 01:11:28 AM
Question: Why is it "Islamist"? Have announced a theocracy? Forced religious conversions? Mandatory mosque attendance? Why don't you break it down for me.
An Islamist is someone who is willing to commit violence to fulfill what he conceives to be the will of Allah.
As far as I know he doesn't claim a direct line from God. He also hasn't declared Jihad on anyone.
Apparently Turkey has blocked access to Incirlik base and cut its power.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 16, 2016, 09:44:34 AM
Apparently Turkey has blocked access to Incirlik base and cut its power.
Odds of deal with Putin: rising.
My theory is that either Erdogan knew something was brewing and he apologised to Putin as part of preparations to lure the conspirators into acting, or Putin was approached by the rebels and he sold them out to Erdogan.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 16, 2016, 09:44:34 AM
Apparently Turkey has blocked access to Incirlik base and cut its power.
With everyone being nervous about the military right now, they probably just don't want any US and German troops moving around to potentially complicate things. At least I hope so.
Though one would think that kindly asking your allies to suspend any operations for the time being would have been more appropriate. Cutting the power seems a bit excessive.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 15, 2016, 05:14:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2016, 05:04:11 PM
And now just saw one of my good friends is currently in Istanbul airport...
Hope your friend is okay. I am sure the army wants the airport protected, however.
So she is unsurprisingly rattled but remained safe. I hadn't wanted to bother her last night knowing she was being innudated with people checking in so just kept looking at her last seem status on whatsapp to figure she was okay. :blush:
She won't be able to fly out till the wee hours of the morning so also has joy of over 24 hours in an airport.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2016, 02:11:14 AM
Yeah...while I doubt the earlier suggestion that it was a "Reichstag Fire" kinda plot, a lot of the fallout will likely be the same nonetheless.
I'm not convinced yet. He was conveniently out of reach at the time.
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2016, 08:50:02 AM
The only way I am going to be fine with all that if Erdogan re-conquers the Middle Eastern territories of the Ottoman Empire and keeps order :P
Will you be: Hungary for Turkey?
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
While that's true, I don't see why you'd post that comment at this time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 01:53:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 01:11:28 AM
Question: Why is it "Islamist"? Have announced a theocracy? Forced religious conversions? Mandatory mosque attendance? Why don't you break it down for me.
An Islamist is someone who is willing to commit violence to fulfill what he conceives to be the will of Allah.
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
Yeah, I'm using the term Islamist to mean a Muslim anti-secularist, who believes government should enshrine Islamic principles and laws etc. Basically the government of Tehran or other Muslim states that function in this way. Turkey has always been notable for having a strictly secular government. Much like the United States, which has a secular government and a large portion of the population who do not respect that, this has lead to tensions. But the anti-secularists in America never made up such a large percentage of the population as they do in Turkey (where I've read they're an outright majority, I think here they probably represent a solid 35-45% of the country), and America also just has much stronger constitutional and democratic traditions protecting it from a fundamentalist Christian power monger remaking the state into an "evangelical regime."
Yeah, I consider Islamist to basically be the opposite of a secularist - someone who thinks that Islam is the foundational framework for political and social structures.
Obviously, that is a range from those who think that the state should be secular, but informed by Islamic law, to those who think the state should be an outright theocracy.
A jihadist is an islamist who thinks that those goals should be promoted by violence if necessary.
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2016, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
While that's true, I don't see why you'd post that comment at this time.
While people spin conspiracy theories? I mean expect that from Tamas.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2016, 04:21:26 PM
Yeah, I'm using the term Islamist to mean a Muslim anti-secularist, who believes government should enshrine Islamic principles and laws etc. Basically the government of Tehran or other Muslim states that function in this way. Turkey has always been notable for having a strictly secular government. Much like the United States, which has a secular government and a large portion of the population who do not respect that, this has lead to tensions. But the anti-secularists in America never made up such a large percentage of the population as they do in Turkey (where I've read they're an outright majority, I think here they probably represent a solid 35-45% of the country), and America also just has much stronger constitutional and democratic traditions protecting it from a fundamentalist Christian power monger remaking the state into an "evangelical regime."
If we use Berkut's term it describes pretty much everyone in the middle east except hardcore secularists like communists. If we turn the it around and use it describe westerners then you describe nearly everyone in the West. Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins describes themselves as "cultural christian". Pretty much everyone in the West is "informed" by the Christian religion. It's fairly pervasive, people quote the bible (or misquote it), on a fairly frequent basis.
truth is in the middle.
Islamicist doesn't necessarily mean full on Daesh but nor does it mean any sort of Islamic country.
It means a pretty hard line sort who wants to see a government based on a fundamentalist version of the koran.
The Saudis count.
Morocco doesn't.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 16, 2016, 05:09:53 AM
QuoteThe Turkish government has indirectly accused exiled Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen of being behind the coup.
Minutes ago, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said any country that would "stand by" Mr Gulen "won't be a friend of Turkey and will be considered at war with Turkey".
Mr Gulen lives in self-imposed exile in the United States.
He has previously been described as Turkey's second most powerful man.
Well we're fucked.
You have to be one sick motherfucker to go after Gulen and his hippie Muslims.
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2016, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
While that's true, I don't see why you'd post that comment at this time.
Raz is doing his victory dance.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
If we use Berkut's term
Hey I have a fucking great idea: why don't you talk to Tamas and Berkut about this shit instead of just lumping us all together like an asshole?
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2016, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2016, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
While that's true, I don't see why you'd post that comment at this time.
Raz is doing his victory dance.
So a Raz victory is where everyone loses?
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2016, 02:11:14 AM
Yeah...while I doubt the earlier suggestion that it was a "Reichstag Fire" kinda plot, a lot of the fallout will likely be the same nonetheless.
The "Reichstag fire" analogy does not imply that the coup was orchestrated by Erdogan, just that he can use this coup to crack down hard on his opponents, most notably anyone who might support Gulen. I very much doubt that the whole affair was some false flag mission by the AKP. Neither does such action fit Gulen's modus operandi, who so far prefered to attack his enemies by tarnishing their reputation.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2016, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
If we use Berkut's term
Hey I have a fucking great idea: why don't you talk to Tamas and Berkut about this shit instead of just lumping us all together like an asshole?
Why don't you go fuck off? Really what the fuck is your problem here? I chastise the wide spread blood-thirstiness on this forum and you come at me all pissed off. Tell you what, why don't you go find Tuna and ask him why he left Languish.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 16, 2016, 05:58:14 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2016, 02:11:14 AM
Yeah...while I doubt the earlier suggestion that it was a "Reichstag Fire" kinda plot, a lot of the fallout will likely be the same nonetheless.
The "Reichstag fire" analogy does not imply that the coup was orchestrated by Erdogan, just that he can use this coup to crack down hard on his opponents, most notably anyone who might support Gulen. I very much doubt that the whole affair was some false flag mission by the AKP. Neither does such action fit Gulen's modus operandi, who so far prefered to attack his enemies by tarnishing their reputation.
Yeah, I only suggested a Reichstag fire type false flag event in the first moments of the coup, when I was envisioning it might just be like a small handful of guys in some government building that Turkish intelligence had surreptitiously managed to "convince" now was the time to strike a blow for the Republic, or something. Once I saw the scale of the coup I knew it was far too large for it to have been actually surreptitiously planned by Erdogan. But once the early hours were over and he knew he had won, I bet Erdo has never been happier. He gets to be President for life now and turn Turkey into an autocracy, his life long dream.
What's the poo throwing about?
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
...and is willing to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
You know, used to be when a military threw a coup, it was fucking thrown. Even without the help of the CIA.
Fucking Millennials.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
...and is willing to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
Indeed. They believe that the law should reflect Islamic law to some extent or another.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2016, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
If we use Berkut's term
Hey I have a fucking great idea: why don't you talk to Tamas and Berkut about this shit instead of just lumping us all together like an asshole?
Needless to say, his version of "Berkut's terms" has no actual resemblance to my actual views, in a shocking, shocking turn of events.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
...and is willing to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
are you saying erdogan's primary motivation that drives his actions is the creation of an islamic government (based on whatever sect of islam)?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
...and is willing to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
Would you consider christian states that have or had` blasphemy laws, "Christianist"?
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 09:20:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2016, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
If we use Berkut's term
Hey I have a fucking great idea: why don't you talk to Tamas and Berkut about this shit instead of just lumping us all together like an asshole?
Needless to say, his version of "Berkut's terms" has no actual resemblance to my actual views, in a shocking, shocking turn of events.
If your own terms have no resemblance to your actual views, what does that make you?
I'm starting to wonder if Erdogan knew something was brewing.
Was im Istanbul from 7 to 11 july and while there were only a few cops in the airport the citycentre itself was teeming with heavily armed police, including armored cars.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2016, 07:01:11 PM
(...)
But once the early hours were over and he knew he had won, I bet Erdo has never been happier. He gets to be President for life now and turn Turkey into an autocracy, his life long dream.
Erdogan did not even hide his joy. He already very openly called the coup a "gift from god" that allowed him to clean house.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2016, 09:12:25 PM
You know, used to be when a military threw a coup, it was fucking thrown. Even without the help of the CIA.
Fucking Millennials.
Are you saying the coup leaders got distracted by rare pokemon during the crucial hours?
Quote from: LaCroix on July 16, 2016, 09:21:07 PM
are you saying erdogan's primary motivation that drives his actions is the creation of an islamic government (based on whatever sect of islam)?
That's an interesting, but unanswerable, question. Whether Erdogan is using Islamism to promote his own authoritarianism, or using authoritarianism to promote his own Islamism, isn't really knowable at this point, I don't think. As he gains more power, we'll find out.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 09:22:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
...and is willing to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
Would you consider christian states that have or had` blasphemy laws, "Christianist"?
Definitely not in the past tense. But in the current tense, with the laws enforced, and not general blasphemy laws that cover non christian religions? Sure.
Though "Christianist" isn't really the word to use--"Christian" is the better adjective.
I think military coups have become far more difficult to pull off. There used to be a whole cold war team that was not democratic, and then in the third world there were plenty of dictators. So a non democratic state was a lot less of an outlier, first world democracies were used to working with non democracies, and of course there was strong motivation for first world democracies to accept a non democracy that was anti communist.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2016, 09:25:35 AM
I think military coups have become far more difficult to pull off. There used to be a whole cold war team that was not democratic, and then in the third world there were plenty of dictators. So a non democratic state was a lot less of an outlier, first world democracies were used to working with non democracies, and of course there was strong motivation for first world democracies to accept a non democracy that was anti communist.
I think the first problem is that there are simply more democracies now. Spain, Greece, Portugal, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia etc are now democracies. Coups are far less likely to take place in mature, established democracies.
The second issue is the difficulty of coup plotters to convince the public that they have succeeded. In coups, perception is reality. Successful coups need to control the media and spread the message that they have made it. It is now much more difficult to control the media with the advent of the internet and Facebook.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2016, 09:25:35 AM
I think military coups have become far more difficult to pull off. There used to be a whole cold war team that was not democratic, and then in the third world there were plenty of dictators. So a non democratic state was a lot less of an outlier, first world democracies were used to working with non democracies, and of course there was strong motivation for first world democracies to accept a non democracy that was anti communist.
I agree. Add to that the improved communications among potential opponents of the coup, and the element of surprise is not nearly as strong a factor in the coup plotters' success.
I wonder why Egypt's coup succeeded, especially given that al Sisi telegraphed that the coup will likely happen a couple of days before it happened. Is it that Egypt is more of a backwater when it comes to civil society? Was it Morsi's political incompetence? There certainly wasn't a consensus that Morsi had to go, given that al Sisi had to mow down thousands before the Islamists understood he meant business.
How is the idea that there could be "christianist" countries somehow a refutation of the concept of Islamism?
Of course there are plenty of historic examples of Christian nations that enforce religious laws. We mostly consider that a bad thing, and are happy that the Spanish government no longer engages in Inquisitions, for example.
Like everything, there is a range of course. There are probably Americans today who would support state enforced religious laws. I guess we could call them "Christianists", but mostly we just call them fundies, because they mostly don't matter much. They have lost, by and large.
Islamism has not lost however - this is an ongoing conflict with incredibly serious implications for hundreds of millions of people. There are countries that are completely Islamist (Iran), there are countries that are somewhat secular, but have significant religious restrictions based on Islamic law, there are countries that are mostly secular that are leaning in an Islamist direction now (Turkey). This is all happening right now, and the idea that we should pretend like it is not, or draw some meaningless and practically irrelevant inferences with Christian political actions is not just pointless, it is dangerous. There is no analagous Christian movement that matters that is trying to put the Pope back in charge of the world, or code stoning of gays back into law.
There are people out there who are putting their lives at risk, Muslim people, trying to resist this, and the idiotic left demand that we pretend it doesn't exist is the worst possible stance we can take trying to help them create a secular society within Muslim populations that respects basic human rights, including the right to freedom of worship, but also including women's rights and basic respect for freedom.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2016, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 09:22:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
I would consider that a jihadist.
An Islamist is someone who believes that the best form of government is one informed by Islam - i.e., it is a political movement.
...and is willing to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
Would you consider christian states that have or had` blasphemy laws, "Christianist"?
Definitely not in the past tense. But in the current tense, with the laws enforced, and not general blasphemy laws that cover non christian religions? Sure.
Though "Christianist" isn't really the word to use--"Christian" is the better adjective.
There is no word such as "christianist", because we don't make an equivalent to "Islamism" in the English language. It would be to universal to have any meaning. Certainly Angela Merkel's party is political Christianity. "Islamism" is a pretty flabby term if it is used to describe today's Turkey and Iran and ISIS. Pretty much every Muslim country is "informed" by their religion, yet we don't call Malaysia an Islamist state. I would say that "Islamist" is the term we use for Muslims we aren't so keen on, and for a lot of people that happens to be all Muslims.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2016, 10:37:23 AM
There is no word such as "christianist", because we don't make an equivalent to "Islamism" in the English language. It would be to universal to have any meaning. Certainly Angela Merkel's party is political Christianity. "Islamism" is a pretty flabby term if it is used to describe today's Turkey and Iran and ISIS. Pretty much every Muslim country is "informed" by their religion, yet we don't call Malaysia an Islamist state. I would say that "Islamist" is the term we use for Muslims we aren't so keen on, and for a lot of people that happens to be all Muslims.
Merkel's party is not political christianity. Historically that was the case and it has retained the name, but it is now a secular party.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
I agree and yet that can cut both directions. Just because Erdogan is unfairly criticized merely because if his religious associations doesn't mean he does not otherwise merit criticism. From my perspective it seems to me you have a blind spot with him. AKP is really no different from MHP and their gray wolves - the deep state lives with all its antidemocratic and anitliberal tendencies, just with an islamist tinge and a different set of letters.
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2016, 08:45:09 AM
That's an interesting, but unanswerable, question. Whether Erdogan is using Islamism to promote his own authoritarianism, or using authoritarianism to promote his own Islamism, isn't really knowable at this point, I don't think.
I suspect the first, but at the end of the day the result is pretty similar.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2016, 10:57:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2016, 10:37:23 AM
There is no word such as "christianist", because we don't make an equivalent to "Islamism" in the English language. It would be to universal to have any meaning. Certainly Angela Merkel's party is political Christianity. "Islamism" is a pretty flabby term if it is used to describe today's Turkey and Iran and ISIS. Pretty much every Muslim country is "informed" by their religion, yet we don't call Malaysia an Islamist state. I would say that "Islamist" is the term we use for Muslims we aren't so keen on, and for a lot of people that happens to be all Muslims.
Merkel's party is not political christianity. Historically that was the case and it has retained the name, but it is now a secular party.
:yeahright: Could you give me the date when the Christian Democratic Union struck Christian Democracy from their party platform.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2016, 11:42:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
It is remarkable how many intelligent people throw away good sense when Muslims are involved.
I agree and yet that can cut both directions. Just because Erdogan is unfairly criticized merely because if his religious associations doesn't mean he does not otherwise merit criticism. From my perspective it seems to me you have a blind spot with him. AKP is really no different from MHP and their gray wolves - the deep state lives with all its antidemocratic and anitliberal tendencies, just with an islamist tinge and a different set of letters.
I'd say they are different. For one, the Deep State was a result of the military, since the AKP doesn't inspire the same devotion from the military it doesn't have the resources or capabilities. Second, the AKP is much more liberal economically (which I think is the major reason it has been so successful). Personally I think Erdogan is a fool who likes playing dress up and if following a current global toward strongmen. Still, he is the one the people of Turkey have chosen, and I believe that people should be allowed elect their own government, even if they chose stupid things. I am hostile to the idea that he should be murdered and the secularism be reinstated by firing guns into crowds or having helicopters blast Parliament.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2016, 12:08:06 PM
:yeahright: Could you give me the date when the Christian Democratic Union struck Christian Democracy from their party platform.
It is a Christian party, but it has always been more than just a Christian party. They have other traditions and values that they base their politics on besides Christianity. As society in Germany became less and less religious over the last decades, so did the CDU.
From their program:
Dennoch wissen wir, dass sich aus christlichem Glauben kein bestimmtes politisches Programm ableiten lässt. Die CDU ist für jeden offen, der Würde, Freiheit und Gleichheit aller Menschen anerkennt und die hieraus folgenden Grundüberzeugungen unserer Politik bejaht.However, we know that it is not possible to derive a certain political program from Christian creed. The CDU is open for everybody who acknowledges dignity, liberty and equality of all humans and accepts the core convictions of our politics that derive from that.
Die geistigen und politischen Grundlagen der CDU sind in der Sozialethik der christlichen Kirchen, in der liberalen Tradition der Aufklärung, in der wertkonservativen Pflege von Bindungen und dem Wissen darum, dass der Staat nicht allmächtig sein darf, sowie im christlich und patriotisch motivierten Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus zu finden. The spiritual and political foundations of the CDU are the social ethics of the Christian churches, the liberal tradition of enlightenment, the value-based conservative preservation of relations and the knowledge, that the state may not be allmighty, as well as the Christian and patriotically motivated resistance against National Socialism.
Quote from: Zanza on July 17, 2016, 12:37:14 PM
It is a Christian party, but it has always been more than just a Christian party. They have other traditions and values that they base their politics on besides Christianity. As society in Germany became less and less religious over the last decades, so did the CDU.
:yes: It's not really possible in northwestern Europe to be a major political party without acknowledging that most people don't believe in God anymore.
I do not deny that the Christian Democratic parties have become more inclusive.
Their policies are not really motivated much by Christianity either anymore. The liberal streak and the social ethics - without the Christian part - is what guides their politics these days. So arguing that they represent politicial Christianity is not supported by their actual policy-making.
From this side of the ocean, the GOP looks more led by Christianity than the CDU. Regardless of name.
I love that Raz, and the useful idiots like him, are willing to go to the lengths of trying to argue that Islamist parties in Turkey are pretty much just like the Christian Democrats in Germany.
The shark has truly been jumped.
Raz just has issues he "takes a stand" on. I don't understand why you even indulge him.
Quote from: Zanza on July 17, 2016, 12:58:43 PM
Their policies are not really motivated much by Christianity either anymore. The liberal streak and the social ethics - without the Christian part - is what guides their politics these days. So arguing that they represent politicial Christianity is not supported by their actual policy-making.
From this side of the ocean, the GOP looks more led by Christianity than the CDU. Regardless of name.
Best as I can tell, our Democratic party is more Christian than any major party in Europe.
Quote from: BerkutI love that Raz, and the useful idiots like him, are willing to go to the lengths of trying to argue that Islamist parties in Turkey are pretty much just like the Christian Democrats in Germany.
While I do agree that Raz is going overboard here, I do think that he has a point about your definition of "Islamist" being a bit too broad. It's not that your definition is
wrong, exactly; it's more that it's going to apply to the government of any nation where the majority of the population is Muslim, unless it's is under the control of an outside non-Muslim country.
Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2016, 01:54:22 PM
Raz just has issues he "takes a stand" on. I don't understand why you even indulge him.
I don't, actually.
What is bothersome is that his position on this is not his own - there appears to be a lot of people out there who share the idea that Islamism is no big deal, and is really just a small degree in difference from any other religious movement.
Quote from: dps on July 17, 2016, 01:57:15 PM
While I do agree that Raz is going overboard here, I do think that he has a point about your definition of "Islamist" being a bit too broad. It's not that your definition is wrong, exactly; it's more that it's going to apply to the government of any nation where the majority of the population is Muslim, unless it's is under the control of an outside non-Muslim country.
I don't think that is the case at all - for a veyr long time (and even now, arguably) Turkey for example was not Islamist.
Of course there are always going to be people within those countries who wish they were MORE Islamist, but that doesn't argue against the definition, since the intent is to identify not only those who support using Islam as a source of political law, but those who are *against* just that, even though both groups will be Muslim.
That is the entire point of the definition, in fact. It is to distinguish between Muslims who are devout, but understand that their religion is not to be forced on others, and those who feel that their religion should be forced on others.
So now - I don't at all agree that my definition is broad, it is exactly as broad as it ought to be. And most current governments in majority population countries I don't think could be fairly described as "Islamist". Many of the people in some of those countries could be so described however.
The problem Turkey has always had, since the days of Ataturk, is that the public at large never accepted secularism. It was always seen as something the educated upper class elites supported, and any time the popular movement for Islamism grew too powerful the unelected military would step in and impose temporary periods of autocracy. Considering this has gone on for almost 100 years and a majority of the Turkish population still is Islamist, I'm not really sure that a true democratic Turkey and secularism is ever possible long term. What's unfortunate is Erdogan isn't just an Islamist, but also an autocrat. He isn't seeking to build a democracy with "Islamic values", he's seeking to build a populist autocracy that will give major concessions to Islamists (like more in intermingling between church and state.)
I don't think Erdogan wants an Iranian approach, in which the clerics are actually part of government, because he's far too attached to power residing with him for that.
I don't imagine Turkey ever being as bad as Saudi Arabia or Iran, but what Turkey's government always represented was the promise you could have a secular government (like America's) and an Islamic people, coexisting. That dream is largely dead now. But even an Islamist Turkey is probably still a better model of government than is seen in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2016, 03:06:23 PM
The problem Turkey has always had, since the days of Ataturk, is that the public at large never accepted secularism. It was always seen as something the educated upper class elites supported, and any time the popular movement for Islamism grew too powerful the unelected military would step in and impose temporary periods of autocracy. Considering this has gone on for almost 100 years and a majority of the Turkish population still is Islamist, I'm not really sure that a true democratic Turkey and secularism is ever possible long term.
:yes: That was my thought process after the whole thing went out with a whimper. If the only way liberal secularism survives is by regular coups, then sorry, it ain't going to work indefinitely. The first time the coup fails, the coup isn't launched in time and the army gets co-opted, or the coup succeeds but the army decides to stay in power, the system collapses. That's pretty much the opposite of how stable liberal secular democracies should function.
I think the problem with turkey is that its constitution and general government framework already offered the tools for a non-secularist like erdogan to chip away at the country's secular institutions. before, it was to maintain secularism at all costs. but once a non-secularist finally got into power who had enough ambition to mold the country in his own vision, he could. he had the same tools that the secularists had at their disposal.
secularism was promoted as ataturk's legacy, and these principles were held by the upper echelons of turk society rather than across the whole society, so is it any wonder that it couldn't survive for all time? the "oppressed" majority never agreed to it. seems like the secularists in turkey shot themselves in the foot.
So if the day after 9/11, Bush had sacked every other federal judge*, that would have been part of a proportionate response?
OK, not the best of analogises, Martyesque perhaps, but you get my drift.
* I've no idea if there are a handful, several hundreds or many thousands of federal judges in the USA, but Erdogan announced the sacking of over 2,700 judges the day after the coup in a country of 70 odd million, so for the US say 15,000 judges/officials.
Quote from: mongers on July 17, 2016, 04:46:45 PM
So if the day after 9/11, Bush had sacked every other federal judge*, that would have been part of a proportionate response?
OK, not the best of analogises, Martyesque perhaps, but you get my drift.
* I've no idea if there are a handful, several hundreds or many thousands of federal judges in the USA, but Erdogan announced the sacking of over 2,700 judges the day after the coup in a country of 70 odd million, so for the US say 15,000 judges/officials.
A better analogy would be Lincoln sacking Federal judges after Fort Sumter. Even that might not be a good analogy, though, because the President of the US doesn't have the legal authority to remove
any judge from office, but I have no idea whether or not the President of Turkey has the legal authority to sack judges.
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
I love that Raz, and the useful idiots like him, are willing to go to the lengths of trying to argue that Islamist parties in Turkey are pretty much just like the Christian Democrats in Germany.
The shark has truly been jumped.
If only you could find someway to be useful. :(
wait, was mongers's post in response to my post? :unsure:
Quote from: LaCroix on July 17, 2016, 05:34:25 PM
wait, was mongers's post in response to my post? :unsure:
No.
Merely an observation that Erdogan is making the most of the opportunity and tightening his grip on power.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2016, 03:57:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2016, 03:06:23 PM
The problem Turkey has always had, since the days of Ataturk, is that the public at large never accepted secularism. It was always seen as something the educated upper class elites supported, and any time the popular movement for Islamism grew too powerful the unelected military would step in and impose temporary periods of autocracy. Considering this has gone on for almost 100 years and a majority of the Turkish population still is Islamist, I'm not really sure that a true democratic Turkey and secularism is ever possible long term.
:yes: That was my thought process after the whole thing went out with a whimper. If the only way liberal secularism survives is by regular coups, then sorry, it ain't going to work indefinitely. The first time the coup fails, the coup isn't launched in time and the army gets co-opted, or the coup succeeds but the army decides to stay in power, the system collapses. That's pretty much the opposite of how stable liberal secular democracies should function.
The problem is that it's never been liberal. Turkey has long been secular, but it has always been authoritarian and at the same time deeply divided. While the Turkish coups have often been in the name of secularism and Kemalism, the targets of the coup are often secular parties. Typically this seems to happen when the violence between fascists, minorities and leftists threatens to boil over.
I don't know if the US issue with Erdogan should be a concern of creeping islamism in Turkey--Turkey is still rather secular, and whatever Erdogan does he isn't likely to radically change that. He has also been rather pro business, which is good for us (though not really all that relevant because Turkey is very far away and the economy not that large--and on the negative side it seems likely the tendency toward corruption will be increasing).
Turkey is mostly relevant to us as the NATO outpost bordering the middle east and the former USSR. I think the main issue with Erdogan is that he is almost full islamic nutjob in his foreign policy. Worse relations with Israel, not exactly an anti ISIS strategy, jacked up tensions with Russia, and backing up Azerbaijan against Armenia to a degree that is unhelpful.
Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2016, 01:54:22 PM
Raz just has issues he "takes a stand" on. I don't understand why you even indulge him.
He doesn't. He's been on and off ignoring me for years. I remember when he started. A minor scandal when a group of marines were photographed displaying a SS flag. Berkut went berserk.
What sound does a turkey make?
*coup coup*
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
I love that Raz, and the useful idiots like him, are willing to go to the lengths of trying to argue that Islamist parties in Turkey are pretty much just like the Christian Democrats in Germany.
The shark has truly been jumped.
It is pure, unadulterated contrarianism. If he thought "Languish" supported Erdogan, he'd be arguing the exact opposite.
IOW, you are feeding the troll.
Quote from: dps on July 17, 2016, 01:57:15 PM
While I do agree that Raz is going overboard here, I do think that he has a point about your definition of "Islamist" being a bit too broad. It's not that your definition is wrong, exactly; it's more that it's going to apply to the government of any nation where the majority of the population is Muslim, unless it's is under the control of an outside non-Muslim country.
I disagree with that. Malaysia is majority-Muslim and yet isn't Islamist in any real degree. Indonesia is even more Islamic, and Islamists have only a small degree of influence there.
In the Middle east, yeah, there is mostly only a degree of Islamism. But the degrees are important.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 17, 2016, 04:19:50 PM
I think the problem with turkey is that its constitution and general government framework already offered the tools for a non-secularist like erdogan to chip away at the country's secular institutions. before, it was to maintain secularism at all costs. but once a non-secularist finally got into power who had enough ambition to mold the country in his own vision, he could. he had the same tools that the secularists had at their disposal.
secularism was promoted as ataturk's legacy, and these principles were held by the upper echelons of turk society rather than across the whole society, so is it any wonder that it couldn't survive for all time? the "oppressed" majority never agreed to it. seems like the secularists in turkey shot themselves in the foot.
I think that this is largely correct. One of the reasons why Turkey has traditionally had a rather belligerent foreign policy (including policy towards the Kurds) was that the promotion of outside threats suppressed internal dissatisfaction. There are two Turkeys, the educated, affluent urban Turkey, and the ill-educated, poorer rural Turkey. Corruption in the urban elites has always crippled Attaturk's vision of educating the masses, and the only real cure for Islamism is secular (especially female secular) education.
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2016, 08:22:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
I love that Raz, and the useful idiots like him, are willing to go to the lengths of trying to argue that Islamist parties in Turkey are pretty much just like the Christian Democrats in Germany.
The shark has truly been jumped.
It is pure, unadulterated contrarianism. If he thought "Languish" supported Erdogan, he'd be arguing the exact opposite.
IOW, you are feeding the troll.
I can hardly support the people who shot the Pope. :sleep:
So I wonder, with Erdogan now getting all chummy with Putin again, how much of a NATO security leak could he become?
SO how soon will it be for someone to claim that the US backed/sponsored/setup/masterminded/invented this coup?
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 09:06:19 AM
SO how soon will it be for someone to claim that the US backed/sponsored/setup/masterminded/invented this coup?
People have already been claiming this was a CIA plot.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 09:06:19 AM
SO how soon will it be for someone to claim that the US backed/sponsored/setup/masterminded/invented this coup?
Leading members of the Turkish government already do.
By far the most plausible theory I have read so far is that this indeed was a pro-Gulenist plot, started in a haphazard fashion before they were ready, as they got wind of the pending mass arrests (that ended up happening post-coup).
This would explain:
-why it was teh lamest coup evah
-why it did not involve the whole military only part of it (remember, past military coups in Turkey were to protect/restore the secular state, not to enact Raz' dream Islamist Turkey)
-why Erdogan's men already had thousands of names ready to arrest, fire, or to have shot by a lone madman like just happened to an opposition vice-mayor in Istanbul.
Turkey is a pretty hard diplomatic problem at this point. I don't know how the US should go about handling them.
There doesn't seem any good path forward from the US standpoint.
Gulen pretty much disavowed it right away :hmm:
I will ask around.
Or are you suggesting it was pro-Gulenist on their behalf?
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 09:20:52 AM
Turkey is a pretty hard diplomatic problem at this point. I don't know how the US should go about handling them.
There doesn't seem any good path forward from the US standpoint.
There isn't in any country in that region. It is hard to find good guys. Hell it is hard to find less bad guys.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 09:20:52 AM
Turkey is a pretty hard diplomatic problem at this point. I don't know how the US should go about handling them.
There doesn't seem any good path forward from the US standpoint.
There isn't in any country in that region. It is hard to find good guys. Hell it is hard to find less bad guys.
But King Abdullah of Jordan appeared in Star Trek. :(
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 09:06:19 AM
SO how soon will it be for someone to claim that the US backed/sponsored/setup/masterminded/invented this coup?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12115045
the ball is in erdogan's court on this. if he goes full madman, there's a good chance turkey could be kicked out for violating NATO requirements re democracy. but I think he'd have to go pretty far for that to happen. aside from purging people he already planned to purge (albeit in a less extreme manner), he hasn't done much yet.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 09:21:08 AM
Gulen pretty much disavowed it right away :hmm:
I will ask around.
Or are you suggesting it was pro-Gulenist on their behalf?
Pretty much. If they had a network within the military, it makes sense they decided to activate it before they would be made disappear anyways. Sucks for all the foot soldiers they dragged into it, but in this scenario they didn't have too much to lose.
Yep. My friends are in desperate danger. Even Tamas thinks they tried to commit a coup. Erdogan has done a wonderful job demonizing them.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 09:36:15 AM
the ball is in erdogan's court on this. if he goes full madman, there's a good chance turkey could be kicked out for violating NATO requirements re democracy. but I think he'd have to go pretty far for that to happen. aside from purging people he already planned to purge (albeit in a less extreme manner), he hasn't done much yet.
Maybe NATO (by that I mean the US) will buy back his loyalties with the only thing Putin can't offer: free hand to enact his ambitions with an intervention in Syria.
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2016, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 09:36:15 AM
the ball is in erdogan's court on this. if he goes full madman, there's a good chance turkey could be kicked out for violating NATO requirements re democracy. but I think he'd have to go pretty far for that to happen. aside from purging people he already planned to purge (albeit in a less extreme manner), he hasn't done much yet.
Maybe NATO (by that I mean the US) will buy back his loyalties with the only thing Putin can't offer: free hand to enact his ambitions with an intervention in Syria.
Huh. I thought we were hoping he would do that years ago but his army just sat there on the border doing nothing.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 09:37:09 AM
Yep. My friends are in desperate danger. Even Tamas thinks they tried to commit a coup. Erdogan has done a wonderful job demonizing them.
Hey, what do I know.
But you have it wrong: It seems quite obvious that whoever is in the way of Erdogan and his circles have been named a Gulenist and removed. If they are truly Gulenist, that's just an added bonus but judging by how every single other dictatorship has worked, like, ever, I don't think they care too much if the allegations are true on an individual basis. The allegations are tools.
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2016, 09:15:13 AM
By far the most plausible theory I have read so far is that this indeed was a pro-Gulenist plot, started in a haphazard fashion before they were ready, as they got wind of the pending mass arrests (that ended up happening post-coup).
While it did not involve the whole military it did involve a significant part of it and there were some senior people involved.
My understanding had been that while the Gulenist movement had penetrated the judiciary and non-military security forces, their presence in the army and air force was negligible.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 09:20:52 AM
Turkey is a pretty hard diplomatic problem at this point. I don't know how the US should go about handling them.
There doesn't seem any good path forward from the US standpoint.
there's also the big problem of big turkish 5th columns in other countries. We've had groups of them taking to street and engaging in violent behaviour against turks suspected of being of the wrong camp, as well as against the police. Significant security-risk there if Erdogan decides to fan the flames of war.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2016, 09:44:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2016, 09:15:13 AM
By far the most plausible theory I have read so far is that this indeed was a pro-Gulenist plot, started in a haphazard fashion before they were ready, as they got wind of the pending mass arrests (that ended up happening post-coup).
While it did not involve the whole military it did involve a significant part of it and there were some senior people involved.
My understanding had been that while the Gulenist movement had penetrated the judiciary and non-military security forces, their presence in the army and air force was negligible.
The Gulenist movement is rather pacifist in its ideology so that wouldn't surprise me.
I think a break with Turkey is ultimately required, to be honest. It'll happen slowly over time.
The importance of the US-Turkey strategic relationship just isn't as important as it was in the Cold War. That isn't to say it is unimportant--there's a lot of value in being able to launch things like AC-130s from Turkey, these low and slow flying ground support planes are at their best when they can circle around an engagement area for hours, raining down immense amounts of death and destruction virtually with impunity (in the sort of asymmetric wars we fight now--interestingly AC-130 type tactics would be useless against any real military since they're sitting ducks in the sky.) Planes like the AC-130 have been a big part of our war against ISIS and most are flying out of Incirlik to my knowledge. If they fly from further away, they have less effective time in the battlefield, more fuel is spent getting to/from and it's all around less efficient.
Plus, to be frank Turkish air space and our base there haven't been guaranteed to us in times of war--Turkey denied both use of its air space and use of forces launched from our base in Turkey during the 2003 Iraq War; they later relented on the air space issue but not on the use of territory issue, which meant for that war we effectively couldn't use our base in Turkey anyway. Turkey has been a tepid to poor ally in the war against ISIS, hampered at least in part by Erdogan's cold geopolitical calculations that ISIS wants to kill Kurds, so he wasn't all that anti-ISIS until they started blowing people up in Turkey.
The value of the nuclear deployments in Turkey are essentially zero, for us, strategically. Their presence is purely a relic of the Cold War and unnecessary.
Arguably if we're going to remain "engaged" in Iraq we probably just need to set up a more permanent and beefed up military base there, the reality is we have like 6,000 boots on the ground in Iraq now and are constantly bombing targets in the country, it may make sense for semi-permanent base to be built there. When Obama took office his plan was to have a "beefy Embassy" in Iraq and sign a BSA, but otherwise disengage. At the time Iraq had fallen almost fully into the Iranian sphere and refused, so we left. Arguably if Iraq had signed a BSA we'd have been compelled to respond to the initial wave of ISIS expansion much, much quicker and we wouldn't be here now, but it is what it is. Given that the Iraqi government now realizes it needs American military help to avoid collapsing, I suspect a new round of negotiations on a BSA would probably get us Iraqi approval for a major and semi-permanent military base in country. With that the need for the air fields in Incirlik go down.
There are some negatives to a base in Iraq, a base in a war zone tends to be politically unpopular (although it used to be relatively common that we had bases in places where bad things were expected to happen at any moment), and also will definitely be a target for terrorist attacks--although we could mitigate that by making it a sole-U.S. installation, not a shared U.S./Iraqi one. There will also be domestic opposition that such a base could engage us in mission creep, but again, with 6,000+ boots on the ground in Iraq it's a fait accompli that we're at war in Iraq again. It's really up to the President to avoid it becoming us super embroiled in heavy ground fighting there--and while I'm a frequent critic of Obama foreign policy he's actually done a pretty damn good job of avoiding that exact problem in the war against ISIS.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 10:12:55 AM
The Gulenist movement is rather pacifist in its ideology so that wouldn't surprise me.
Pacifist and religiously tolerant as long as you don't break with Islam. Gulen has in the past been very clear: It is imperative that every muslim who converts to another faith or becomes an atheist has to be killed.
I am not aware that he changed his views in the last couple years.
In Islam only killing apostates as opposed to all infidels is the equivalent of extreme pacifist liberalism.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 10:29:01 AM
I think a break with Turkey is ultimately required, to be honest. It'll happen slowly over time.
But why? Even if Turkey is becoming less democratic, surely it is still much better than, say, Saudi Arabia? If the US has no problem maintaining Saudi Arabia as an ally, why break with Turkey?
We won't break with anybody we don't have to break with. No reason to intentionally add to our list of enemies.
I mean presuming we don't start electing total morons to the White House. Not naming any names.
To be honest Trump is right on some of that stuff, we have a lot of alliances now that serve little purpose and benefit the United States not at all. From what I can tell the biggest argument for keeping most of them is the weird sort of conservatism seen in the lefty Foreign Policy nerds who assume an alliance signed should never be ended. The reality is that lack of flexibility makes almost no sense.
To be frank, I'm actually in favor of an overhauled NATO in which countries are required to either recommit to meeting the 2% of GDP defense spending requirement, or we simply exit the alliance and enter bilateral alliances with key allied countries like Britain, Poland, and any of the Baltic States who want our protection. We've actually become in some ways the foreign policy arm, in terms of military action, of a number of large and rich European states that refuse to meaningfully fund or outfit their own military force. This makes no sense in the 21st century. This isn't the Cold War where the value of these relationships was preventing the spread of the Soviet Empire. That empire is dead and never coming back.
To Mono's point, we aren't going to create a major deployment in Saudi Arabia again, we drew down there in 2003 because our presence in that country was frankly enraging far too many crazy Muslims to be worth it. As to kicking Turkey out of NATO, Saudi Arabia is not in NATO, and we are not formal allies with Saudi Arabia. We are strategic partners with Saudi Arabia, meaning they help us and we help them where it is mutually beneficial. We have no defense commitment to Saudi Arabia, we are not required or expected to defend Saudi Arabia, we do not share nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying we end all of our bilateral relationships with dictatorships around the world, but we don't just have a set of military/intelligence shared interests with Turkey (as we do Saudi Arabia), we have a formal, binding military alliance. An attack on Turkey, under the NATO charter, we have to treat the same as an attack on the United States; this is the deepest form of alliance. We have 40 nuclear weapons in Turkey with shared NATO/Turkish control of those weapons.
I'm not actually sure where you even pulled SA out of your hat, kicking Turkey out of NATO doesn't change our relationship with Saudi Arabia. To be frank, as NATO-skeptic as I am now, if we continue to be cool with Turkey when they fall into true despotism, which is probably coming in the next five years, I could see it being a good time to roll on out of the alliance entirely.
This is also frankly, what Europe wants. The long term goal of the EU Federalists is for a superstate with a NATO-independent European defense capacity, and frankly I'm fine with that. We've done a lot for Europe for 70 years, enough that I think we don't need to do anymore. Europe is cool now, Russia ain't ever rolling West again, they're stable and they have the capacity to take care of themselves. We need to pivot stronger towards Asia to better encircle China with a ring of countries that are anti-Chinese due to its innate desire for expansionism. I hope that in that quest we avoid a repeat of the Cold War, and instead prompt a Chinese realization there is far more benefit from working within the international system than against it. But this weird idea that we must maintain what we've set up in Europe til the end of time is bizarre to me.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 11:00:15 AM
To be honest Trump is right on some of that stuff, we have a lot of alliances now that serve little purpose and benefit the United States not at all. From what I can tell the biggest argument for keeping most of them is the weird sort of conservatism seen in the lefty Foreign Policy nerds who assume an alliance signed should never be ended. The reality is that lack of flexibility makes almost no sense.
I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing lefty about preserving an international order that benefits us. What sense does ripping it down that make? What exactly would we gain from all this 'flexibility'?
What about power projection?
I am not quite as extreme as Otto, but fundamentally I agree that the terms and conditions under which NATO was formed clearly no longer exist. That doesn't mean NATO *must* go away, but it does mean that if it cannot change to something that is useful for everyone involved in the modern world, it is foolish to maintain it "just because".
Right now I don't understand what the utility is for the US. It just seems to me a way for Europe to get us to foot the bulk of their security bill.
It is hard of course, to evaluate the actual value. Certainly the US benefits from NATO and the security it provides to the West. But I don't see how there is anything like a equitable sharing of the costs of that security.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 11:00:15 AM
To be honest Trump is right on some of that stuff, we have a lot of alliances now that serve little purpose and benefit the United States not at all. From what I can tell the biggest argument for keeping most of them is the weird sort of conservatism seen in the lefty Foreign Policy nerds who assume an alliance signed should never be ended. The reality is that lack of flexibility makes almost no sense.
I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing lefty about preserving an international order that benefits us. What sense does ripping it down that make? What exactly would we gain from all this 'flexibility'?
The order benefits us, of course, but is NATO necessary for that order?
And is the cost of that order being fairly shared?
I would say my "preferred" form of NATO would be we maintain the concept that an attack on one member is an attack on all--I have no real problem if France/Germany/Italy/Spain (despite being the worst NATO members) were legitimately attacked, in America coming to defend them. I cannot fathom any country actually attacking them, because none have the force projection capabilities. The border states like the Baltics are in genuine threat, and I'm fine guaranteeing their safety. But NATO is more than just a defensive pact now, it's the major tool of military intervention in the Europe/MENA region, often times with the United States, frankly, paying the price in blood and money to achieve primarily European goals.
Who does the civil war in Syria most impact, outside of the Middle East? Not the United States, but Europe, which is where all the refugees are going. And yet, America has shouldered the overwhelming majority of the cost of Western involvement in this war. What's more, is we've been publicly castigated by figures like Hollande for not doing more. That's where I want off the bus. As part of a new framework, I see almost no reason to continue involvement with Turkey.
I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".
At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.
Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?
I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.
I don't think wringing your hands about free riders is particularly helpful in this case.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 11:58:59 AM
I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".
At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.
Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?
I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.
Yeah, but this thing goes both ways: sure the militaries of most European NATO members are an utter joke, and yes, they can only get away with that because the US is willing to do everything for them.
But that leaves all those states subordinate to the US in most if not all foreign military matters, and reduces their diplomatic power play options very close to zero.
If France Germany etc. had their military independence, the US would have to worry about them packing it up and moving in with Russia over an issue or two, and suddenly you find yourself in much higher military spending just to keep up with all possibilities.
In what case? In the case of analyzing whether NATO membership makes sense for the United States? I think free riders are one of the more egregious problems with NATO, but by no means is it the biggest. The biggest problem with NATO is America is now largely responsible for conducting the interventionist military policy of Europe (when Europe is inclined to intervene in things.) This is a serious problem. I also think the people that hear any antipathy toward NATO imagine some crazy Trumpian "flip a switch" and leave scenario, it wouldn't need to be that we.
We just announce we're scaling back our commitments in NATO and that region of the world. I think we still have like 60,000 soldiers in Germany alone. I'd just slowly start reducing that while also increasing deployed forces in Poland and the Baltics. My end goal would be no more than 30,000 American soldiers in continental Europe, with essentially all of them stationed in Poland or further East.
What that does is gives us the ability to say, when Europe wants to pressure us to start fighting in the MENA region again to simply say, "Sorry, our forces in Europe are of a size to satisfy defensive requirements of the Alliance, we cannot increase deployments to this part of the world to facilitate interventions in the MENA region." Now, if America decides, of our own, that we need to intervene, then sure, we will, but we cannot be Europe's Army. I'm fine helping Europe defensively, but not allowing them force projection capabilities they aren't willing to pay for.
America is often mocked for spending so much on defense, but the reality is you have to spend a lot on defense to project force. Russia spends 5%, we only spend a little under 4% (on a much larger GDP than Russia's), I don't think European countries need to spend 5x as much as they're spending now. But I do think a region of like 500m people (NATO sans the U.S. and Turkey is a little over 500m), with a huge GDP, needs to spend some significantly more than they do now. That's my opinion. Maybe those countries disagree--that's their prerogative. But if they want to continue overseas interventions they need to build a military force capable of engaging in them. If not, then so be it. But that should not be America's role.
America in the 21st century absolutely needs to pivot to Asia. The "West" is weaker than it should be because America has to work on two fronts, because more than half of the West's people won't even defend themselves or take care of their back yard. If we didn't have to baby sit shit in Europe's obvious sphere of influence we'd be in a far better position to more robustly work with longstanding Asian allies like Japan and South Korea, and more deeply engage with emerging ones like Vietnam (and longstanding but strained allies like the Philippines.)
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2016, 12:03:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 11:58:59 AM
I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".
At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.
Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?
I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.
Yeah, but this thing goes both ways: sure the militaries of most European NATO members are an utter joke, and yes, they can only get away with that because the US is willing to do everything for them.
But that leaves all those states subordinate to the US in most if not all foreign military matters, and reduces their diplomatic power play options very close to zero.
If France Germany etc. had their military independence, the US would have to worry about them packing it up and moving in with Russia over an issue or two, and suddenly you find yourself in much higher military spending just to keep up with all possibilities.
That's not realistic. Germany already wants to bend over for Russia at every provocation, and has many times in the past. I'm curious as to what "foreign military matters" the European NATO states and Russia would see eye to eye on. Invading and destabilizing states on the Russian periphery? Maybe the Euro NATO allies would be okay with ignoring it, but if so that's their choice. We've mostly ignored it ourselves until it hit Ukraine.
Europe already has pretty strong economic ties to Russia and that is reflected in their decision making. I don't think it's anything but nonsense to suggest America would be in any serious danger of some Euro-Russian alliance on any matters of strategic importance. Europeans were screaming in the streets when the U.S. invaded Iraq to depose a monstrous dictator, I cannot imagine European politicians being on board with aggressive Russian expansion into countries that, by requirement would be democratic (since most of Russia's obvious expansion targets are established democracies.)
I'll use my home country as an example. Germany wouldn't do more with its military than now even if it would spend 10% of its GDP on defense and had a million men under arms. The issue that really splits NATO is not spending, but willingness to intervene abroad. Which is just not there in most European countries. As far as defense is concerned, NATO would still be an impregnable fortress for all external foes even if the US would also lower its defense spending to 1.5% of GDP or so. So if you just consider territorial defense of the NATO states as the point of NATO, what is done is sufficient to deter all potential foes. If you expect NATO to be a tool for further geopolitical strategies, it fails because not all of its members share that view of it.
I personally think that Germany for example should be more assertive and spend a bit more on defense. No idea about the 2% as that seems arbitrary, but we should make clear that we are committed to defending the Baltics. Maybe by stationing a larger force than the 1000 men we currently have there (although that's prohibited under the NATO-Russia agreement).
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 12:16:13 PM
I'll use my home country as an example. Germany wouldn't do more with its military than now even if it would spend 10% of its GDP on defense and had a million men under arms. The issue that really splits NATO is not spending, but willingness to intervene abroad. Which is just not there in most European countries. As far as defense is concerned, NATO would still be an impregnable fortress for all external foes even if the US would also lower its defense spending to 1.5% of GDP or so. So if you just consider territorial defense of the NATO states as the point of NATO, what is done is sufficient to deter all potential foes. If you expect NATO to be a tool for further geopolitical strategies, it fails because not all of its members share that view of it.
I personally think that Germany for example should be more assertive and spend a bit more on defense. No idea about the 2% as that seems arbitrary, but we should make clear that we are committed to defending the Baltics. Maybe by stationing a larger force than the 1000 men we currently have there (although that's prohibited under the NATO-Russia agreement).
And that's actually fine, if the Euro NATO members do not want to engage in interventionism, they shouldn't. But America has been literally pulled into intervening in Europe's region of influence solely because you could not on your own. Stuff like Libya, the expanded war in Syria, the Balkans in the 90s, those are all examples of where America had to intervene largely because our European allies wanted us to; if those allies really don't want to intervene in foreign conflicts then they should not expect American soldiers to fight and die to intervene for you, simple as that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:14:14 PMThat's not realistic. Germany already wants to bend over for Russia at every provocation, and has many times in the past.
Germany had way more exposure to the sanctions against Russia than any other country besides the direct neighbors of Russia (Baltics, Finland) and yet stood for them and worked towards keeping them (against Italy or Greece if my memory serves). And if my recollection is correct, it was Germany that led all the diplomatic initiatives to resolve that the Ukraine crisis.
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2016, 12:03:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 11:58:59 AM
I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".
At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.
Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?
I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.
Yeah, but this thing goes both ways: sure the militaries of most European NATO members are an utter joke, and yes, they can only get away with that because the US is willing to do everything for them.
But that leaves all those states subordinate to the US in most if not all foreign military matters, and reduces their diplomatic power play options very close to zero.
If France Germany etc. had their military independence, the US would have to worry about them packing it up and moving in with Russia over an issue or two, and suddenly you find yourself in much higher military spending just to keep up with all possibilities.
I don't think that is even a remote worry.
Germany and France are not aligned with the US because NATO, they are aligned with the US because our interests and values are aligned. That will not change.
america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 12:23:56 PM
america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence
Influence that helps America to what end?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:10:31 PM
We just announce we're scaling back our commitments in NATO and that region of the world. I think we still have like 60,000 soldiers in Germany alone.
Most of those are not there to defend Germany though. My hometown has the US Africa Command in it. You're welcome to stay, but I feel like this is more to further American geostrategic goals rather than area defense.
QuoteI'd just slowly start reducing that while also increasing deployed forces in Poland and the Baltics
That would violate the NATO-Russia agreement of 1997 (or so).
QuoteI'm fine helping Europe defensively, but not allowing them force projection capabilities they aren't willing to pay for.
Concur. :)
QuoteRussia spends [...] I don't think European countries need to spend 5x as much as they're spending now. But I do think a region of like 500m people (NATO sans the U.S. and Turkey is a little over 500m), with a huge GDP, needs to spend some significantly more than they do now. That's my opinion.
We already outspend Russia significantly.
QuoteBut if they want to continue overseas interventions they need to build a military force capable of engaging in them.
Not particularly interested.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:19:03 PM
And that's actually fine, if the Euro NATO members do not want to engage in interventionism, they shouldn't. But America has been literally pulled into intervening in Europe's region of influence solely because you could not on your own. Stuff like Libya, the expanded war in Syria, the Balkans in the 90s, those are all examples of where America had to intervene largely because our European allies wanted us to; if those allies really don't want to intervene in foreign conflicts then they should not expect American soldiers to fight and die to intervene for you, simple as that.
Full agreement.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 12:22:49 PM
Germany and France are not aligned with the US because NATO, they are aligned with the US because our interests and values are aligned. That will not change.
:yes: Russia is a market, America is a friend and partner.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:25:10 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 12:23:56 PM
america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence
Influence that helps America to what end?
trade agreements, security, etc. all the benefits of being a superpower. a superpower can't be isolationist because then it loses the global influence that helps maintain that superpower status.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:19:03 PM
Stuff like Libya, the expanded war in Syria, the Balkans in the 90s, those are all examples of where America had to intervene largely because our European allies wanted us to; if those allies really don't want to intervene in foreign conflicts then they should not expect American soldiers to fight and die to intervene for you, simple as that.
Libya and Syria I agree on.
I am honestly too young to remember the exact details of the Balkan wars. I know that Germany back then was still in its totally non-interventionist post-WW2 stance and it was domestically impossible to think of using German soldiers abroad. I am also not sure if a German military intervention a year or two after reunification would have been welcomed by the other European countries. I doubt that as back then a lot of people were still quite sceptical about the power of a reunified Germany.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 12:33:51 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:25:10 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 12:23:56 PM
america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence
Influence that helps America to what end?
trade agreements, security, etc. all the benefits of being a superpower. a superpower can't be isolationist because then it loses the global influence that helps maintain that superpower status.
Not intervening constantly, or not being obligated to defend Europe does not equal "isolationist".
This is just a bizarre, but not uncommon, idea. The US over the last few decades is hyper interventionist. Surely we can be LESS interventionist without being "isolationist"?
I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 12:39:53 PM
I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.
That is not what gets us resentment. We are the biggest and strongest so we are going to resented no matter what we do. Because no matter what we do it will be something somebody doesn't like.
My issue with your thinking on this is it seems to be throwing away real concrete assets in exchange for theoretical things. So we toss basically controlling European foreign policy in exchange for...what exactly? We throw away having strategic assets in Turkey in exchange for...what? What if Turkey becomes our enemy? Then we might end up having more commitments and spending more and having less flexibility.
As far as bankrolling Euroland well I am not convinced we would not be spending that money anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 12:39:53 PMNot intervening constantly, or not being obligated to defend Europe does not equal "isolationist".
This is just a bizarre, but not uncommon, idea. The US over the last few decades is hyper interventionist. Surely we can be LESS interventionist without being "isolationist"?
I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.
the original complaint seemed to concern general interventionism rather than certain specific cases.
I think the US has exercised "not intervening constantly." if the US were intervening constantly, there are probably many more conflicts we'd have engaged in over the past decade.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 12:45:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2016, 12:39:53 PM
I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.
That is not what gets us resentment. We are the biggest and strongest so we are going to resented no matter what we do. Because no matter what we do it will be something somebody doesn't like.
My issue with your thinking on this is it seems to be throwing away real concrete assets in exchange for theoretical things. So we toss basically controlling European foreign policy
LOL, we don't control Euro foreign policy by any stretch of the imagination.
To the extent that we "control" anything it is that they have no ability to project, and hence rely on us. In or out of NATO, that would still be the case.
If your fear is that absent NATO they might actually get a serious military capable of intervening locally, and hence will no longer be willing to defer to us, I am fine with that. Like I've said, I believe that the US and Europe are aligned on western principles at a fundamental level, so I am perfectly ok with them having the ability to act regionally because I believe that such actions will generally align with out shared principles.
Quote
in exchange for...what exactly? We throw away having strategic assets in Turkey in exchange for...what?
Not paying to put strategic assets in a country where they are not that useful, and where to the extent they ARE useful are limited by that countries likely willingness to just deny our ability to utilize them. It's not like our alliance with Turkey as a NATO member is free. Those assets could be elsewhere.
Quote
What if Turkey becomes our enemy? Then we might end up having more commitments and spending more and having less flexibility.
They might do that anyway, and their trend has been pretty consistently away from western values.
It's not like we can't make deals with Turkey outside the structure of NATO anyway...
Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 12:27:53 PMMost of those are not there to defend Germany though. My hometown has the US Africa Command in it. You're welcome to stay, but I feel like this is more to further American geostrategic goals rather than area defense.
Correct on them not being there to defend Germany, but U.S. Africa Command serves almost no U.S. interest, I can't think of any intervention in Africa where the U.S. wasn't essentially doing Europe's dirty work for it. So I see no reason for it at all, to be honest. We have the bases in Germany from the Cold War and a lot of inertia keeps them there, but they serve no valid U.S. interests.
QuoteThat would violate the NATO-Russia agreement of 1997 (or so).
So be it--such is required. Russia violates international agreements all the time, like the one it signed when it helped denuclearize the Ukraine to respect its territorial integrity.
QuoteWe already outspend Russia significantly.
And yet, the intervention Russia has taken in Ukraine or in Syria would be impossible for continental Europe working together, even under the framework of NATO, without Britain + the United States. You guys just don't have a credible military. If you don't want one, fine. But my only point is I sure as shit don't want
my military being your military. I'm fine making a "guarantee of defense", but that's not the same as a "guarantee of acting in loco parentis ad infinitum."
QuoteNot particularly interested.
And that's cool--so you probably get 100% where I'm coming from. I have no problem with the fact the U.S., as the world's lone superpower, does have some obligations to defend other democracies. I am not saying we would disengage from the world to that degree. What I'm saying is there are regions of the world where bad shit happens, and I don't think America can respond to all of them. We have to start limiting our scope and our interventionism. If we, as the collective West, really think that interventions are necessary in certain parts of the world, especially those in "Europe's back yard", then Europe needs to take the lead. If Europe isn't willing, then America needs to be willing to say "oh well." We cannot be the answer to all the problems every where, it isn't sustainable or desirable.
FWIW, this is an area where I've seen Obama moving. We are slowly but surely I think doing much of what I suggest in Europe, and I can't imagine either of our current Presidential candidates reversing course. Clinton would probably continue roughly in Obama's path and Trump would likely do so even more aggressively.
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 12:55:07 PM
Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.
We want to move more to South Korea last I heard. U.S. Pacific Command is up to 100,000 from 80,000 when Obama declared a "pivot to the Pacific." Two things happened after that which I believe has slowed out withdrawal from Europe and planned increase in the pacific: Ukraine and Syria.
Totally agree with Otto.
I would even go a step further, in some ways.
To the extent the US is willing to be the world policeman, we should do so primarily where
A) Our interests lie, and
B) There isn't a credible alternative.
Right now, we are "responsible" for parts of the world where there are absolutely credible alternatives, if only they would do their part. So if someone needs to intervene in Libya, then that should be Europes area of policing, while the US focuses on parts of the world where there isn't a regional western power such that our global reach is required.
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 12:55:07 PM
Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.
yeah, a few garrison soldiers and a handful of nukes aren't really material assets. it's not like we have a full army permanently based in turkey.
I think domestic politics will eventually require what I've said. There's been a "slow turn" against NATO. Right now most Americans don't think about NATO enough to really care, but Trump has campaigned against NATO. I think you'll see more of that, Trump is just willing to be more bombastic about it.
During the Cold War our commitment to Europe was essentially beyond question, virtually all serious Americans believed we had a grave responsibility to protect Europe from falling under the Iron Curtain, and further, that failure to do so would be essentially a fatal blow to U.S. interests. After the Cold War ended, I think a lot of Americans haven't really fully recognized how big our commitment to NATO is and how it constrains us being able to operate elsewhere, and how the countries we're expending so much on are all rich countries themselves who can decide for themselves if they want that level of military power or not.
I don't believe long term domestic opinion will be in favor of the one-sided NATO arrangement.
You guys are starting sound like American versions of Brexiters :D
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 12:55:07 PM
Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.
yeah, a few garrison soldiers and a handful of nukes aren't really material assets. it's not like we have a full army permanently based in turkey.
Post Cold-War Turkey, for us, is almost exclusively useful as an airfield. Nothing else could easily replace it in Syria/Iraq unless we built a new air base in Iraq, which as I mentioned has problems.
Even if we could get agreement to say, build a big air base in Greece (which is probably the closest NATO ally to the fighting and wouldn't add
huge amount to flight time), the problem is any planes flying from Greece to conflict spots in Iraq have to fly over other countries. Now, since we fly over Syrian airspace at will now because we basically can, that wouldn't be a big deal. But in theory if the Syrian civil war ended, an air base in Greece would mean a huge detour flying around no-fly countries to strike targets in Iraq (something we don't have to worry about with our base in Turkey.) Saudi Arabia is out because of the political problems. We do have deployments in Kuwait/Qatar/Bahrain, but they're all either naval or small, we don't have any real airstrike capability from those countries and there are prickly problems with establishing them in any of those countries.
But it's conceivable in 10 years or so it would be a moot point. My hope is we aren't bombing Syria and Iraq forever.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 12:56:48 PM
Correct on them not being there to defend Germany, but U.S. Africa Command serves almost no U.S. interest, I can't think of any intervention in Africa where the U.S. wasn't essentially doing Europe's dirty work for it.
The mission list on Wikipedia for the US Africom suggests two related missions as part of the Global War on Terror (Enduring Freedom at the Horn of Africa and in the Sahara), the anti-piracy mission off the Horn of Africa which is a global effort with contributions from many non-NATO countries, and two missions related to the war in Libya (which was a European intervention). So I guess the last two qualify, the first three are part of America's geopolitical interest, no?
QuoteSo be it--such is required. Russia violates international agreements all the time, like the one it signed when it helped denuclearize the Ukraine to respect its territorial integrity.
Fair enough. I think we should then openly cancel the agreement first though. But I agree, we should be more forceful vis-a-vis Russia.
QuoteAnd yet, the intervention Russia has taken in Ukraine or in Syria would be impossible for continental Europe working together, even under the framework of NATO, without Britain + the United States. You guys just don't have a credible military. If you don't want one, fine. But my only point is I sure as shit don't want my military being your military. I'm fine making a "guarantee of defense", but that's not the same as a "guarantee of acting in loco parentis ad infinitum."
That's fine. I don't want to see German soldiers fighting in Eastern Ukraine (my grandfather actually did just that :P) or Syria. So yeah, I don't need a "credible" military if credible is defined as being able to intervene in those countries.
QuoteAnd that's cool--so you probably get 100% where I'm coming from. I have no problem with the fact the U.S., as the world's lone superpower, does have some obligations to defend other democracies. I am not saying we would disengage from the world to that degree. What I'm saying is there are regions of the world where bad shit happens, and I don't think America can respond to all of them. We have to start limiting our scope and our interventionism. If we, as the collective West, really think that interventions are necessary in certain parts of the world, especially those in "Europe's back yard", then Europe needs to take the lead. If Europe isn't willing, then America needs to be willing to say "oh well." We cannot be the answer to all the problems every where, it isn't sustainable or desirable.
:yes:
Why can't you build a base in Jordan? From what I heard Germany considers to move its jets from Incirlik to Jordan if Erdogan continues to pester our parliamentarians over our Armenian genocide resolution.
Or Israel for that matter as it is your closest ally in the region anyway.
I think there are political problems with a base in Israel. The U.S. is unabashedly pro-Israel, but at least tries to front the position that we can serve as a "mediator" in the larger Israeli-Palestine conflict if necessary. A large U.S. air base in Israel would make that impossible and also likely expose us to more terrorist attacks than we already are.
Jordan might be a good answer though, I hadn't considered them.
The War in Afghanistan was definitely conducted in a large part with heavy use of our German bases, but that goes back to more a convenience factor, we already had bases in Germany.
For something like Afghanistan the real value in a base in between us and Afghanistan (in say, Germany) is all the men and equipment we move from the U.S. to Afghanistan it's nice to be able to stop in Germany. We wouldn't necessarily need a huge military presence to do that, though. Just a few air bases. Assuming we remained NATO allies with Germany I doubt there would be a problem maintaining a few of those for logistics. Like I said, my preferred outcome isn't that we have 0 soldiers in Europe and complete leaving of NATO, just a shift in what the alliance is and how the U.S. works within NATO.
Like Afghanistan was a full NATO operation, ISAF is under the aegis of NATO, so in theory if we were to do something like that in the future where NATO was in full agreement we'd ostensibly be able to use each other's resources for logistics. Something like Afghanistan wouldn't be something we'd push off to Europe, we were going after the guys who just killed 3,000 Americans and had broad support to do so.
Afghanistan is actually a good example of NATO working well for the United States with broad cooperation. Even Germany contributed significantly to the ISAF mission, both in men and material.
Looking at this list, almost all the 36.000 troops you have left in Germany sound to me like support, intelligence or headquarter units:
http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/units.htm
Out of that list only the 2nd Cavalry and the 10th Army & Missile Defense Command sound like combat troops.
EDIT: There is also the 52nd Fighter Wing in Spangdahlem AFB, but that's apparently planned to leave already.
Look what our strategic competitors do. Russia and China have spent obsecene amounts of resources chasing 3rd tier basing/alliance agreements like Russia's horribly exposed facility at Tartus (courtesy of the tottering Assad regime) or China's boondoggle basing investment with the Pakistanis at Gwadar. The PRC in particular would give their collective left nuts to have even a fraction of the benefits the US gets through its European and North Asian alliances. There is a reason why Putin's foreign policy revolves to a significant extent around trying to weaken NATO and it's not because he wants to do a favor for Uncle Sam.
The whole complaint about burden sharing is a mystery to me. NATO, Korea, and Japan all provide very substantial financial contributions to support the cost of the US facilities on their territories. Total US spending on those bases is under $10 billion/year - compare for example to the nearly $50 billion PRC is committing alone to the Pakistan economic corridor which at the end of the day will likely yield marginal strategic benefits at best. Yes it would be nice to see the NATO countries spend a little more on their militaries, but undermining the alliance would just whittle down the one stick that has any effectiveness in that effort. The notion that a Europe cut loose from a US alliance would bulk up security spending substantially and then deploy those capabilities in the US interest is a double fantasy.
It is nice when Minsky swoops in and says what I have been trying to say better than I can.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
Look what our strategic competitors do. Russia and China have spent obsecene amounts of resources chasing 3rd tier basing/alliance agreements like Russia's horribly exposed facility at Tartus (courtesy of the tottering Assad regime) or China's boondoggle basing investment with the Pakistanis at Gwadar. The PRC in particular would give their collective left nuts to have even a fraction of the benefits the US gets through its European and North Asian alliances. There is a reason why Putin's foreign policy revolves to a significant extent around trying to weaken NATO and it's not because he wants to do a favor for Uncle Sam.
The whole complaint about burden sharing is a mystery to me. NATO, Korea, and Japan all provide very substantial financial contributions to support the cost of the US facilities on their territories. Total US spending on those bases is under $10 billion/year - compare for example to the nearly $50 billion PRC is committing alone to the Pakistan economic corridor which at the end of the day will likely yield marginal strategic benefits at best. Yes it would be nice to see the NATO countries spend a little more on their militaries, but undermining the alliance would just whittle down the one stick that has any effectiveness in that effort. The notion that a Europe cut loose from a US alliance would bulk up security spending substantially and then deploy those capabilities in the US interest is a double fantasy.
This would make sense if our argument was solely about saving money, or if we were advocating outright leaving NATO and closing all our European basis. Since that isn't it, I question the relevance of this statement.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
This would make sense if our argument was solely about saving money, or if we were advocating outright leaving NATO and closing all our European basis. Since that isn't it, I question the relevance of this statement.
He directly addresses the fact that our strategic partners are a massive advantage that other countries would kill for and would hurt our interests if we threw them away. Seems relevant to me.
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 01:28:48 PM
Looking at this list, almost all the 36.000 troops you have left in Germany sound to me like support, intelligence or headquarter units:
http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/units.htm
Out of that list only the 2nd Cavalry and the 10th Army & Missile Defense Command sound like combat troops.
EDIT: There is also the 52nd Fighter Wing in Spangdahlem AFB, but that's apparently planned to leave already.
I had read that it was 62,000, if it's really down to 36,000 then we may not be able to cut much more, I'd need to look into it.
I also don't want to be perceived as having the position "zomg fuck Europe let's take all our troops away", that isn't actually the position. Actually being deployed in Europe costs us very little (same for South Korea), in fact since there is cost-sharing with overseas bases between host country and us it can sometimes cost less to have a soldier housed in a foreign country than in the United States.
It's about the strategic commitment, not what bases we keep open or shut. Our strategic commitment to Europe should be defensive, and we should maintain whatever bases necessary to satisfy that role; but I'd argue our actual use of our European assets for the past 20 years has largely been interventionist. Sometimes in affairs where we essentially acting for the Euros (Balkans/Libya/Syria), but sometimes too in American lead efforts like the war in Iraq and other such things.
I want to scale down to whatever the desired commitment level is for our role in Europe to be purely defensive. And I also would still pressure the other NATO members to meet their minimum expected defense spending requirement.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2016, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
This would make sense if our argument was solely about saving money, or if we were advocating outright leaving NATO and closing all our European basis. Since that isn't it, I question the relevance of this statement.
He directly addresses the fact that our strategic partners are a massive advantage that other countries would kill for and would hurt our interests if we threw them away. Seems relevant to me.
It's not a great comparison, I mean let's say Russia had a nice big base in say, Egypt. What exactly is Russia going to do with it? Russia has some force projection capability, at least compared to Europe which aside from Britain and France has virtually none (and France has very little.) It's a false comparison, America needs bases all over the globe because we're expected to send our military in all over the globe, moreover, we ourselves feel we need to do this. That's not a feature--that's a problem. I also don't remember advocating we shut down every European base and kill our logistic capability. The main value in having bases in a country where you don't expect to ever fight is for logistical reasons (Russia's Naval base in Syria was a refueling station, back when Syria was a stable country.) I don't see any credible reason why a strategic shift
away from intervening in Europe/North Africa/Levant region would mean all of a sudden we no longer have any bases in Europe and thus no more logistics capacity there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
This would make sense if our argument was solely about saving money, or if we were advocating outright leaving NATO and closing all our European basis. Since that isn't it, I question the relevance of this statement.
You proposed exiting the alliance outright if the 2% commitment wasn't made. That is advocating leaving outright. You also referenced "big commitments" which I presume to be referencing money.
I think I am responding to the arguments being made, if not, feel free to clarify.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2016, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 12:55:07 PM
Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.
yeah, a few garrison soldiers and a handful of nukes aren't really material assets. it's not like we have a full army permanently based in turkey.
Post Cold-War Turkey, for us, is almost exclusively useful as an airfield. Nothing else could easily replace it in Syria/Iraq unless we built a new air base in Iraq, which as I mentioned has problems.
my post was in reference to the argument that we could shift assets around. the assets in that turk base aren't all that material. wasn't arguing the base itself isn't strategically important.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 02:00:05 PM
It's about the strategic commitment, not what bases we keep open or shut. Our strategic commitment to Europe should be defensive, and we should maintain whatever bases necessary to satisfy that role; but I'd argue our actual use of our European assets for the past 20 years has largely been interventionist. Sometimes in affairs where we essentially acting for the Euros (Balkans/Libya/Syria), but sometimes too in American lead efforts like the war in Iraq and other such things.
But that is a matter of US choice. Why blame the alliance for policy the US elects to pursue using the alliance? it's not like the other members are forcing us into these interventions. Even in Libya, the US could have made it clear it had no interest, instead even the more limited "lead from behind" strategy made it explicit we would backstop France and the UK.
I won't quote your other post just above - but it is more of the same - criticizing US policy for being overly interventionist. There is nothing in the structure of the alliances or commitments that compels this result.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2016, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
This would make sense if our argument was solely about saving money, or if we were advocating outright leaving NATO and closing all our European basis. Since that isn't it, I question the relevance of this statement.
You proposed exiting the alliance outright if the 2% commitment wasn't made. That is advocating leaving outright. You also referenced "big commitments" which I presume to be referencing money.
I think I am responding to the arguments being made, if not, feel free to clarify.
I said this after I said that:
QuoteI would say my "preferred" form of NATO would be we maintain the concept that an attack on one member is an attack on all--I have no real problem if France/Germany/Italy/Spain (despite being the worst NATO members) were legitimately attacked, in America coming to defend them. I cannot fathom any country actually attacking them, because none have the force projection capabilities. The border states like the Baltics are in genuine threat, and I'm fine guaranteeing their safety. But NATO is more than just a defensive pact now, it's the major tool of military intervention in the Europe/MENA region, often times with the United States, frankly, paying the price in blood and money to achieve primarily European goals.
I wouldn't be opposed to outright leaving NATO, but that would only be if we couldn't find a way to reform it to a degree that it allows the U.S. to not be required to conduct interventionist wars for Europe. To be honest I don't know that the 2% spending requirement really is the key factor, it's more the fact the Europeans don't spend their defense money on the type of military force that is capable of independent action, and they don't appear to have anything approaching a unified defense policy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2016, 02:08:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 02:00:05 PM
It's about the strategic commitment, not what bases we keep open or shut. Our strategic commitment to Europe should be defensive, and we should maintain whatever bases necessary to satisfy that role; but I'd argue our actual use of our European assets for the past 20 years has largely been interventionist. Sometimes in affairs where we essentially acting for the Euros (Balkans/Libya/Syria), but sometimes too in American lead efforts like the war in Iraq and other such things.
But that is a matter of US choice. Why blame the alliance for policy the US elects to pursue using the alliance? it's not like the other members are forcing us into these interventions. Even in Libya, the US could have made it clear it had no interest, instead even the more limited "lead from behind" strategy made it explicit we would backstop France and the UK.
I won't quote your other post just above - but it is more of the same - criticizing US policy for being overly interventionist. There is nothing in the structure of the alliances or commitments that compels this result.
I'm not blaming the "alliance" for anything, I'm advocating for a shift in American policy. In so much as I "blame" NATO for anything, what I'm really blaming is U.S. NATO policy, not "the alliance" itself. I mean we're the majority of military and political force in NATO anyway, so any problems in NATO are largely our baby. I do broadly condemn Europe for being so feckless and weak, but that's not me "blaming" anyone for anything. NATO made a ton of sense for the United States for 50 years. Less sense for 10, and even less sense for the 10 after that, in its present form.
We need to shift away from interventionist policies in general. This is independent of NATO. But specific to NATO, we have a situation where a collection of European states we consider our friends and allies, frankly would lose their military capacity if we did this. Maybe they're fine with that, but it's something that needs mentioned. My thought is that if they want to maintain those capabilities they will need to develop a unified defense plan and probably spend more on defense. But if they don't want to, then they do not have to, obviously.
American disengagement from European-regional interventionism is
independent of my claim that NATO allies don't do their fair share. I'm saying we need to shift away regardless of what they do, I don't view it as a tit-for-tat.
I am not sure I get your argument why the US is "required" to conduct interventionist wars for Europe. What happens if you say no?
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 02:25:07 PM
I am not sure I get your argument why the US is "required" to conduct interventionist wars for Europe. What happens if you say no?
I'm not sure, we've yet to have a President with the spine to do so.
No, we aren't formally required to do these things, but if you follow international relations or domestic politics the pressures of both can push countries in certain directions. We need to exit that game as much as possible.
Eisenhower said no during the Suez crisis.
Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2016, 02:27:04 PM
Eisenhower said no during the Suez crisis.
That's a good point--I had totally forgotten that. It's a shame that we haven't had more Eisenhowers, he was an underrated President.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 02:24:24 PM
I'm not blaming the "alliance" for anything, I'm advocating for a shift in American policy. In so much as I "blame" NATO for anything, what I'm really blaming is U.S. NATO policy, not "the alliance" itself. I mean we're the majority of military and political force in NATO anyway, so any problems in NATO are largely our baby.
Ok I follow that.
QuoteNATO made a ton of sense for the United States for 50 years. Less sense for 10, and even less sense for the 10 after that, in its present form.
But not so much that - seems to me NATO is more relevant now than it was in the 90s during the "unipolar" moment. I.e with a more assertive China and Russia challenging aspects of the existing international order.
In terms of your concerns if the US decides to be less interventionist, NATO is still very useful, maybe even more so than an interventionist US that 2003 style can't carry NATO with it anyways. If its stays interventionist, NATO is just one of the tools to carry out that policy not a driver of it. It would be different if NATO allies were starting interventions against US will and dragging us in - that doesn't seem to be happening. France intervenes in West Africa without us quite a bit. UK intervened in Sierra Leone on their own dime. The only arguable case to be made here is Libya where the French were leading but metaphorically (and sort of literally) ran out of gas leading to greater US participation. But I'm pretty sure if Obama had made it clear that US was out from the outset, it wouldn't have played out that way. Instead he chose the tweener "lead from behind" formula which is still leadership.
Erdogan now wants to reintroduce the death penalty. That would at least clarify that he no longer seeks any progress towards EU membership. Those negotiations have been a farce for at least a decade, but we should eventually just abolish them.
I'm presuming he'd apply the death penalty retroactively to the coup participants, which would also be a strong indication the rule of law was fully over in Turkey.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
which would also be a strong indication the rule of law was fully over in Turkey.
Well, Turkey has been sending a bunch of people to jail on some really far fetched conspiracy theories, and supposedly 2,700 judges were just removed/suspended. I'm not sure how much the jury is really out on this one.
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
Do European countries not have the death penalty for treason?
Belarus is the only country in Europe with capital punishment.
For some reason I thought there would be exceptions for treason.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
He'd be mightily overplaying his hand if he did that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
I wouldn't be surprised if Erdogan would like an excuse to get the US military out of Turkey, but he needs to be careful. Northern Cyprus is still an ongoing issue.
last I read, they're considering bringing back the death penalty, but it wouldn't apply to the current coup plotters
That's not really a big problem. During the Great Purge a lot of people originally got prison sentences, before they learned that they were involved in other conspiracies that got them executed.
Fascinating we start talking about how good it is that people are dying to overthrow Erdogan, chief calamity of our age, then we go on to a full throated defense of Trump's foreign policy. Weird, huh?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
Could Gulen put in a quick application for US citizenship at this point?
AFAIK the US has no law against extradition of citizens.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2016, 07:51:14 PM
AFAIK the US has no law against extradition of citizens.
Sure, but I thought that the US was extreeeemely reluctant to extradite citizens. More so than green card holders at least.
Not particularly. Much less so than many other countries. Typically it has to be a valid charge though.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2016, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
He'd be mightily overplaying his hand if he did that.
Yeah, trying to hold our servicemen hostage wouldn't end well for him, I don't think. If he does try to pull something that over the top, he'd better aim for a quick resolution while President Obama is still in office. I don't think either Trump or Hilary would have as much patience with him as the current administration.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 18, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
Sure, but I thought that the US was extreeeemely reluctant to extradite citizens. More so than green card holders at least.
I've never heard of that.
Naturalization is a pretty quick process if you're a permanent resident who has been here a long time, it's permanent residency that's the hard thing to get. But yeah, the change in status wouldn't be a major factor, we generally have no problem extraditing our own citizens to foreign jurisdictions on a proper charge that follows our constitutional principles. We do generally exercise right of first prosecution if what the person did also makes him a criminal here; like we have laws that make it illegal to go overseas for the purposes of having sex with a minor. So if one of our citizens faced extradition for that they'd face trial here first, and might later be extradited.
Really the only rights and privileges citizenship brings over permanent residency is a) U.S. passport, b) right to vote in most State/Federal elections (a small number of local elections are open to any residents, even non-citizens.)
@OvB: thanks!
The U.S. extradition process involves
1. The State Department reviewing the request and deciding if it's extraditable and if it is in the foreign policy interests of the United States (i.e. they get to make a political determination),
2. If it passes #1, it goes to the Justice Department who reviews it for legality who passes it to the U.S. Attorneys office in the District in which the subject live.
3. U.S. Attorney seeks an arrest warrant, arrests the subject.
4. Subject faces an extradition hearing before a U.S. Magistrate Judge or a U.S. District Judge, this part of the process is entirely apolitical, the judge isn't going to approve the order unless there is some evidence to justify the charges and it's an "extraditable offense" under the treat.
5. If an extradition order is issued, the subject can make a habeas claim in Federal court, which would prompt a review of whether or not the government's detention of the subject for purposes of extradition violates the U.S. Constitution, if they found it did, the subject would have to be released (but could actually be re-arrested and they could try the whole thing again.)
6. It goes back to the State Department, who makes the final decision on whether to extradite or not. So this is a "second round" in which State can apply a political/policy litmus test to the extradition, and decide not to go through with it.
The big thing is, a typical district judge isn't going to issue an extradition order on a claim that Gülen was involved in plotting a coup without some actual evidence to that effect, and while I don't at all doubt Turkey can and will manufacture such evidence, it's questionable if the manufactured evidence will survive scrutiny. Even if it did, it's unlikely the State Department/Obama is going to sign off on extradition if they view the request as laden with nonsense conspiratorial claims with no trustworthy evidence.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 10:01:34 PM
The big thing is, a typical district judge isn't going to issue an extradition order on a claim that Gülen was involved in plotting a coup without some actual evidence to that effect, and while I don't at all doubt Turkey can and will manufacture such evidence, it's questionable if the manufactured evidence will survive scrutiny. Even if it did, it's unlikely the State Department/Obama is going to sign off on extradition if they view the request as laden with nonsense conspiratorial claims with no trustworthy evidence.
So the odds of extradition in this case would be very low. Erdogan presumably knows this, and is playing to a domestic audience as he paints the U.S. as "in league" with Gülen.
We can be both enemies and friends of Islam depending upon the needs of the audience involved.
Bomb Mecca.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 10:01:34 PM
The U.S. extradition process involves
1. The State Department reviewing the request and deciding if it's extraditable and if it is in the foreign policy interests of the United States (i.e. they get to make a political determination),
2. If it passes #1, it goes to the Justice Department who reviews it for legality who passes it to the U.S. Attorneys office in the District in which the subject live.
3. U.S. Attorney seeks an arrest warrant, arrests the subject.
4. Subject faces an extradition hearing before a U.S. Magistrate Judge or a U.S. District Judge, this part of the process is entirely apolitical, the judge isn't going to approve the order unless there is some evidence to justify the charges and it's an "extraditable offense" under the treat.
5. If an extradition order is issued, the subject can make a habeas claim in Federal court, which would prompt a review of whether or not the government's detention of the subject for purposes of extradition violates the U.S. Constitution, if they found it did, the subject would have to be released (but could actually be re-arrested and they could try the whole thing again.)
6. It goes back to the State Department, who makes the final decision on whether to extradite or not. So this is a "second round" in which State can apply a political/policy litmus test to the extradition, and decide not to go through with it.
The big thing is, a typical district judge isn't going to issue an extradition order on a claim that Gülen was involved in plotting a coup without some actual evidence to that effect, and while I don't at all doubt Turkey can and will manufacture such evidence, it's questionable if the manufactured evidence will survive scrutiny. Even if it did, it's unlikely the State Department/Obama is going to sign off on extradition if they view the request as laden with nonsense conspiratorial claims with no trustworthy evidence.
Note that none of that really hinges on whether or not the person for whom extradition is sought is a US citizen or not.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqNQhEmM.jpg&hash=5f6a347f0b456c6dfbd7c6e5c518f51cb5f20eb2)
Apologies if already posted.
I think Erdogan has asked us to deport Gülen before, he knows it won't happen.
America has literally been blamed for every coup in Turkish history; it's part of why our relationship with Turkey is so bizarre. We've certainly shamefully participated in coups but I legitimately don't believe we've ever done so in Turkey which is what makes it ironic to a degree. I think by getting us to refuse to extradite Gülen Erdo gets a domestic bump by America bashing.
I do think Turkey's constitution is questionable, Erdogan's AKP lost big in the last legislative elections and it had no impact on his ability to continue eroding democracy, and their politicized judiciary and the acceptability of arresting thousands of judges or presumably trumped up charges suggests their whole system just isn't designed for democracy.
Tamas seemed fine with blaming it on Gulen. Mass murder is fine, but failure, that takes religion.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
and I will once again point to the significant amount of Turkish Erdogan-voters (lets just call these islamofascists instead though) in many european countries willing to take to streets and engage in violence on the Turkish Führer's behalf.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 19, 2016, 04:03:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
and I will once again point to the significant amount of Turkish Erdogan-voters (lets just call these islamofascists instead though) in many european countries willing to take to streets and engage in violence on the Turkish Führer's behalf.
The first instances of that have been reported in Germany. In Gelsenkirchen a mob of 150 attacked a Hizmet building. Alevites and Kurds reported a spike of violent attacks against them since the coup. Turkish run mosques (the vast majority of mosques in Germany are financed, staffed and steered from Turkey) agitate against "traitors".
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 19, 2016, 05:07:17 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 19, 2016, 04:03:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
and I will once again point to the significant amount of Turkish Erdogan-voters (lets just call these islamofascists instead though) in many european countries willing to take to streets and engage in violence on the Turkish Führer's behalf.
The first instances of that have been reported in Germany. In Gelsenkirchen a mob of 150 attacked a Hizmet building. Alevites and Kurds reported a spike of violent attacks against them since the coup. Turkish run mosques (the vast majority of mosques in Germany are financed, staffed and steered from Turkey) agitate against "traitors".
Well, at least with German citizenship laws, these Erdogan stooges have to choose between German and Turkish citizenship. :)
These people highly annoy me. If Erdogan is such a worship-worthy genius, then go and live under his rule.
Quote from: Tamas on July 19, 2016, 05:19:08 AM
These people highly annoy me. If Erdogan is such a worship-worthy genius, then go and live under his rule.
They're like Irish-American republicans or patriotic Brits living in Spain/Greece.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 19, 2016, 05:07:17 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 19, 2016, 04:03:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
and I will once again point to the significant amount of Turkish Erdogan-voters (lets just call these islamofascists instead though) in many european countries willing to take to streets and engage in violence on the Turkish Führer's behalf.
The first instances of that have been reported in Germany. In Gelsenkirchen a mob of 150 attacked a Hizmet building. Alevites and Kurds reported a spike of violent attacks against them since the coup. Turkish run mosques (the vast majority of mosques in Germany are financed, staffed and steered from Turkey) agitate against "traitors".
here it was in Beringen, near the old coal-mines. Same MO for the rest.
frankly, it's time our governments start outlawing turkish government sponsered organisations and mosques. And Turks who's loyalties lie with Erdogan and his islamofascist ideal better go too.
-----
edit: I haven't seen the comparison here yet (or maybe I missed it) but what happened in Turkey can probably best be compared to the Night of the Long Knives. Different groups (AKP, Gulenists, etc) infiltrating the state-apparatus, on occasion together due to compatible goals, and eventually one group eliminating all others.
:lol: Thank you Putin.
It seems that Erdogan is getting trigger happy with his purging.
QuoteTurkey sacks 15,000 education workers in purge after failed coup
More than 1,500 university deans asked to resign and 257 PM's office staff dismissed, with 35,000 public servants now affected
Turkey has escalated its purge of government officials in the aftermath of the failed coup, with about 35,000 public servants affected by the end of the day despite a government spokesman insisting that the crackdown was being carried out in accordance with the rule of law.
In the latest developments on Tuesday, the government fired more than 15,000 employees at the education ministry, sacked 257 officials at the prime minister's office and 492 clerics at the directorate for religious affairs. Additionally, more than 1,500 university deans were asked to resign.
It followed the firing of nearly 8,800 policemen, and the arrests of 6,000 soldiers, 2,700 judges and prosecutors, dozens of governors, and more than 100 generals – or just under one-third of the general corps. Some 20 news websites critical of the government have also been blocked.
The Turkish government says it is carrying out a legitimate security operation to safeguard the country in the aftermath of a failed coup that came close to toppling the elected president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the early hours of Saturday morning.
The government claims those arrested or fired had links to Fethullah Gülen, the US-based Islamic cleric whom Turkey accuses of orchestrating the coup, which left more than 300 dead at the weekend. On Tuesday it announced it was preparing a dossier to send to the US in expectation of Gülen's extradition.
But the scale of the arrests and firings led to fears that Erdoğan is using the situation to settle scores with anyone perceived to pose any kind of threat to the government, whether or not they were involved in the coup.
Two of the world's leading human rights organisations joined a chorus of international leaders in calling on Turkey to abide by the rule of law as it dealt with the coup's perpetrators.
"The sheer number of arrests and suspensions since Friday is alarming and we are monitoring the situation very closely," Amnesty International said in a statement. "The coup attempt unleashed appalling violence and those responsible for unlawful killings and other human rights abuses must be brought to justice, but cracking down on dissent and threatening to bring back the death penalty are not justice."
Human Rights Watch said: "While the government has the complete right to hold to account those involved in the coup, the speed and scale of the arrests, including of top judges, suggests a purge rather than a process based on any evidence. Turkey's citizens who took to the streets to defend democracy deserve a response that upholds the rule of law and protects media freedom."
In response, Erdoğan's spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, said all those arrested had been detained according to laws "enshrined in our constitution and our penal law. There's nothing exceptional or surprising that several thousand people would be arrested."
Expressing irritation at the many international calls for Turkey to respect the rule of law, Kalin added: "We are the ones who got on the streets and shed our blood for democracy and the rule of law."
Kalin confirmed Turkey was preparing a dossier of evidence for the US in order to request Gülen's extradition. Some of the arrested generals had already admitted their connection to Gülen's dissident movement during interrogations this week. Kalin said he saw no reason why the US would turn the request down, and warned that Turks might get the wrong impression if it was rejected.
"On grounds of suspicion he can easily be extradited," said Kalin. "If they insist on keeping him then a lot of people here will think he is assisted by the US."
Turkey was braced for more stringent measures on Thursday, with the country's national security council expected to meet for the first time since the coup attempt. There are fears that Turkey could enact a state of emergency that might make it easier for Erdoğan to crack down on his opponents, though nothing has been confirmed.
While a broad coalition of political forces united with Erdoğan to oppose the coup at the weekend, many now fear this will be no protection against the president's widening crackdown.
But large swaths of the population back the president's actions, who they idolise for boosting Turkey's economy and representing the country's lower classes. Thousands have turned out in pro-Erdoğan rallies since the weekend.
"This country has never seen this kind of president or prime minister," one supporter, standing outside Istanbul's city hall, argued, before listing Erdoğan's perceived achievements since reaching power in 2003.
"No other president or prime minister achieved what he has done – in economic terms, in charitable terms, and in patriotic terms. There's such a difference, a world of difference, in our lifestyle. Healthcare has especially improved. We have opportunities, and we have options."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/turkey-sacks-15000-education-workers-in-purge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/turkey-sacks-15000-education-workers-in-purge)
Never waste a good crisis.
Quote from: Berkut on July 19, 2016, 12:56:12 PM
Never waste a good crisis.
What's Stalin's purging record? Maybe he's going after that.
Would be ironic if all this purging triggered another coup or revolt that actually succeeds.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 19, 2016, 01:44:55 PM
Would be ironic if all this purging triggered another coup or revolt that actually succeeds.
or maybe he purges Turkey into pieces
Quote"No other president or prime minister achieved what he has done – in economic terms, in charitable terms, and in patriotic terms. There's such a difference, a world of difference, in our lifestyle. Healthcare has especially improved. We have opportunities, and we have options."
Huh. I would have thought having multiple countries around them collapse into violence and chaos would have reduced their options.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 19, 2016, 04:03:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
and I will once again point to the significant amount of Turkish Erdogan-voters (lets just call these islamofascists instead though) in many european countries willing to take to streets and engage in violence on the Turkish Führer's behalf.
What's the connection between that and Erdogan's request for us to extradite Gulen? Are you suggesting that US courts take into account the potential for pro-Erdogan elements to riot in Europe?
Quote from: The Larch
What's Stalin's purging record? Maybe he's going after that.
Estimates go anywhere from 600,000 to 65 million.
Quote from: The Larch on July 19, 2016, 12:54:56 PM
It seems that Erdogan is getting trigger happy with his purging.
It's cool. Erdogan is just counting his coup.
:frusty:
Now see, that's how people get run over in parking lots.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 19, 2016, 01:44:55 PM
Would be ironic if all this purging triggered another coup or revolt that actually succeeds.
Isn't that sort of what happened in Iran with Mossadegh?
Did you see the film of the police snatch Landrover coming under fire from the attack helicopter, I think a AH1 Cobra, scary stuff.
Besides major Turkish news outlets blaming the US for the coup attempt, Erdogan in a recent speech said the US needs to leave the Med. What is going on with Turkey? This bodes poorly for continued relations with US and NATO, and Europe. I didn't think his view was to move towards Iranian type thinking but now I'm not so sure and have no idea how things may turn out. It was obvious how Erdogan was neutralizing the military with the purges of generals, replacing them with Erdogan loyalists. And as noted often here Turkey has been moving away from the constitution and democracy they did have, led by the ever tightening control of Erdogan. He's gained even after big losses to his party in recent elections. Now after the coup it appears clear that the Parliament will vote in favor of what he wants, which will allow him more so to gain the powers he wants to take over and create the autocracy.
Leave the Med? The Mediterranean? Um no we didn't fight the Barbary Pirates just to leave now.
Quote from: Berkut on July 19, 2016, 12:56:12 PM
Never waste a good crisis.
The coup in Turkey probably would have been much more successful if all the people currently being arrested for it actually were involved.
Quote from: KRonn on July 20, 2016, 08:07:34 AM
Besides major Turkish news outlets blaming the US for the coup attempt, Erdogan in a recent speech said the US needs to leave the Med. What is going on with Turkey? This bodes poorly for continued relations with US and NATO, and Europe. I didn't think his view was to move towards Iranian type thinking but now I'm not so sure and have no idea how things may turn out. It was obvious how Erdogan was neutralizing the military with the purges of generals, replacing them with Erdogan loyalists. And as noted often here Turkey has been moving away from the constitution and democracy they did have, led by the ever tightening control of Erdogan. He's gained even after big losses to his party in recent elections. Now after the coup it appears clear that the Parliament will vote in favor of what he wants, which will allow him more so to gain the powers he wants to take over and create the autocracy.
He has already pissed off the Russians, now he needs to alienate the Americans. With Europe giving him the cold shoulder on his "join the EU" push, and ISIS blowing stuff up in his country, Erdogan is well on his way to achieving splendid diplomatic isolation.
How did he piss off the Russians?
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2016, 10:43:05 AM
How did he piss off the Russians?
Shot down one of their planes entering Turkish airspace.
Hasn't there been a public reconciliation with Russia? Erdogan and Putin seem birds of a feather so I'm sure they'd find a way to align their countries.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 20, 2016, 10:08:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 19, 2016, 12:56:12 PM
Never waste a good crisis.
The coup in Turkey probably would have been much more successful if all the people currently being arrested for it actually were involved.
Yeah those 15,000 teachers could have proven to be a formidable force on the battlefield. :cool:
Quote from: Malthus on July 20, 2016, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2016, 10:43:05 AM
How did he piss off the Russians?
Shot down one of their planes entering Turkish airspace.
All in the past. BTW, it was one of the coup guys who shot down the Russian plane, in a conspiracy to drive a wedge between Turkey and Russia.
Quote from: celedhring on July 20, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
Hasn't there been a public reconciliation with Russia? Erdogan and Putin seem birds of a feather so I'm sure they'd find a way to align their countries.
They want the same things, power over their country and respect/fear on the international stage. I'm not sure it's inevitable for them to be friends or enemies, too many personal relationship issues when single individuals control as much of their country as these two want to.
Quote from: DGuller on July 20, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 20, 2016, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2016, 10:43:05 AM
How did he piss off the Russians?
Shot down one of their planes entering Turkish airspace.
All in the past. BTW, it was one of the coup guys who shot down the Russian plane, in a conspiracy to drive a wedge between Turkey and Russia.
It's so 1930ish it's amazing.
Quote from: Liep on July 20, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
It's so 1930ish it's amazing.
Everything old really is new again.
Quote from: celedhring on July 20, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
Hasn't there been a public reconciliation with Russia? Erdogan and Putin seem birds of a feather so I'm sure they'd find a way to align their countries.
They are very similar, but that doesn't necessarily make them friends. Putin is among other things a Russian populist nationalist; and Russia has historic ambitions that conflict with those of Turkey.
It is true that Erdogan has been attempting to mend fences with Putin; they are supposed to meet in August. But then, Erdogan's been mending fences with other prior victims of his anger recently - he's even reached a rapport with Israel, as of last month.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.727369
My guess is that he was starting to feel a trifle friendless - he can't be feuding with everyone at the same time, so if he wants to start some new feuds, he has to end some old ones.
Quote from: dps on July 19, 2016, 03:16:18 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 19, 2016, 04:03:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM
I actually suspect something real bad is going to happen when Turkey finishes preparing its formal extradition request for Fethullah Gülen; now unless I'm mistaken, since Gülen is a permanent resident with a green card, there is no mechanism for the State Department or the President to just "extradite him" on special request from Turkey. We would have to hold an extradition hearing in courts, which are not politically answerable to U.S. foreign policy concerns. Unless the Turkish request actually contains legitimate evidence that would withstand court scrutiny, it's likely the request will be rejected by a court--and even if Obama was inclined to do something about it, he couldn't.
I've heard some people suggest Erdogan might basically close up Incirlik and not allow anyone to come or go, essentially holding some ~5000 American servicemen hostage, until Gülen is extradited.
and I will once again point to the significant amount of Turkish Erdogan-voters (lets just call these islamofascists instead though) in many european countries willing to take to streets and engage in violence on the Turkish Führer's behalf.
What's the connection between that and Erdogan's request for us to extradite Gulen? Are you suggesting that US courts take into account the potential for pro-Erdogan elements to riot in Europe?
that's not why I propose. What I am saying is that the Turkish fascist state has a lot of 5th columnists in other countries willing to use violence to make sure these countries do what Turkey demands. And that these states would do well to impress on these 5th columnists that they'll be deported without recourse if they do engage in activities that go against the interests of the countries where they live. On cannot, after all, have two masters and be loyal to both.
Quote from: mongers on July 20, 2016, 10:51:31 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 20, 2016, 10:08:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 19, 2016, 12:56:12 PM
Never waste a good crisis.
The coup in Turkey probably would have been much more successful if all the people currently being arrested for it actually were involved.
Yeah those 15,000 teachers could have proven to be a formidable force on the battlefield. :cool:
Education is one of the biggest battlefields imagineable when talking about the soul of a nation.
Quote from: Malthus on July 20, 2016, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 20, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
Hasn't there been a public reconciliation with Russia? Erdogan and Putin seem birds of a feather so I'm sure they'd find a way to align their countries.
They are very similar, but that doesn't necessarily make them friends. Putin is among other things a Russian populist nationalist; and Russia has historic ambitions that conflict with those of Turkey.
It is true that Erdogan has been attempting to mend fences with Putin; they are supposed to meet in August. But then, Erdogan's been mending fences with other prior victims of his anger recently - he's even reached a rapport with Israel, as of last month.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.727369
My guess is that he was starting to feel a trifle friendless - he can't be feuding with everyone at the same time, so if he wants to start some new feuds, he has to end some old ones.
Yeah, there are some big hurdles to Turkey and Russia being allies. In addition to what you mention, and other things, anti Muslim sentiment is quite high in Russia, and support for Azerbaijan is very high in Turkey (with Russia strongly supporting Armenia). Russia strongly supports Assad, Turkey is strongly against the guy.
The moves against teachers and professors doesn't quite jibe with the story that the coup was Islamist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2016, 11:56:34 AM
The moves against teachers and professors doesn't quite jibe with the story that the coup was Islamist.
That is if there's any hold to the accusations or if it's merely an excuse to get rid of the troublesome intelligentsia.
http://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/374-the-akp-and-turkey%E2%80%99s-long-tradition-of-islamo-fascism.html
-> a text from 2015 about where the AKP (in this case) is (seems to be) heading. For what it's worth
Quote
By Toni Alaranta (vol. 8, no. 3 of the Turkey Analyst)
Those who claim that democracy in Turkey has been handicapped because of the repressive "Kemalist" regime overlook that the conservative right has totally dominated Turkish politics. It is the traditions of the Turkish right that need to be scrutinized in the search for the matrix of current undemocratic practices. The Turkish Islamist poet and political ideologue Necip Fazıl Kısakürek is a key figure in this context. He propagated for a totalitarian Islamist-fascist regime in Turkey, to be ruled by an Islamic version of a Führer. And today representatives of the AKP point out that understanding Kısakürek is a precondition to understand the great "cause" ("dava") that the AKP represents.
BACKGROUND: To make the claim that Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) would have anything to do with "Islamic fascism" at first appears astonishing. This is, after all, a party that was for many years defined – by itself and by sympathetic observers in the West – as the Turkish equivalent to Western conservative-democratic parties. The dominant scholarship on modern Turkey has for several decades produced an image of an authoritarian and even fascist Kemalist regime that was ended by the "democratic" Muslims of the AKP. Two fundamental mistakes have thus been committed: one concerns the nature of the regime that the AKP replaced and the second is about the nature of the Islamists.
The narrative peddled by the AKP and its supporters is that the party has ushered in democracy by putting an end to what is portrayed as a regime run by elitist Kemalists, Westernizers who were alien to the culture of their own country, and who for eighty years supposedly suppressed the Anatolian conservative Muslims; and these latter are taken to be the sole and legitimate expression of the popular will.
That there was such a wide expectation that the AKP would indeed usher in pluralist, liberal values and democratization in Turkey was to a considerable degree based on the Turkish liberals' role in legitimating the party as the "voice of the oppressed." From their chairs in prestigious universities, for nearly two decades, liberal Turkish academics drummed in the message of how the awful "Kemalist state" was repressing and harassing pious Muslims. In doing this, they uncritically – and certainly very usefully – reproduced and transmitted the most emotionally powerful narrative trope used by the Turkish Islamist movement.
In reality, a "Kemalist state" has not existed in Turkey since the end of the Republican
People's Party's (CHP) one-party regime in 1950. With the coming to power of the conservative Democrat Party at that date, the Turkish regime ceased to be based on the idea of radical and utopian modernization; from then on, it has effectively been a nationalist-conservative regime that has made considerable use of religious symbols and themes. In this sense the "normalization" process attached to the AKP was consummated already during the 1950s, when, in the words of British scholar David McDowall, the Democrat Party government "assisted the revival of traditional Islamic values at the heart of the state."
Secondly, the notion of conservative Anatolian Muslims as a "natural" force that would compel the authoritarian Turkish state to democratize represents an enormous misrepresentation of the Turkish socio-political reality. The tradition of Turkish conservative and Islamist parties is fundamentally undemocratic. If one scratches the surface of the AKP's ideological background, it becomes clear that the party's agenda is deeply undemocratic. The only major difference between the current AKP and the previous Islamist parties is that the AKP has learned to adjust its economic policies to the global free market regime. Through economic liberalization, inaugurated by Turgut Özal, prime minister and later president, during the 1980s the Anatolian conservative middle class was integrated to the global economy.
IMPLICATIONS: Those who claim that democracy in Turkey has been handicapped because of the repressive "Kemalist" regime somehow manage to overlook that the conservative right has totally dominated Turkish politics; it is the traditions of the Turkish right that need to be scrutinized in the search for the matrix of current undemocratic practices.
The AKP is in fact a large ideological coalition that has absorbed both the nationalist-conservative tradition – represented by conservatives like Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel and Turgut Özal – and the Islamist tradition that was led by Necmettin Erbakan from the early 1970s to the 1990s. In addition, the AKP until recently collaborated with the movement of Fethullah Gülen, the leading "civil society" component of the Turkish Islamist movement.
Ali Bulaç, who is one of the leading intellectuals within the Gülenist camp, has pointed out that the "political" (AKP and previously the Islamist "National Outlook" parties) and the "cultural" (in particular the Gülen movement) components of Turkey's Islamist movement share a common ideological background. This common background is the İttihad-i Muhammedi Fırkası (Islamic Union Party) established in 1909, during the Second Constitutional Era of the Ottoman Empire. According to Bulaç, it was within the ranks of this party that Turkish first modern Islamic intellectuals emerged, and they have provided the intellectual basis for both the "political" and the "cultural" manifestations of the Islamic movement.
When one takes a thorough view on the dominant articulation of the religious and conservative constituency from the 1950s to the contemporary AKP, there is nothing that points towards genuine pluralism. The Islamist-conservative poet and political ideologue Necip Fazıl Kısakürek (1904-1983) is in many ways a key figure in this context, and his writings are revealing. Kısakürek is the esteemed partisan of both Turkish nationalist-conservative and Islamist circles. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan especially admires Kısakürek, often reciting his poems in public. Indeed, several representatives of the AKP have stated that understanding Kısakürek is a precondition to understand the great "cause" ("dava") that the AKP represents. However, the admiration expressed for Kısakürek is ill-boding: he never hid that he hated parliamentary democracy.
Political scientist Taner Timur has recently noted that Kısakürek was not only a poet but an ideologue who propagated for the introduction of a totalitarian Islamist-fascist regime in Turkey, to be ruled by an Islamic version of a Führer, that is, a "supreme leader" (called "Başyüce").
Erdoğan is yet to implement Kısakürek's program in detail; but his attempt to establish presidential rule and the way the majority's Sunni Islamic faith is increasingly presented as the only legitimate expression of the national will is worryingly well in line with Kısakürek's blueprint for an Islamic-fascist regime.
During the 1950s, Kısakürek published his articles in the magazine Büyük Doğu (Great East), in which he called for the banning of CHP, the Republican People's Party. It is thus noteworthy that Erdoğan, who has made such an enormous issue about the "Kemalists" always supporting party closures, himself admires a man who called for the banning the political organization of his opponents.
Kısakürek's writings offer keen insights into the way the Turkish Islamists relate to a notion such as freedom. According to Kısakürek, freedom is not a goal, but a tool, because a human being is not free in that sense: a dog and a donkey are free, but a human being is made by his Creator and thus above a mere nature and its meaningless "freedom." The Turkish Islamists have not in any way abandoned the basic idea according to which a human being is not "free": according to the ideological worldview of Islamists, the kind of freedom espoused by European Enlightenment – within which man measures all things by solely depending on his rational mind – is a perversion. Also those who are deemed "moderate" share this worldview.
When key AKP figures speak about their mission, to build a "New Turkey" and to "close a hundred year old parenthesis" – as Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has recently said – they refer not only to the Young Turk and Kemalist Westernization project, but to the whole of the modernization project that started in the Ottoman Empire in the latter part of the 18th century. There is a telling statement in this respect in Kısakürek's key work İdeolocya Örgüsü, ("Plait of Ideology," published in 1977): "Ever since the Tanzimat [the "Reorganization" reforms of the beginning of the 19th century], the ongoing artificial reforms, and the artificial heroes produced by these reforms, have been the main problem obstructing our cause."
Also the highly emotional discourse which makes a radical distinction between the elitist, westernized so called "white Turks" and the supposedly "real" and "authentic" nation composed of so called "black Turks," which has been widely disseminated by AKP and its partisans in pro-government think tanks and media, emanates directly from Kısakürek.
CONCLUSIONS: The earlier assumptions about the AKP – that the party's political mission and ideology is to produce and disseminate a "healthy synthesis" of Western political thinking and Islamic religious-political traditions – were deeply flawed. From the İttihad-i Muhammedi Fırkası to Necip Fazil Kısakürek and the current AKP, the Turkish Islamist tradition selectively utilizes Western political concepts, but ultimately its purpose is to reject them in order to rebuild an allegedly more superior and legitimate, "authentic" Islamic socio-political order.
The AKP is a deeply anti-western political movement. It does not aim to "correct" or "normalize" past "excesses" but to annihilate the republican and Ottoman secularizing-westernizing reforms altogether. Unlike in previous decades, the Turkish Islamic movement has now made its peace with the state – by totally conquering it. President Erdoğan did not suddenly change from a genuine democrat to an authoritarian Islamist: the ideological and organizational matrix of the AKP is deeply undemocratic.
Toni Alaranta, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. He is the author of the forthcoming book National and State Identity in Turkey: The Transformation of the Republic's Status in the International System (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015). His previous publications include Contemporary Kemalism: From Universal Secular-Humanism to Extreme Turkish Nationalism (Routledge, 2014).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2016, 11:56:34 AM
The moves against teachers and professors doesn't quite jibe with the story that the coup was Islamist.
he now gets to replace them with people of his own brand of islamism
We need someone to come out and bat for Erdogan, defending this as merely within the bounds of democratic behaviour.
Quote from: mongers on July 20, 2016, 01:23:08 PM
We need someone to come out and bat for Erdogan, defending this as merely within the bounds of democratic behaviour.
but where can such a man be found? a man who will defend erdogan with
Righteousness
And
Zeal? :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 20, 2016, 10:40:41 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 20, 2016, 08:07:34 AM
Besides major Turkish news outlets blaming the US for the coup attempt, Erdogan in a recent speech said the US needs to leave the Med. What is going on with Turkey? This bodes poorly for continued relations with US and NATO, and Europe. I didn't think his view was to move towards Iranian type thinking but now I'm not so sure and have no idea how things may turn out. It was obvious how Erdogan was neutralizing the military with the purges of generals, replacing them with Erdogan loyalists. And as noted often here Turkey has been moving away from the constitution and democracy they did have, led by the ever tightening control of Erdogan. He's gained even after big losses to his party in recent elections. Now after the coup it appears clear that the Parliament will vote in favor of what he wants, which will allow him more so to gain the powers he wants to take over and create the autocracy.
He has already pissed off the Russians, now he needs to alienate the Americans. With Europe giving him the cold shoulder on his "join the EU" push, and ISIS blowing stuff up in his country, Erdogan is well on his way to achieving splendid diplomatic isolation.
That would seem to be the result, isolationism. He's losing everyone, I don't think Turkey/Erdogan desires to ally with Iran either or to go that route of an Islamic rogue state. I think Turkey's brand of Islam embraces the notion of separation of religion and state - that's what I heard/read somewhere.
He's removing thousands of judges and others on trumped up charges that they supported the coup. No way they could have determined that in just a few days investigation. As others have also noted, this is his final push to get rid of the democratic institutions and persons that would be against his power grab. It would seem he's looking to become a pariah. So what is his overall game plan? :hmm:
Erdogan just declared a state of emergency for 3 months.
He's really doing this by the book, isn't he?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 20, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 20, 2016, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 20, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
Hasn't there been a public reconciliation with Russia? Erdogan and Putin seem birds of a feather so I'm sure they'd find a way to align their countries.
They are very similar, but that doesn't necessarily make them friends. Putin is among other things a Russian populist nationalist; and Russia has historic ambitions that conflict with those of Turkey.
It is true that Erdogan has been attempting to mend fences with Putin; they are supposed to meet in August. But then, Erdogan's been mending fences with other prior victims of his anger recently - he's even reached a rapport with Israel, as of last month.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.727369
My guess is that he was starting to feel a trifle friendless - he can't be feuding with everyone at the same time, so if he wants to start some new feuds, he has to end some old ones.
Yeah, there are some big hurdles to Turkey and Russia being allies. In addition to what you mention, and other things, anti Muslim sentiment is quite high in Russia, and support for Azerbaijan is very high in Turkey (with Russia strongly supporting Armenia). Russia strongly supports Assad, Turkey is strongly against the guy.
None of these are problems for Putin. In fact, lately Putin has been mending fences with Erdogan rather than the other way around. As I said, Turkey may become a security risk for NATO if Russia manages to get a connection with it.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 20, 2016, 04:59:40 PM
None of these are problems for Putin. In fact, lately Putin has been mending fences with Erdogan rather than the other way around. As I said, Turkey may become a security risk for NATO if Russia manages to get a connection with it.
Also lots of Turkish nutjobs with tenuous connections to Erdogan support the insurgency in the Caucasus and there is some pan Turkish sentiment as well that runs into conflict with Russian interests in Central Asia.
Is the power at Incirlik still off? Is Erdogan pushing the US that far?
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 20, 2016, 05:32:43 PM
Is the power at Incirlik still off? Is Erdogan pushing the US that far?
Combat operations resumed, so I assume power is on.
Some Iranian media are reporting that Erdogan may have been tipped off by Russian intelligence services about the coming coup.
Quote
Austria summons Turkish ambassador over pro-Erdoğan demonstrations in Vienna
Austria has summoned Turkey's ambassador to explain Ankara's links to demonstrations in Austria in support of Turkey's president Tayyip Erdogan, who is leading a crackdown after a failed coup, Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz on Thursday.
Kurz told ORF radio that the ambassador would be asked whether Turkish officials encouraged thousands of people in Austria to take to the streets over recent days in support of Erdogan after the attempt to unseat him.
"We want to clarify... which direction Turkey is going to take," Kurz said in an interview broadcast by ORF on Thursday.
"Secondly, we have evidence that the demonstrations for Erdogan that have taken place in Vienna were called for directly from Turkey... and that, of course, is absolutely untenable and we want to protest against that," he said.
Erdogan declared a state of emergency on Wednesday as he widened a crackdown against thousands of members of the security forces, judiciary, civil service and academia after the failed military coup.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-austria-idUSKCN1010GE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-austria-idUSKCN1010GE)
No spontaneous demonstrations. Everything organised from Turkey! Shock!
What does arresting 9,000 officers do to Turkey's military readiness? (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/middleeast/turkey-military-failed-coup/)
The gates of Constantinople stand wide open; now is the time for the Greek to revenge the humiliation of the Treaty of Lausanne.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 21, 2016, 06:14:55 AM
Quote
Austria summons Turkish ambassador over pro-Erdoğan demonstrations in Vienna
Austria has summoned Turkey's ambassador to explain Ankara's links to demonstrations in Austria in support of Turkey's president Tayyip Erdogan, who is leading a crackdown after a failed coup, Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz on Thursday.
Kurz told ORF radio that the ambassador would be asked whether Turkish officials encouraged thousands of people in Austria to take to the streets over recent days in support of Erdogan after the attempt to unseat him.
"We want to clarify... which direction Turkey is going to take," Kurz said in an interview broadcast by ORF on Thursday.
"Secondly, we have evidence that the demonstrations for Erdogan that have taken place in Vienna were called for directly from Turkey... and that, of course, is absolutely untenable and we want to protest against that," he said.
Erdogan declared a state of emergency on Wednesday as he widened a crackdown against thousands of members of the security forces, judiciary, civil service and academia after the failed military coup.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-austria-idUSKCN1010GE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-austria-idUSKCN1010GE)
No spontaneous demonstrations. Everything organised from Turkey! Shock!
I'd have been leery of allowing Turks into Vienna in the first place.
About a dozen tv stations and newspapers have lost their permissions to air/publish due to their involvement in Guelist movement.
Erdogan really is not wasting any time is he?
Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2016, 02:07:57 PM
About a dozen tv stations and newspapers have lost their permissions to air/publish due to their involvement in Guelist movement.
Erdogan really is not wasting any time is he?
Weird. All of the Gulenist papers and TV stations were already shut down. I guess maybe these are the ones who once said that Gulen is not so bad.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2016, 02:13:52 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2016, 02:07:57 PM
About a dozen tv stations and newspapers have lost their permissions to air/publish due to their involvement in Guelist movement.
Erdogan really is not wasting any time is he?
Weird. All of the Gulenist papers and TV stations were already shut down. I guess maybe these are the ones who once said that Gulen is not so bad.
my guess is these are the ones that did things other than praising Erdogan and his magnificient manlihood.
Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2016, 02:42:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2016, 02:13:52 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2016, 02:07:57 PM
About a dozen tv stations and newspapers have lost their permissions to air/publish due to their involvement in Guelist movement.
Erdogan really is not wasting any time is he?
Weird. All of the Gulenist papers and TV stations were already shut down. I guess maybe these are the ones who once said that Gulen is not so bad.
my guess is these are the ones that did things other than praising Erdogan and his magnificient manlihood.
Right now, I wouldn't want to be the guy who said Erdogan was like Gollum. I think that is now definitely seen as a pledge of loyalty to Gulen.
Erdogan behaviour and diplomacy increasingly reminds me of an AI player from Civ5.
See Turkish Intelligence HQ Strafed by Rebel Helicopter
http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/727198275936
:o
It's okay, it was a secular strafing.