WikiLeaks Releases 300K Turkey Government Emails In Response To Erdogan's Post-Coup Purges (rt.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from RT: Despite a massive cyberattack on its website, WikiLeaks has published the first batch of nearly 300,000 emails from the Turkish ruling AKP party's internal server and thousands of attached files in response to the Ankara government's widespread post-coup purges. Some 294,548 emails pertaining to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) were made public on Tuesday at 11:00pm Ankara time. WikiLeaks says that the release of almost 300,000 email bodies together with several thousand attached files, is just part one in the series and encompasses 762 mailboxes beginning with 'A' through to 'I.' All emails are attributed to "akparti.org.tr," the primary domain of the main political force in the country, and cover a period from 2010 up until July 6, 2016, just a week before the failed military coup. The NGO also revealed that one of the emails contained an Excel database of the cell phone numbers of AKP deputies. Prior to the release WikiLeaks suffered a "sustained attack" as it warned that Turkish government entities might try to interfere with the publication of the AKP material. The attacks are still continuing and users are experiencing difficulties in accessing the material. WikiLeaks reassured the public that they are "winning" the battle. A few hours after the release, WikiLeaks tweeted a screenshot showing the database to be blocked in Turkey, claiming that Ankara "ordered [the release] to be blocked nationwide." More than 200 people have died and over 1,400 injured from the attempted coup. Thousands of people have also been detained and/or lost their posts across the judiciary, military, interior ministry and civil service sectors. The Turkish president Erdogan is blaming the U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen for orchestrating the attempted coup.

Comments

So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are emails showing that the President made this coup happen in order to weed out rebels and to strengthen his power?

Re:So what happens if...

[fustakrakich]

Nothing

Re:So what happens if...

[Thanshin]

Nothing. Erdogan will say it's fake and his loyal followers will believe it.

Those who don't believe are traitors and will be dealt with accordingly.

Re:So what happens if...

[Opportunist]

It is already blatantly obvious that there has at the very least been some sort of expectation of this, and the people cheer and celebrate the wannabe dictator anyway. You think that knowing that he staged the coup would change anything?

Re:So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

The scary part is that this is exactly the model Putin seems to be using and it's working effectively for him so there's no reason to think it won't for Erdogan. I think the idea he arranged the coup needs evidence to be credible but it seems clear from the response to it that he already had plans to oust 'dissenters' from governmental and military institutions and the coup is simply a good excuse for putting them into action.

It's a real shame because Istanbul has been one of my favourite places to visit, and the Turks I've met are fantastic and interesting people. It's depressing to think that it might become less open and tolerant in future.

Re:So what happens if...

[Rei]

Agree wholeheartedly... I love the amazing, "Gee, just 24 hours after the coup I happen to find a list in this drawer of nearly 3000 judges that must be dismissed..." coincidence ;)

I've long said that Erdogan is Turkey's Putin, and he shows it ever more with every day. Thankfully he's not in a position to start "annexing" his neighbors...

Re:So what happens if...

[dunkelfalke]

He is just bombing them.
Erdogan is far worse than Putin. At least Russians are still allowed to leave Russia and Putin made it perfectly clear that death penalty is unconstitutional due to the right to life.

Re:So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more Turks on the street, but instead of hunting down people who didn't vote for Erdogan, just hunting down every none Turk because Erdogan will claim it is all the fault of the lying West?
 
By the way, I'm talking about the situation in Western Europe, not Turkey. Since Friday every single day thousands of Turks protests against other Turks and beat up Turks or destroy Turkish shops in my village of about 8000 people. And don't try to ask questions what it is all about, because you will be beaten up, as some camera teams experienced. Of course the media doesn't cover these stories like it should, we can not put those 'moderate' Turks in a bad light now can we?

Re:So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bro, Rei is a hypocrite whenever he comments about Russia/Putin.
I'll vote you up for your informative respond to Rei's pseudo-balancing comment when I have mod points!

Re:So what happens if...

[Opportunist]

Don't know about your place, around here what they destroy is shops and cafes that are (allegedly) owned by Kurdish owners.

Turks ain't just Turks, ya know...

Re:So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if none of them do?

What happens if it's found that the USA had important people backing this coup?

What happens if it's found that there's an email there from Saddam Hussein sent after his execution?

What happens if one of them shows Shrub planning 11/9?

Or that the Illuminati arranged this?

What happens if we find out a reason for any of these questions, including yours?

Re:So what happens if...

[Agripa]

Then the president says they are fakes.

"Democracy"

[Empiric]

Fascism is fascism, even when the fascist got the most votes.

Re:"Democracy"

[whoever57]

Don't forget that Hitler was initially democratically elected to his position.

Erdogan is clearly following Putin's play book. After terming-out as Prime Minister, gets elected to a mostly ceremonial position (President) and then turn that position into something like dictator for life.

Why are judges being arrested? Clearly, Erdogan is using this situation to get rid of many opponents.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

well it's not like the fascist wouldn't get the most votes after getting power and using it to make sure of that(by for example controlling the police to not investigate your stuff).
the whole coup and purge are pretty suspect due to that.. me thinks it was just a purge.

erdogan wouldn't understand fair elections, he is way beyond that already and unable to step down gracefully so he is all in and so are his cronies(if they lose power it's jailtime, so they're pre-emptively putting everyone who would put them into jail into the jail).

finnish foreign minister tweeted something "I hope democracy for turkey blabla" during the coup and was asking myself if he is rooting for erdogan or for the coup. the crappy thing about erdogan and turkey is that he is given way too much leeway by the west already and so thinks he is untouchable - though he must have been starting to worry about that too because of asking for russians for help and using the coup to get rid of the unpleasantness with the downed russian jet, on which he seems to have done a total 180 now.

Re:"Democracy"

[bloodhawk]

Hitler wasn't actually democratically elected, he took power after elections and never won an election himself.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was never elected to his position of chancellor. He was appointed.

Re:"Democracy"

[bkmoore]

Hitler was never elected to his position of chancellor. He was appointed.

Unlike the U.S., Germany has a parliamentary system. Mrs. Merkel was appointed by the parliament because she led the largest faction. Same thing in 1933.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't prime ministers (or Chancellors) sort of like the Speaker of the House of Representatives (selected from the group instead of elected directly)? The difference is that the Speaker isn't the head of the government.

That position makes sense for hereditary monarchies, but no sense for governments with elected Presidents.

Re: "Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

You almost got it right,but you used one letter too that you shouldn't have.
It should read (m)any opponents/opposition.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Demonizing the democracy is what happens before a military takeover. Fake fascism is normal. Look at all the recent takeovers and you'll see the elected government is demonized as a threat, even when they're trying to hold an election, even when the military control the election process.

I notice this is from RT.COM, Putin's mouthpiece.

Putin hates Turkey because it shoots down his invading planes and won't bow to him. So you'd expect him and his astroturfers to be out on this one.

Re:"Democracy"

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know what's fascism? Complaining about a free and fair election and trying to overthrow the legitimate government with armed force. "I don't agree with this" isn't what fascism means...although far too many people who are educated enough to know better are using the word that way.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite the same, Hitler actually wasn't even appointed at the election, he and his party were defeated at elections, Hitler did backroom deals to seize the position some time later after working to undermine the existing incumbent

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The elections weren't "free and fair", the media isn't "free and fair".
2) Hitler was a fascist, and a democratically elected one too.

Complaining about an armed coup is fair and valid. But complaining about post-coup purges where thousands of judges, teachers and politically affiliated people are locked up two days after the coup. Unless you're a complete fucking retard, you know that you can't compose such a list in two days.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

But complaining about post-coup purges where thousands of judges, teachers and politically affiliated people are locked up two days after the coup

...is equally valid.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Russophobe has reached the new low:

BBC - After Erdogan apology, Russia brings Turkey in from the cold
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36689801

Turkish president apologizes for downing of Russian warplane last year - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/turkey-apologizes-for-shooting-down-russian-warplane-last-year/2016/06/27/d969e0ea-3c6d-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Hitler was initially democratically elected to his position.

Wrong. And four idiots modded this shit up.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Russophobe? Don't equate Putin and Russia, as though the dictator is the dictated to.

Ending sanctions is not the same as alls-well-and-good. You did not dispute RT as Putin's mouthpiece, or that his pro-Putin astroturf is here.

Re:"Democracy"

[johanw]

In the UK, ministers have to be a member of the parliament too. In most parliamentary systems they can be outsiders, members of the coalition of parties that forms the government and usually has a majority in parliament.

The US system, with a directly choosen president, results in practice always in a 2-party system. So does a district voting system like the UK has. In a parliamentary system where one person = one vote, smaller parties can have some influence too if they are required for a majority.

Re:"Democracy"

[johanw]

And Erdogan has already mentioned Hitler as an example to be admired...

Re:"Democracy"

[dunkelfalke]

Leading the largest fraction is not enough to be appointed a a chancellor. The fraction has to have the absolute majority in the parliament, otherwise a coalition is necessary.

But Hitler wasn't appointed because NSDAP was the largest fraction. He was appointed by a scared senile president because he was coerced to do that by big business and Franz von Papen, who wanted Hitler to be his puppet. Needless to say, von Papen was an idiot to believe that.

Re:"Democracy"

[DerekLyons]

*sigh* He didn't need to be. In a parliamentary government, the leader of the majority party wields considerable power and influence. The Nazi Party was democratically elected and became the largest party in the Reichstag.

Re:"Democracy"

[DNS-and-BIND]

1) The elections were valid according to the international community.
2) Reductio ad Hitlerum, a fallacious argument. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are fascists.

I see you fail to grasp that the fascists are the people with uniforms, tanks, guns, and who march in step. Seriously, are they that hard to spot? You know, the ones who just tried to overthrow the government and start fascism? Anyone getting "purged" is pro-fascist, and honestly I can't say anyone in the world is sorry for them. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. Let this be a warning to all those who would ally with fascists.

A lot of people are going to scream and shout because of their Islamophobia. Are you on the side of the Islamophobes and fascists, or on the side of the people?

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Astroturf? Which?
Was Wikileaks hacked before released emails?
Did Wikileaks release emails?
How original AC poster told that Turkey "won't bow to him (Putin)" when Edogan officially apologized to Russia?

Re:"Democracy"

[Hognoxious]

In the UK, ministers have to be a member of the parliament too

Not true. Several aristocrats (who would be ineligible as MPs due to being members of the HoL) have even served as PM, e.g. Lord Salisbury.

More recently there have been a few appointments of union leaders and prominent people from outside The House.

Re:"Democracy"

[Shinobi]

You seriously don't understand what fascism is. The USA is far more fascist than the Turkish army. In fact, Erdogan's AKP is a highly fascist party, espousing the traditional fascist values of Strength, Purity, Unity, Corporatism and adding in ultra-orthodox Islam in the mix. As can be seen in the firing of 100's of thousands of teachers, judges etc.

If you had actually studied the history of Turkey in the 20th century, you'd have learned that the turkish military coups have actually served to protect the secular constitution and democracy, while Erdgogan is hell-bent on dismantling it, by for example seriously violating the few powers he has as president. He has a private army in the form of the indoctrinated AKP members, which he did order out into the streets. Erdgogan is also on record as admiring Hitler.

Re:"Democracy"

[Shinobi]

That should be 10's of thousands, got one 0 too many.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

He WASN'T the leader of the majority party. The Nazi party lost the election however the winning party still did not have an outright majority, Coalitions had to be formed and lots of backroom deals, Hitler worked to disrupt the appointed leader and eventually when he stepped down because he could not get anything done the president reluctantly appointed hitler. The president later died and Hitler seized the position and instated himself as Fuhrer, hitlers party and hitler himself never won an election nor where they the majority.

Re:"Democracy"

[TheSync]

The NSDAP (Nazis) won the most seats in the Reichstag in the 1932 German federal election, but not a majority.

Adolph Hitler did run for Reichsprasident (President) in 1932 and lost to Paul von Hindenburg's re-election. Hitler received 36.8% of the vote in a 3-way race.

Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler (Chancellor) in 1933 by President Hindenburg. The chancellor and his cabinet were appointed and dismissed by the president during the Weimar Republic. No vote of confirmation was required in the Reichstag.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

you are still wrong I think. But it is probably because you do not fully understand the multi-party system in many European democracies.

In 1932, the nsdap became the largest party, although they did not have a majority. However, other when considering other antidemocratic elements (the DNVP), there was a majority. In many countries today this means the largest party gets to form a government, often a coalition. It is common that this party also delivers the prime minister, though not required.

Hitler lost the presidential elections. But in Germany, in contrast to say France and the US, the president does not have that much power.

Because the coalition of "antidemocrats" had the majority, it would have been normal that they also deliver the Chancellor, and this is exactly what happened (although, Hindenburg, the president, probably know exactly what this would lead to).

Now Hitler finally was (democratically, although the system had failures) given power, he rapidly started to enact laws that abolished the democratic system.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Hitler was initially democratically elected to his position.

No he wasn't. That's an urban myth.

He was beaten by Hindenburg when he ran as president and the nazi party was never able to gather more than a third of votes in any free elections.

Even in the elections of 1933, held under SA terror after the Reichstag Fire decree, the nazi weren't able to form a majority in the parliament. His actual 'position' as fuehrer and the whole nazi rule was based on a continuous 'state of emergency' (the Enabling Act of 1933).

That doesn't mean that in theory fascists of different kinds will never be able to take power by democratical means, but it's not what usually happens.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

In an election with 60 parties on the ballot, winning 33% of the votes is democratic victory. The NSDAP was by far the biggest party. Even though the Hitler-Von Papen coalition was a minority coalition, no democratically justifiable and workable alternative coalitions were available. President Hindenburg was hardly pro-Hitler. He tried hard to find alternatives, working around the NSDAP, and initially appointed Von Papen with a much smaller minority coalition. Hindenburg was clearly not very democratically minded.

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

Well, he did win the last halfway democratic elections in Germany. What you probably are thinking of are the "elections" held half a year later that were at best a show event.

But technically, yes, he was elected.

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

Then he should do as his great example did in May 45. The sooner the better.

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

Again, in the elections in March 33 he gained 43% of the votes. One can argue that there has been massive intimidation going on that bordered on civil war, but in the end it was still mostly a democratic election with different parties and various parties gaining sizable amounts of votes, so the socialists with 18% and the communists with 12%. It was a landslide victory for the NSDAP, though, with them gaining 92 seats in the assembly.

I think you might be mixing a few events together here. Before this, Hitler tried to be elected as president, and here he failed against Hindenburg.

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

Hindenburg didn't give a shit about the democracy. Actually one of his demands to Hitler was that this was to be the last elections held (a demand Hitler could easily and gladly fulfill...). Hindenburg didn't want to appoint Hitler because he thought that he's actually a socialist.

Just because someone is celebrated, famous and popular doesn't mean he knows jack shit...

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

*sigh*

No. Read.

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

No, he won about 43% of the votes and almost an absolute majority in the March 33 elections.

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

A coalition was necessary. It was also what convinced Hindenburg to agree to it. Hitler had 288 of the 647 seats. With the 52 seats from the DNVP he had a comfortable majority, and that coalition was also what swayed Hindenburg who thought that Hitler was actually socialist (I have really no clue what gave him that idea, maybe senility is the best explanation here).

The last coup, the enabling act, needed a 2/3 majority, which he pretty much gained by having the communists arrested and keeping the socialists out of the chamber. Which looks curiously a lot like what's been happening lately in Turkey...

Re:"Democracy"

[Opportunist]

Right.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Reductio ad Hitlerum, a fallacious argument. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are fascists.

The OP said that:

Fascism is fascism, even when the fascist got the most votes.

And you implied that OP's conclusion was somehow invalid:

You know what's fascism? Complaining about a free and fair election and trying to overthrow the legitimate government with armed force.

And I gave you an example of a fascist autocrat, Adolf Hitler, who won the elections by acquiring the majority of votes. You just tried to sound more intelligent than you obviously are by pulling some of those cool "logical fallacies" from a list some basement dweller put up on the Internet.

I see you fail to grasp that the fascists are the people with uniforms, tanks, guns, and who march in step.

No. Fascists are not defined by the clothing they wear.

A lot of people are going to scream and shout because of their Islamophobia. Are you on the side of the Islamophobes and fascists, or on the side of the people?

Did Putin's gang teach you how successful the term "russophobe" was, and now you want to try it yourself, in a reapplied manner, of course? Your whole premise there is a prime example of a fallacious statement. Study it carefully by contrasting it with some of those nice little "logical fallacies" lists you seem to want to read.

Anyone getting "purged" is pro-fascist, and honestly I can't say anyone in the world is sorry for them.

Again, you assume some ridiculous shit. If Erdogan decided to purge you, would that make you a fascist without any further proof or an in-depth analysis of your ideological background? Fuck no.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're a complete fucking retard, you know that you can't compose such a list in two days.

Of course you can, if you:
1. Don't care that much about hit and miss ratio
2. Don't try to do it all by yourself, instead use your local activists. Erdogan might not know who is the person to catch in Northern Dumphole, but his Northern Dumpholean activists certainly do.

Re:"Democracy"

[Megol]

Dictatorship doesn't automatically imply fascism, still it's a better link than the standard use as "something I don't agree with".

PS Nazism isn't fascism either - just inspired by it.

Re:"Democracy"

[JaredOfEuropa]

Under the peculiar Turkish constitution, the army is actually charged with preserving the constitution and in particular the secular nature of the state. IIRC, the government is obliged to cede power to the Military Council when asked to do so by the military high command. If they do not do this, the army steps in and makes them. When these steps are followed, it is a legal and constitutional process... however what happened last week was an intervention following a coup within the military; the intervention was therefore not constitutional. However one could argue that the army still had a duty to step in and preserve the democratic and secular nature of the state, especially since Erdogan had already purged the military leadership and replaced them with his cronies, bypassing this constitutional safety valve.

With that said, there is an increasing amount of indication that this coup was staged. The small scale of the whole affair, the strange decisions made by the military insurgents (they went for loudness rather than effectiveness), the ease with which groups of them surrendered (according to some rumours, a lot of the soldiers were just conscripts thinking they were going on a military exercise), the repeatedly reported lack of any attempt to go after or at least capture high ranking government officials, followed by the sudden emergence of stories of miraculously narrow escapes by some of them, including the Heroic Leader. And of course the incredible far-reaching purges that were set in motion moments after the coup was suppressed. There's no proof this was staged, and even if it was I doubt we'll find evidence in the leaked emails, but I still say something smells. Bad. If you want to stage a coup without doing too much damage and without the danger of it escalating into an actual coup, then this is how to do it.

Re: "Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't say that in Europe because it would invalidate the sacred notion that representative democracy is the only civilized form of democracy, and that direct democracy is mob rule. Shut up.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahahaha! 15,200 teachers and school officials have been sacked, 1,577 university faculty directors have been ordered to resign 2,700+ judges have been sacked and out of these 2,700, almost 800 have been arrested.

Your definition of (not) fascism is fascinating.

Re:"Democracy"

[thegarbz]

Who never won an election? Remember Hitler was not a president and most of the world does not vote for a figurehead. His party most definitely did win an election, and even after he was leader there were several key democratic processes he won, e.g. Austria joining Germany was won with a 99% majority, and Hitler was the primary campaigner.

Let's not pretend that Hitler didn't have the overwhelming support of the population just because he wasn't elected as a president in an American style system.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't forget that Hitler was initially democratically elected to his position."

Elected to which position?
Hitler's party never got a majority vote, the other parties formed a coalition and considered Hitler over and done with. Then it took him years of political shenanigans to get to the position of Reichs Chansellor.

Re:"Democracy"

[Talderas]

Even after Hitler became chancellor the deal to power wasn't absolutely sealed until the positions of Chancellor and President were united via referendum.

Re:"Democracy"

[Chrisq]

You know what's fascism? Complaining about a free and fair election and trying to overthrow the legitimate government with armed force. "I don't agree with this" isn't what fascism means...although far too many people who are educated enough to know better are using the word that way.

In turkey the Military has (had) a role in preserving the secular state. A number of times they have overthrown governments moving towards islamic theocracy, then either immediately or in a few months held fresh elections. This time they lost. The muslims have won and turkey will inevitably go the way of anywhere the muslims have control and become a hell-hole. The dream of Turkey as a modern secular state is over.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading all your posts and subsequent replies, I think it's fair to say you got owned. You even brought your own tar and feathers, haha! Must be an all-time first. :-)

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

*sigh* He didn't need to be. In a parliamentary government, the leader of the majority party wields considerable power and influence. The Nazi Party was democratically elected and became the largest party in the Reichstag.

Yeah, and that's why Hitler became Reichschancelor after the mid 1932 elections, where the NSDAP first became the largest party. No, wait, he didn't.

No, in a proportional representativeparliamentary government, the leader of the largest coalition party wields considerable power and influence. Which doesn't have to be the party with the most votes.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't even close to democratic by that stage, With Nazi SS basically terrorising and intimidating voters to ensure votes, even then they did not win an outright majority, regardless democracy was already well and truly over by then.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

"military coup" and "democracy" don't go together. Sorry. They are exact opposites.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

Well, he did win the last halfway democratic elections in Germany.

Cough - "To further ensure a Nazi majority in the vote, Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as so-called deputy sheriffs or auxiliary police ", Meanwhile all MPs from the third largest party were in jail.

You call that halfway democratic? Heck, even Erdogan and Putin aren't that "halfway" democratic yet.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

overwhelming support? even in the last quasi democratic election where they basically ran a terror campaign they did not win a majority. At no stage did Hitler have overwhelming support of the population where it was not at gun point.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

In the UK, ministers have to be a member of the parliament too

Not true. Several aristocrats (who would be ineligible as MPs due to being members of the HoL) have even served as PM, e.g. Lord Salisbury.

More recently there have been a few appointments of union leaders and prominent people from outside The House.

You are confusing the Parliament with the House of Commons (lower house). The House of Lords (upper house) together with the HoC forms the UK Parliament. And for a non-MP to become a UK minister all you have to do is ask the Queen to make him/her a Peer and such a Member of the HoL (and thus MP).

Re:"Democracy"

[Shinobi]

No, they are not exact opposites. A military coup is a method of change, just like armed insurrection/rebellion. A military coup can be used to remove an autocratic regime and pave the way for a democratic regime. As has been done in Turkey a couple of times, when some political leaders went towards an authoritarian islamistic regime and sharia law instead of secular law and democracy. As has been pointed out elsewhere, military intervention in such cases was an actual part of the constitution of Turkey, and technically still is, because Erdogan did not have the authority to change the constitution like he did in 2003. Which is one of the reasons why he's sacked thousands of judges, including 5 of the judges on the supreme court.

Re:"Democracy"

[mujadaddy]

I get that feeling too; the way I explained it, Erdogan has proved himself a compulsive, comprehensive liar. So when he says "Pennsylvania Cleric did it!" you can be assured he did not. When he says "This coup was attempted by traitors!" you can be assured that the actions were carried out by loyal soldiers ...

Re:"Democracy"

[Hognoxious]

If even a tenth of the people being arrested were actually conspirators or even sympathisers, they'd have won. And the investigation is going incredibly quickly, isn't it?

I'm detecting a distinct whiff of false flag around this. For those who aren't familiar with it, it's a bit like Reichstag embers.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The elections weren't "free and fair", the media isn't "free and fair". 2) Hitler was a fascist, and a democratically elected one too.

Complaining about an armed coup is fair and valid. But complaining about post-coup purges where thousands of judges, teachers and politically affiliated people are locked up two days after the coup. Unless you're a complete fucking retard, you know that you can't compose such a list in two days.

Hit the nail right on the head my friend.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

"military coup" and "democracy" don't go together. Sorry. They are exact opposites.

If what you see as democracy is actually fascism in disguise, military coup looks much more like the real democracy than the existing regime.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler wasn't actually democratically elected, he took power after elections and never won an election himself.

(mostly) incorrect

http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/

Re:"Democracy"

[TangoMargarine]

Any time you have a vote and 99% of the population agrees on any issue I guarantee you there's massive vote fraud taking place.

You could take a referendum on whether every U.S. citizen should get a free car and blowjob and you wouldn't get 99% voting yes.

Re:"Democracy"

[TangoMargarine]

Even in the elections of 1933, held under SA terror after the Reichstag Fire decree, the nazi weren't able to form a majority in the parliament.

The point you seem to be making here doesn't work. There were a lot of parties in the election; the Nazis got 33% of the vote. The next-highest was 20%. Of course they didn't have a majority; Weimar Germany was one of those coalition-style Parliament states. And naturally they appoint a guy from the largest party to chancellor/president (whichever one it was).

After he was appointed, then Hitler got those two positions combined, and pushed through a series of really bad idea legislation that nobody voted down, one of which was the Enabling Act which basically made him dictator, yes.

So technically Hitler himself wasn't elected, but his party was, which then more or less resulted in his appointment. A distinction without a difference, really. It's not like they really had many other options on who to appoint that would keep the government from falling apart. This was like their fourth election in the last couple years or something and all the other parties refused to cooperate with each other.

Re:"Democracy"

[barc0001]

> Erdogan is clearly following Putin's play book.

Putin's playbook? I'd say there's more than a little of the Goring playbook in there too coupled with some adlibbing.

"Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

It's looking more and more like the coup attempt was either encouraged and Erdogan took full advantage, or it was a false flag attack. This way Erdogan doesn't have to tell the people they are being attacked and (inserrt group here) is exposing the country to danger, he arranged a demonstration of it.

Now he's in the denounce whoever he wants as coup conspirators and make them the enemies the people rally against phase. For example, this morning it was announced that they banned all academics from leaving the country:

http://www.reuters.com/article/turkey-security-education-idUSI7N1A3004

So now he's revoked 21,000 private teacher licenses, removed 24 broadcast licenses from TV and radio stations, demanded the resigation of all 1577 deans of schools in the country, and fired 15000 education ministry personnel. You know what THAT sound like? Time to start indoctrinating the youth of Turkey with his truth, not the objective truth.

And that doesn't even go into his removal of the cops, judges, Energy ministry employees, finance ministry employees, governors, interior ministry personnel, and more. AND he banned all 3 million civil servants from taking vacation indefinitely.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

This is blatantly false. Hitler won the 1933 federal election in Germany.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

When there's more than 2 candidates in an election, you don't need to win an outright majority. Hitler won the 1933 elections with far more votes than the #2 candidate.

It's no different than the US. In the 2000 elections, neither Gore nor Bush won an outright majority of votes, because of Nader. It doesn't matter though: that's how it works when there's more than 2 candidates. In the 1933 German election, there were 6 candidates. Hitler was the clear winner with over 40% of the vote, which isn't that far from what Gore got with only 3 candidates in that race.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

You don't need "overwhelming support of the population" in a democracy. In any election where there's more than 2 candidates, it's entirely likely the winner will not have a clear majority (at least 50% of the vote). You can't call that "not democracy"; restricting a race to 2 candidates is not democratic in any way, unless perhaps you do some kind of runoff voting, which almost no country ever does (there's some local elections here in the US which do this, but only in modern times).

It is entirely democratic for a candidate to win an election with significantly less than 50% of the vote, unless you're going to somehow claim that no first-past-the-post election is democratic, which is just silly since that's how most elections are conducted, flawed as that voting system may be.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

Don't worry, at the current rate, your "100's of thousands" mistype will actually be correct in a few days.

Re:"Democracy"

[thegarbz]

Any time you have a vote and 99% of the population agrees on any issue I guarantee you there's massive vote fraud taking place.

You are speaking like a person who never lived in a truly tough time. My grandma voted for the Annexation of Austria and told me stories about it constantly. Hitler promised jobs, growth and building at a time where she and my grandpa were queuing for the possibility of getting a loaf of bread. All the while across the border in Germany things were looking awesome by comparison. I asked her one day if she would do it again, and she said in a heartbeat (or the German equivalent anyway) not only because the entire country was desperate but because at the time he offered genuine benefits and no real alternatives existed.

Sure there may have been slight fraud but the number was still an extreme and overwhelming majority that culminated in a visit from Hitler to Vienna greeted by 200,000 cheering Austrians with no protesters in sight. And the number greeting him was only that low because more people don't actually fit in Heldenplatz.

Don't be so quick to dismiss things as fraud. The world wasn't always full of wonderful choices and split politics.

Re: "Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gibraltar and falkland islands remaining british were each that sort of level! I guess feelings ran high.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Leading the largest fraction is not enough to be appointed a a chancellor. The fraction has to have the absolute majority in the parliament, otherwise a coalition is necessary.

Not here in Canada.

Our government is formed from 20% to 40% of votes. Its not the choice of the remaining of the electorate 40% to 70% for the other parties. Its a strange feeling when the majority of your neighbours did not vote for the Prime Minister's and its party governing us.

As long as "we have bread and games" and no war and free healthcare for the majority of us we dont focus very much on what is going wrong.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need "overwhelming support of the population" in a democracy. In any election where there's more than 2 candidates, it's entirely likely the winner will not have a clear majority (at least 50% of the vote). You can't call that "not democracy"; restricting a race to 2 candidates is not democratic in any way, unless perhaps you do some kind of runoff voting, which almost no country ever does (there's some local elections here in the US which do this, but only in modern times).

Well, there is also California's Jungle Primary, which takes the top 2 candidates out of a pool for the actual election, and Georgia/Louisiana are two states in the US with a majority requirement. Then there's IRV, which is common in many places.

I believe Austria also had a run-off, though the courts in that country decided to require another election due to some process errors. I don't know about other countries, though some like the UK don't even have a public vote for leadership, while France does have a runoff for the Presidency if you don't get a majority, I can't speak for lower levels.

It is entirely democratic for a candidate to win an election with significantly less than 50% of the vote, unless you're going to somehow claim that no first-past-the-post election is democratic, which is just silly since that's how most elections are conducted, flawed as that voting system may be.

A lot of people do have problems with it, which is why various systems exist to counter it.

Of course, that's not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with the US electoral system, but no, you can't pretend there aren't concerns.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

A lot of people do have problems with it, which is why various systems exist to counter it.

A few people have a problem with it, so in a few small venues (like your examples) there's better systems, but overall there aren't. Heck, if you did a poll of random Americans, you'd probably find most of them think FPTP is just fine and we should stick with that.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

You don't need "overwhelming support of the population" in a democracy.

No, but you need "overwhelming support of the population" to rule alone and undisputed like he did.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

Hitler wasn't actually democratically elected, he took power after elections and never won an election himself.

(mostly) incorrect

http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/

Wrong. The Reichschancelor was never elected but rather appointed by the Reichspresident, and thus Hitler wasn't actually elected. More importantly the RC could be voted out of office by the Rechstag via "motion of no confidence", and Hitler did not have enough support to win that.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

This is blatantly false. Hitler won the 1933 federal election in Germany.

Which wasn't actually a democratic election.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

" In the months before the 1933 election, brownshirts and SS displayed "terror, repression and propaganda [...] across the land",[1]:339 and Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes by acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring, as so-called auxiliary police."

Yeah, a truly democratic election that was.

Re:"Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

A few people have a problem with it, so in a few small venues (like your examples) there's better systems, but overall there aren't.

Depends on what you mean by a few small venue. Obviously America as a whole hasn't adopted it, but that doesn't mean nobody has.

Obviously, of course, the system can still be corrupt, but that's a different problem.

Heck, if you did a poll of random Americans, you'd probably find most of them think FPTP is just fine and we should stick with that.

Well, you may think that result would come from a poll, but I think it'd depend on how you presented it. After all, Americans in California, Arizona, and Florida have all voted for reforms of various kinds.

Of course, Alternative Vote didn't pass in the UK, but again, they don't even elect the Prime Minister.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

Sure it was. There were 6 candidates running, and Hitler won the largest number of votes. Sure, there were allegations of malfeasance, but we have that here in America too, with electronic voting machines doing all kinds of fishy things like visibly changing peoples' votes, showing completely different results than exit polling, or even the voting machine company CEO promising to deliver the election to a particular candidate, and we just accept that as "democracy" too.

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

And how's that any worse than us having electronic voting machines that we're somehow supposed to trust to give us accurate results?

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

And how's that any worse than us having electronic voting machines that we're somehow supposed to trust to give us accurate results?

Well, they don't hurt you before changing your vote.

Re:"Democracy"

[Plumpaquatsch]

Sure it was. There were 6 candidates running, and Hitler won the largest number of votes. Sure, there were allegations of malfeasance,

Malfeasance like restricting the second and third largest party from campaigning?

Re:"Democracy"

[Grishnakh]

Yep, they've gotten better at rigging votes in the last 75 years.

Re:"Democracy"

[Capsaicin]

Reductio ad Hitlerum, a fallacious argument. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are fascists.

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are fascists is an invalid argument (notwithstanding the facts), but it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. And what should we call the fallacy that any argument that contains the string 'hitler' is thereby invalid?

Your claim "that complaining about a free and fair election and trying to overthrow the legitimate government with armed force" is given the lie by the observation that Hitler --and more pertinently Mussolini --came to power in free and fair elections and headed the legitimate governments of their country until they were overthrown by force. It is neither the fact of being democratically elected (or not), nor the fact of being overthrown by force (successfully or not), which defines 'fascism.' Stop digging deeper!

Note, I'm not arguing that Erdogan is literally a fascist (strictly speaking he is not); But his behaviour, especially post-coup, sure make him look a lot more like a fascist than the men with "uniforms, tanks [&] guns," who landed on Omaha Beach with the aim of overthrowing the government of Germany. (Or the mutinous faction of the Turkish army for that matter.)

Blackberry and spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything good in there? All I see is stuff about rejecting Blackberry phones because they're backdoored and Nigerian scammers:

************
  We are rejected Blackberry,because your cemaats inteligent persons connected on Blackberry > While we are prefer blackjack,thank you and yours cemaats inteligent persons. > Yours Sincelery... > Cüneyt DLER

**********************

"My Husband Mr Tayeb El Safi was the Minister of Economy and Commerce and also right-hand man to the ex Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and He died along with our former-President Muammar Gaddafi and our properties was destroyed and seized by the new Government, we managed to make our way to nearby country Burkina Faso where we are leaving now under the (UNHCR) my dear seriously I have important secret to reveal to you if you are sincere and willing, Thanking you a lot in anticipation of your quick response. I will give you details in my next mail after receiving your Data information’s, such as your full name, Age and your country and acceptance mail to help me and my children. Have a nice day, while I hope to hear from you soon. please reply me at this E-mail Address: mariatayebelsafi11@ig.com.br Yours sincerely Mrs. Mariam Tayeb. El Safi Hsbc Bank London Uk, the sum of 6.5 Million Pounds and I also have some funds that was deposited in a security company as consignment by my husband here in Burkina Faso so let me know the one that will be easy for you, preferable coming here to retrieve the one that is here about 4.3 Million Dollars"

Re: Blackberry and spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a dull week of I don't get at least 5 of these...

The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad this is happening. After reading everything I can on the matter I still can't really tell what's happening. If anyone here has an interesting opinion, I'd love to hear it. What I thought was that it didn't make sense that the military would be working with Gulen since he's an Islamic cleric and the military is, supposedly, pretty secular, however, the Turkish government has begun revoking the teaching licenses for teachers who supposedly support Gulen or probably, more accurately, true democracy.

What's your spin?

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Shinobi]

The "coup" was most likely covertly triggered by Erdogan, to allow him to initiate yet another purge of anyone opposed to him becoming the new Sultan of the Neo-Ottoman empire, as can be seen in his purge of not only teachers, but also judges, university deans, his further clampdowns on media etc.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[TheSync]

The "coup" was most likely covertly triggered by Erdogan

While I thought this at first, It would have had to have been quite an engineering feat though without the truth getting out. I saw the coup-backing military shooting protesting civilians in Ankara live on Periscope. It looked pretty real to me. Erdogan would have had to convince a lot of military people that the coup was real.

The most interesting headline is Military crew sent to nab Erdogan told they were after a terrorist.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Shinobi]

Don't need that many to be truly in the know. Remember, he's purged the military before, people who have been found to be too secular, too pro-constitution etc, and replaced with people loyal to him, via his party.

What most likely happened is that those loyal to him discovered that there was a group left who were not happy about Erdogan's policies(which includes supporting ISIS), and then at an opportune time fed false intel, while in the background they prepare their own moves for securing more power, such as preparing to fire most judges in the country, including the 5 in the supreme court of Turkey.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Opportunist]

That's not difficult. Military is used to following orders. And they are usually fed only very selected information. Remember 1968, Prague? The East Bloc soldiers crushing the democratic uprising were told that they're quelling unrest agitated by the West and that the population would welcome them as their saviors.

They were honestly surprised to be welcomed with stones.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[swb]

I don't think Erdogan engineered the coup attempt. But, I think he's still paranoid enough about the *possibility* of a coup that he has significant monitoring of the officer corps (whether eavesdropping, informants, etc) and he was able to figure out that it was going to happen.

So like some kind of a police sting, he figured it was best to let them proceed as much as possible and then pull the plug just after it got started. This would give him more justification to further purge the officer corps of disloyalty.

I think this also demonstrates that Erdogan's earlier purges of the officer corps and trumped up charges against retired officers was successful. It's more likely that had the military retained its historic leadership structure and attendant loyalties still been in place, a coup might have actually worked.

Of course the worry now is that he has decimated military leadership and the military will suffer from lack of experience and/or competence because all the important slots are held by Erdogan yes-men.

To me, the worry ins't that Erdogan is like Putin, it's that he's like Assad of Syria.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[JaredOfEuropa]

Some rumours say that a lot of the soldiers were conscripts thinking this was all a military exercise. Hand them rifles loaded with blanks, and plant a handful of agitators with live rounds amongst them. That might also explain the incredible ease with which some of these military units surrendered; real insurgents might be a bit more motivated to avoid arrest. And if a lot of these soldiers took part in this unwittingly, it'll be dead easy to convince them to plead guilty in exchange for clemency.

There's still no proof of a real coup or a staged one, and I doubt we'll ever see it. But I am still very sceptical. That headline you mention is another red flag: would real insurgents entrust a mission of that importance to a crew not in the know, being told only at the last minute they were going after Erdogan? Seems terribly risky. On the other hand, if you're staging a coup and you need some military action without cluing in a lot of people, this is exactly what I'd tell them.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[thegarbz]

It would have had to have been quite an engineering feat though without the truth getting out.

You don't need truth when a large number of people suspect it already. There's enough evidence to suggest this was a likely outcome, and people believe the evidence enough that "truth getting out" makes no difference at this point. People are already politically divided on the topic. If someone leaked the truth the supporting people would say "I knew it", and the opposing people would label them as "just another instrument of the coup"

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Full of little insights, huh? you should go back to sleep now, clearly the meds are wearing off.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Shinobi]

I think he partially engineered it, by feeding it false intelligence, conflicting signals etc, and moving his own assets around to capitalize on it when triggered.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading everything I can on the matter I still can't really tell what's happening.

if you're relying on traditional media sources you are wasting your time. Most are staffed by C-student quasi-drop outs who know more about TV shows than they do the topics their papers covers, and who wouldn't know the difference between a source and a wikipedia page.

You need to go to places on the internet where people who grok the topic talk to one another. No I don't know any. Maybe try the somethingawful.com forums. I hear they had great Syria coverage.

Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything

[Rakarra]

Don't need that many to be truly in the know. Remember, he's purged the military before, people who have been found to be too secular, too pro-constitution etc, and replaced with people loyal to him, via his party.

But given the Turkish military's history of coups whenever a leader tries to do what Erdogan does, I don't think he needed to try to orchestrate one -- a situation that could have easily backfired as it might have succeeded. If he knew one was coming anyway, all he had to do was be ready for it.

Well I hate to be one of those false flag guys

[Anonymous Coward]

But something really doesn't seem right with this coup.

I suspect it's a power grab rather than backlash from a coup.

Re:Well I hate to be one of those false flag guys

[Opportunist]

Let's take a look at the coup, shall we?

1) We're talking about a military that knows how to stage coups. It's likely that some of the upper level officers have already been in the force when the last one happened. This would have been the 4th coup in Turkey since WW2. In other words, we're not talking about some stage performance military that is at best useful to look pretty when some guest of honor arrives, this is a military that KNOWS how to run a coup successfully (because this is actually the first one that fails).

2) Everyone who has at least a passing interest in military coups knows that you have to get 4 things done: First, arrest or kill the head honcho you're trying to oust, along with his main cronies. Second, get the media under control. Third, get the secret police under control or at least ensure that they cannot act. Fourth, disrupt the coordination of the powers that are loyal to the regime (in this case, the police). NONE OF THESE were taken care of. There was a half-baked "uhhh, we do coup!" message being broadcast (almost as if they wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this is not just for shits and giggles), but nothing else of tactical value was secured.

3) The "coup" was staged in the two main towns. Why? What the hell is the benefit of shooting aimlessly from helicopters into towns where the only thing you can accomplish is to anger the population without gaining any strategic advantage? Controlling the bridges across the Bosporus Strait I can see, but not even that was done right because there were still bridges that were neither closed nor controlled.

4) 2 days after the "coup" thousands of opposing judges, politicians and other people who did not participate in the coup but somehow "annoy" our little tinpot dictator are arrested. This must be the most efficient kind of bureaucracy ever observed that they can in 2 days identify the "culprits" for the coup and already have them arrested.

Bluntly, this was either the most dilettante coup since November 1923 or the biggest lie since September 1939.

Re:Well I hate to be one of those false flag guys

[Shinobi]

"1) We're talking about a military that knows how to stage coups. It's likely that some of the upper level officers have already been in the force when the last one happened. This would have been the 4th coup in Turkey since WW2. In other words, we're not talking about some stage performance military that is at best useful to look pretty when some guest of honor arrives, this is a military that KNOWS how to run a coup successfully (because this is actually the first one that fails)."

Here we come to one of the problems with Erdogan and the AKP: Over the last 15 years, he's systematically worked to purge all officers not loyal to him and his party. He especially targeted officers that had been involved in previous coups or were too secular for his liking. So, the experience of how to stage a coup was lost, and the ability to do so further impeded by Erdogan loyalists.

"2) Everyone who has at least a passing interest in military coups knows that you have to get 4 things done: First, arrest or kill the head honcho you're trying to oust, along with his main cronies. Second, get the media under control. Third, get the secret police under control or at least ensure that they cannot act. Fourth, disrupt the coordination of the powers that are loyal to the regime (in this case, the police). NONE OF THESE were taken care of. There was a half-baked "uhhh, we do coup!" message being broadcast (almost as if they wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this is not just for shits and giggles), but nothing else of tactical value was secured."

This is where things really get into False Flag territory. What better way to further cement your power than sacrificing the lives of some of your loyal fanatics, sanctifying your rise to power with the blood of martyrs. Also, if it had been a serious military coup, they'd have quietly closed down multiple mosques to hamper the ability for Erdogan's loyal imams to rabble rouse.

"3) The "coup" was staged in the two main towns. Why? What the hell is the benefit of shooting aimlessly from helicopters into towns where the only thing you can accomplish is to anger the population without gaining any strategic advantage? Controlling the bridges across the Bosporus Strait I can see, but not even that was done right because there were still bridges that were neither closed nor controlled."

Further shows that it was not a true coup. If it had been a true coup, Erdogan would have been taken out by a special forces team where he was on his vacation, or possibly by a bomb, and indeed aimed at unifying the rage of the populace against a single target.

"4) 2 days after the "coup" thousands of opposing judges, politicians and other people who did not participate in the coup but somehow "annoy" our little tinpot dictator are arrested. This must be the most efficient kind of bureaucracy ever observed that they can in 2 days identify the "culprits" for the coup and already have them arrested."

Judges, academics, teachers etc are the primary threat against Erdogan through upholding secular values and knowledge, secular laws, and opposes orthodox islamic values and sharia.

Re:Well I hate to be one of those false flag guys

[JaredOfEuropa]

If this was staged coup, it was a very well designed one: relatively small scale and little damage, but highly visible (lots of "cool effects"), maximum incitement of the population, but controlled to not escalate into an actual coup. Also note how control of "the media" (well, TRT) changed hands precisely at the right times to widely announce the coup, then declare its failure, while throughout the entire proceedings the prime minister was able to spread the message: "we're still here!"

What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not an idle question. Here he is schmoozing with Hillary: https://theintercept.com/2016/...

So long as Erdogan does as he is told, nothing. So long as he is our bastard, he can do what he wants.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

> So long as Erdogan does as he is told, nothing. So long as he is our bastard, he can do what he wants.

Yeah, just like that guy in Irak...

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[phantomfive]

I don't think Bush listened to Kissinger on Iraq. Or anyone with a lick of sense, for that matter.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[ShanghaiBill]

So long as Erdogan does as he is told, nothing. So long as he is our bastard, he can do what he wants.

But Erdogan does not doing what he is told. America would like to see Turkey become more democratic, secular, and bound to European institutions, including NATO, and eventually the EU. We would like Turkey to be tolerant of the Turkish Kurds in the south east, and support the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in the fight against ISIS. Erdogan is doing the opposite of all these things. He is undermining democracy, arresting judges, and rounding up political opponents. He is promoting Islamic law, and imposing Halal restrictions on pork and alcohol onto non-muslims. He is provoking and attacking the Kurds. He was lukewarm in the fight against ISIS until they started setting off bombs in Turkish cities (which he tried to pin on the Kurds).

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[fustakrakich]

More likely he did listen to Brzezinski.

Destabilization does have a purpose.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as Erdogan does as he is told, nothing. So long as he is our bastard, he can do what he wants.

But Erdogan does not doing what he is told. America would like to see Turkey become more democratic, secular, and bound to European institutions, including NATO, and eventually the EU. We would like Turkey to be tolerant of the Turkish Kurds in the south east, and support the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in the fight against ISIS. Erdogan is doing the opposite of all these things. He is undermining democracy, arresting judges, and rounding up political opponents. He is promoting Islamic law, and imposing Halal restrictions on pork and alcohol onto non-muslims. He is provoking and attacking the Kurds. He was lukewarm in the fight against ISIS until they started setting off bombs in Turkish cities (which he tried to pin on the Kurds).

What a load of horseshit. The US does not give a damn whether Turkey is a democracy or how they treat the kurds. What they care about is resources deals and access to host military installations in the region and using them to help isolate those that won't play ball.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[phantomfive]

Destabilization at that time served to annoy the USSR. There no longer is a USSR to annoy, I can see no reason that destabilizing Iraq was a good idea (and it wasn't Bush's goal, anyway. He thought it would magically become a democratic, free market paradise).

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

America has no interest in seeing any country become more democratic, least of all itself. America has been co-opted for the 0.001%, and true democracy stands in the way of the rentier class. NATO isn't democratic, the EU isn't democratic, and of course The Sultan isn't democratic.
Erdogan is being permitted to do whatever the hell he wants, so long as it is NOT democratic. Do not be mistaken.

Turkey should be divided, and it will be eventually, but not for it's own good, nor that of its many tribes and peoples, but for the benefit of the global oligarchy.

Funny - time was, even I would've branded me as a conspirational zealot.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[dunkelfalke]

That falls under "or anyone with a lick of sense".
Brzezinski is insane.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[dbIII]

I don't think he thought about it.
"Mission Accomplished" was to be a popular wartime President with a war happening on the opposite side of the world to where the voters lived.
Winning or losing was going to be somebody else's problem after his second term.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Hognoxious]

I can see no reason that destabilizing Iraq was a good idea

If you're defense contractor it was a *brilliant* idea.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Opportunist]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that even more insane people don't listen to him.

The Iraq was maybe the only REALLY stable state in the whole area. Sure, Saddam was an asshole and he was no longer an US ally (like he was back in the 1980s... oh good ol' times), but he kept the lid on the pot of shit. The Iraq was not only the only state where terrorism could not get a food on the ground (because Saddam was about as much Muslim as the average politician around here is Christian, i.e. at best with a lip service to appease the idiots, but he didn't have to appease idiots, so...). And that country served as a wedge between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.

Now we experience what happens when that wedge is removed. We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Opportunist]

Where do you get the idea from that the US gives a shit about Turkey being democratic? What matters is that the li'l mustache keeps his mouth shut, stays in the NATO and deploys his troops where we want them to, as long as he does that he can round up all judges and Kurds and whatever else he feels like.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[cold fjord]

You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.

"Mission Accomplished" referred to the mission performed by the aircraft carrier where that banner was displayed as it was returning home. But if you're just engaging in smear and not trying to further understanding, well then ..... "Mission Accomplished."

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

lololol

as long as turky moves American OIL up from South Sudan, through ISIS protected territory into Europe to fuck the Russians, they can do whatever they want.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have a selective memory of the 911 investigation. The war that was thrust upon the Bush administration was the result of incompetence. Here's the thing with incompetents: they are more "unlucky" than others, because they don't do the basic things that protect against easy attacks, so it escalates quickly. Opposite with highly competent people: they are more "lucky" than others, because they do all the right things to nip problems in the bud, so it's plain sailing after that.

Anyway, please continue living in denial, I think we will be getting a second example of the "unlucky" incompetents for the rest of the class after November.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[cold fjord]

You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.

Then there is the fact that he kept attacking nations in the region - invaded Iran, invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel. I seem to recall there were "border issues" with some of the other neighbors.

Nor was Iraq particularly stable. There were various rebellions again Saddam, assassination attempts, and various other issues. You may recall that some of these were put down by using chemical weapons against civilian populations.

And Saddam wasn't much of an ally. The US didn't want Iran to beat Iraq and threaten the entire region beyond the danger it already posed. Just think how lovely things would be if Iraq had collapsed and Iran leveraged that into controlling not only Iran's oil, but Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's.

As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, China, or other communist bloc states. Most of the rest was from France.

We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.

So what you are really saying is that Muslims don't have their own values and goals that they pursue independently of what the US or the West does? Really?

Do you know what the general terms are for when one side in a conflict (war) ceases to defend itself? Defeat and surrender.

How do you think you'd get along with your would be overlords?

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a selective memory yourself. Al Qaeda started its war against the US under the Clinton administration and attacked multiple targets during that time. Since the Clinton administration didn't counter them effectively al Qaeda was able to ramp up its attacks. The preparations for 9/11 started under the Clinton.

You also seem to be taking a pretty harsh view of the Obama administration.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[NotAPK]

"You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq."

Got any facts on that?

I'm also surprised by the compete lack of interest in the USA regarding the Chilcot report. Is everyone in the US pretending that it has nothing to do with them? Why isn't Bush being grilled over misleading the people of the US and the UK? Blaire may end up in the Hague over this. Will the US just ignore it?

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Opportunist]

You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.

You might want to support this claim with some evidence. I have heard that a few times now but it just doesn't hold much water. Saddam's interest in terrorism has been slim to nil, mostly because he knew VERY well that he's sitting on a powder keg with Sunni and Shiites. The last thing he needed was religion suddenly playing a major role in his country.

Then there is the fact that he kept attacking nations in the region - invaded Iran, invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel. I seem to recall there were "border issues" with some of the other neighbors.

It's not fair to blame Saddam for a war that he waged for the US. That 8 years in the 80s against Iran was backed and paid for by us. The war against Kuwait was on the other hand mostly him being a bit stroppy after getting a "thanks, idiot" from us when presenting his bill for the war. Basically he just wanted to be paid for his service and noticed that it's easier to cash in Kuwait than Iran. He sure was no saint, not by a long shot, but you have to admit, we cut him a raw deal and he just found a way out.

Nor was Iraq particularly stable. There were various rebellions again Saddam, assassination attempts, and various other issues. You may recall that some of these were put down by using chemical weapons against civilian populations.

You see, the Iraq is one of the few Muslim countries that isn't ONLY Sunnite or ONLY Shiite. It's a about 30/70 Sunnite/Shiite. And that fuels a lot of tensions. "Stable" is a relative term in the presence of this mix. His only option was to keep the country as secular as he could so that religious problem wouldn't surface. And that worked for almost half a century. Just take a look at the state the country is in now. Is that more stable than it was under Saddam?

And Saddam wasn't much of an ally. The US didn't want Iran to beat Iraq and threaten the entire region beyond the danger it already posed. Just think how lovely things would be if Iraq had collapsed and Iran leveraged that into controlling not only Iran's oil, but Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's.

Actually yes, Saddam was an ally. Remember 1979? When that Ayatollah kicked out our buddy the Shah and took over his arsenal? We built the Iran up to be the fourth biggest army on the planet, complete with kick-ass technology like the back-then ultra modern F-14 jets, complete with state-of-the-art arms. We sure as FUCK didn't want to go to war against that, that wouldn't have been the cool asymmetric wars that we knew, where we'd mow down rice farmers and towelheads, that would have been more like WW2 where you fight an enemy that has weapons on par with yours. Hell, he even HAS the same weapons you have!
Instead, we hired Saddam to do that for us. And he did. For 8 years he kicked that Ayatollah's butt for us 'til all the modern crap that towelhead had was crushed. No, the US never wanted the Iran to crush Iraq. It was more the other way 'round.

As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, China, or other communist bloc states. Most of the rest was from France.

In the end, yes, when the US stopped being interested. That's the problem with the US, they just don't know how to treat an ally. They're not supposed to be used like tools made in China, i.e. used once and tossed away 'cause if we need more we just buy a new one. People don't like being tossed away. They tend to resent that. And sometimes they find new allies and turn against you. But we're talking about Saddam now, not Osama.

We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.

So w

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[NotAPK]

BTW my American friends:

That link to the Guardian should not be brushed aside as an idle reference. The public inquiry into the Iraq war is as close to a thorough investigation into a modern democratic government as you will ever get. It took from 2009 to 2016 (17 years) to investigate and the report comprises 2.6 million words in 12 volumes. The inquiry had access to the intelligence services, the parliament and all records related to the Iraq invasion. They interviewed anyone they believed to be of interest.

In other words, it's a big deal, and if your local media is not reporting on this for whatever reason, then I advise you to appraise yourself of what it contains and what it's all about.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Dunbal]

>You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.

I dunno - there seems to be a hell of a lot more "terrorism" in the world today with Saddam long dead than there ever was before. Barring 9/11 for actual death count, but that was the Saudis not Saddam.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Dunbal]

>Got any facts on that?

He left the facts right next to the evidence on all the Weapons of Mass Destruction....

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Destabilization at that time served to annoy the USSR. There no longer is a USSR to annoy,

Well, the US will still happily annoy Russia at any possible occasion.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Dunbal]

>as long as turky moves American OIL up from South Sudan, through ISIS protected territory into Europe to fuck the Russians, they can do whatever they want. What the actual fuck? Get a map.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States isn't a democracy. On paper it says it's a constitutional republic...in actuality it's an oligarchy.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Plumpaquatsch]

You seem to have a selective memory yourself. Al Qaeda started its war against the US under the Bush the First administration.

FTFY. Oh, and its roots were funded with money from the Ford administration.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

America would like to see Turkey become more democratic, secular, and bound to European institutions, including NATO, and eventually the EU. We would like Turkey to be tolerant of the Turkish Kurds in the south east, and support the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in the fight against ISIS.

Depends which America you're talking about. Joe Sixpack doesn't care. Those that read and think would like that, but sociopaths like Kissinger who Clinton creams over has made clear he doesn't care how many people die for no coherent policy objective: http://www.alternet.org/world/...

The man is a moron. Clinton creams over him, but the guy is just some big fat twat who should have been charged with war crimes, who instead is fap material to the Washington elite. Which explains a lot about Washington.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if your initials are Dick C.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[KanLiDaL]

The war against PKK is not the war on Kurds, most of the PKK terrorist caught or killed have cross arpund their neck. Suggesting that the PKK is the same group created by the UK, that wanted to destabilize Iran after the the supporters of Ayatollah had overtrown their king. It was purely because Iran took back their natural resources from the UK that their had to deal with terrorism. The same is happening in the south east of Turkey. It's a big pie and everyone want the biggest piece. Ät has nothing to do with turks and kurs or whatsoever, 85 ethic groups live in Turkey. But only the kurds say "I am kurdish"... Read some very critical books my friend and stop repeating lies! I am from Qarabag, annexated territory by the Armenians. Stop this bullshit, please...

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[cbraescu1]

Aren't you tired to rehash old Chomsky bullshit that was d too many debunked too many times to count?

Just wondering.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

omg, this is the legendary troll I've heard so much about. And I'm not disappointed; dumbest comment of the day. 9/11 justified iraq like your post justifies a hellfire missile blowing your house to shit with you inside of it.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Plumpaquatsch]

"You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq."

Got any facts on that?

Well, most of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (left-wing Iranian nationalist opposition group) took refuge in Iraq, and were considered a terrorist organisation and specifically mentioned by W. Bush as a reason for a the invasion, until, well, right after Saddam's fall.

I kid, the State Department still considered them terrorists until 2012, however the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009 (up until President Barack Obama took office).

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit, Syria and Libya were very stable too, up until they blew up. That's what happens with dictatorships, they are very stable until they blow up. The mess in Syria is mainly Assad's doing, he actually released terrorists from prison just so he could say that he was fighting terrorists.
Dictatorships are not the solution to terrorism. In fact a good part of the reason jihadists hate the west so much is that they think the west is supporting dictators (which is sometimes true) and then there is Israel ...

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[tsqr]

>Got any facts on that?

He left the facts right next to the evidence on all the Weapons of Mass Destruction....

Well, there's this, for starters: "...multiple independent and bipartisan reports before and after the war have established beyond any doubt that Hussein was deeply enmeshed with terrorist activity from the time he took power in the late 1970s until the eve of his last war." Of course, you have to consider that the Washington Post may be stretching the truth a bit, if you think they may have an agenda here.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[NatasRevol]

The Twitter guy?

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, it's the cold fjord NSA disinformation team back to muddy the waters again.

Bush and his buddies were mumbling about "finishing the job" in Iraq almost from the moment they moved into office. 9/11 just because a convenient hook to hang the invasion on. After a certain amount of hammering and sawing to make it fit. Including the promoting of claims about Iraq's imminent intent to use their large stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Airplane attacks (in the Philippines) were first promoted while Clinton was still groping Monica. Attempts were made on the WTC using lesser tactics several times and every one was stopped.

The difference is that under Clinton, attacks got stopped before many people even heard about it.

Bush, on the other hand, was so obsessed with Iraq that he didn't place proper priority on Al Qaeda until he found it a useful excuse to promote invading Iraq. At which point the WTC was in ruins and 3000 people were already dead.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Opportunist]

Since it's a pretty big wall of text that I wrote there, you might want to point to what has been debunked, please? Preferably with a source for the debunking.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[phantomfive]

Well, the US will still happily annoy Russia at any possible occasion.

Not really, although I can see why Russians might think that.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair I didn't notice a single source in your comment. Not saying I disagree with your points, but if you want others to post sources, you should consider doing yourself.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[nomad63]

Democracy is not a sustainable regime. All administrations, regardless of the type of governing body, need money to operate. They collect money in the name of taxes from people but you can only squeeze the poor folk so far. Then you start going after the money of corporate entities. And regardless if you have the guns or not, they are not going to give it to you, no questions asked. If they give you, the government, money, they will look at it as an investment and will expect return on that investment. Otherwise, you will not get any more money. Here is where your democratic government, goes into the oligarchy mode. Does it sound similar ? Maybe here at home, in the US ? Which politician did you see in your lifetime and maybe in the lifetime of your parents, who did not cow-tow to the interest of big donor corporations, rather than the will of the people who supposedly elected them? Same thing is happening in Turkiye right now. There is a relatively big mass of educated people, who do not want to see their country go to hell in a handbasket. Mind you, Republic of Turkiye is younger than 100 years. There still are some people alive, who fought the liberation wars. The indoctrination of Ataturk, who was the biggest proponent of real democracy, not the theatre we see today, is still alive with this educated mass of people. In the name of globalization, nationalism is a big obstacle. Hence should be eradicated, according to the oligarchs. You can silence a minority of 1-2% of people, but when half or close to the half of a country becomes aware of what you are trying to do, it is hard to suppress that many people silently. What do you do then ? Orchestrate a coup against yourself, quash it, blame the thought leaders and anyone who might be in your way in the future for the failed coup. Then perform kangaroo courts to find them guilty and jail/kill them. At this point people will be afraid of speaking up their minds, with the fear of getting prosecuted. Meanwhile, the undereducated mass which brought Tayyip and his "Ak Parti" to the power, can be manipulated in some other way to weaken their support system of Islamic roots, probably divided into factions and pitted against one another. This is the fate of any country in the Middle East and vicinity. And it is spreading.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[nomad63]

Where do you get the idea from that the US gives a shit about Turkey being democratic? What matters is that the li'l mustache keeps his mouth shut, stays in the NATO and deploys his troops where we want them to, as long as he does that he can round up all judges and Kurds and whatever else he feels like.

Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[Opportunist]

Good lord, do I really have to become a history teacher now? Pretty much everything therein is easily available, if you're lazy try wikipedia.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[phantomfive]

You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.

I'll forgive Bush for Afghanistan, but Iraq was his choice.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[fustakrakich]

There no longer is a USSR to annoy

Tell that to the Europeans :-) That's the thing, North America is entirely removed from their very real security concerns, energy, food, invasion. Before WW2, going back to ancient times the continent has always been at war. The feudal (nationalist) idealism still lingers to this day. We have our nice big oceans to protect us. You know what they say about bliss... And the sociopathy of the leaders is also very real. Whether they like it or not, they do depend on us to tamp it down a bit. That's why the Balkan wars didn't spread this time. And the Russians will never get past Ukraine again, if we don't drop our drawers. While Russia's economy remains a bit tattered, the NATO buildup on the Eastern Front is quite logical and even reasonable. And an unstable middle east serves our purpose of making sure the Russia doesn't get fat off the things we no longer need. And of course there is the elephant in the room, Hillary's legacy. You don't argue against that.

Contrary to popular opinion, both invasions of Iraq have really been at the UK's request. I obviously don't agree with them, but I do understand the reasons. The second one was a true "wag the dog" moment. Look into Blair's affair with Wendy Deng. Murdoch got his war. Yes, they do kill people to cover this kind of stuff up. Sociopathy is a dominant trait. It has to be when you make the decision to go to war. Theresa May answered the *big question* with a simple "yes" (I'll let you Google that), which, to tell the truth, is better than Corbyn's answer of total disarmament.

There are mad times.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[garyebickford]

Whose incompetence? There were a number of terrorist attacks over the period from 1976 (Carter Administration) through the 1990s (Clinton Administration). Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden at least once, perhaps twice, but chose not to because we didn't have a 'smoking gun' sufficient to justify - that's an arguable case. 9/11 planning by Bin Laden began in at least 1999, perhaps 1998 - I don't recall. So if you're saying it was Bush incompetence, you're just uninformed. The fact is that Bin Laden (who was a big part of the "Mujahadeen" that we financed to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1970s) dedicated his life to killing infidels at that time if not before.

Afghanistan was not such a bad place prior to the Soviet invasion and removal of the king (not necessarily in that order). I have friends and relatives who worked there and visited there in the early 1970s. But the Russians have wanted a direct route to a warm water port for centuries, and have tried various methods multiple times including overthrowing governments. See also the "Great Game" of the 1800s between Russia, Britain, and China mostly.

It's quite reasonable actually to go back much farther, to the Jefferson Administration, in 1801-1809. See the Tripolitan War or Barbary Coast War, 1801-1815. US merchant shipping in the Mediterranean was being hampered by pirates out of Tripoli (present day Libya), who were seizing the ships and holding the crews and passengers for ransom. For several years the US (like several European nations) was forced to pay as much as $1 million per year to protect our fleets. When the US Ambassador went to Tripoli to negotiate, and find out why they kept attacking, the sultan or whatever said, "Holy Kuran tells us to kill all infidels. The fact that we don't kill your people but only hold them for ransom is merely a sign of our exceeding mercy." This was the motivation for Jefferson to build up the Navy, I think create the Marines but I'm not sure about that, and go to war. This is the basis for the latter part of a line in the Marine Hymn, "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

IOW, the western European and American nations have been dealing with murderous thugs from those areas since the birth of this country.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Rakarra]

You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.

9/11 and Afghanistan were thrust upon the administration. Even the benefit of hindsight doesn't give us much choice there. Iraq was the war that Bush really -wanted- to fight, and chose to fight.

"Mission Accomplished" referred to the mission performed by the aircraft carrier where that banner was displayed as it was returning home.

BS. Mission Accomplished referred to the end of the military operation in Iraq. It's kindof why George Bush piloted his own fighter jet onto the carrier -- not to celebrate one carrier's job being done.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[fustakrakich]

No, it is not insane at all. In fact, it is most logical, and it worked. As long as we keep it up, Russia will never be a real threat. That is something I'm sure the Europeans can appreciate. Whether they do or not, is another story.

The UK's new Prime Minister will protect us!

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is not a sustainable regime. All administrations, regardless of the type of governing body, need money to operate. They collect money in the name of taxes from people but you can only squeeze the poor folk so far. Then you start going after the money of corporate entities.

Corporate entities are finding it increasingly difficult to hide their wealth. Why do you think bitcoin was invented?

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[NotAPK]

*7 years...of course. Oops!

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

>As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from ...

I can tell you first hand, that he had American weapons too. As I've been on the receiving end of some of his army's artillery and other fireworks. Didn't know it until we took the position and noticed their hardware, but sure enough it was from some arms deal we used to have with him.

  And ps... as far as chemical weapons goes? Yeah he had plenty, guess what country sold it to him :D *that's how America should have framed the invasion, "Hey he's got plenty of our old stuff and is undisciplined enough to use it. Let's go!" Instead there was some story about he may or may not have it, and poor intel was re-assembled anew to say he had it. Should just said he did & how he got it - wouldv've been more understandable.

(I still have an Iraqi army French APC driver helmet though, pretty neat thing- so you're right on some of their inventory).

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attempts were made on the WTC using lesser tactics several times and every one was stopped.

Really? the 1993 attack saw 6 killed, 1042 injured, and only the poor placement of the bomb itself stopped the plot from taking down the tower as planned... but yep, "every one was stopped."

The difference is that under Clinton, attacks got stopped before many people even heard about it.

Really? Khobar Towers, the WTC bombing, the US embassy bombings in Tanzania, Nairobi, and Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

Yep, Clinton did such a great job stopping all these attacks.

And let's not forget that the 9/11 hijackers were in the US, taking flight training and finalizing their plans, in 2000 - again, under Clinton's watch.

What fucking fantasy-land do you live in where Bill Clinton magically stopped all these attacks, and was a complete animal about aggressively pursuing and apprehending people who meant the US harm?

Holy shit, I'm not saying that George Bush is blameless, but you've got to be fucking kidding me if you're going to point to Bill Clinton as an example of "handling counter-terror operations right."

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't pilot the fighter jet. He never was a carrier rated pilot.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

...from 2009 to 2016 (17 years)...

That's actually "only" 7 years. The war being investigated started 13 years ago.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[dbIII]

Iraq should have been his choice but I think he was led by the nose by others instead of attempting to do his job as President.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[fustakrakich]

I'll forgive Bush for Afghanistan

I'm sorry to hear that. Afghanistan is an opium war.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[phantomfive]

That could be, but it seems like something he wanted to do before getting elected.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[dbIII]

Nobody said that there was not earlier incompetence.
If we are going to go back as far as Carter his inability to put the blame on others and his decision to let the former Shah of Iran into the country, resulting in a huge ongoing shitstorm that lost him the Presidency, showed he could not play the political game as slickly as an accomplished actor like Reagan.

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[MiSaunaSnob]

Are you implying Kissinger has a lick of sense?

Re:What would Kissinger do?

[phantomfive]

No, but he does.

Re: What would Kissinger do?

[yuriklastalov]

None other

coup?

[superwiz]

Despite the fact that this is how it is reported, it's somewhat misleading to call it a coup. While it's extra legal, it's been reported that the Turkish constitution puts military in charge of being the last-ditch effort of dissolving and reforming the government if the government goes too far in making Turkey a non-secular state. Given that the current President of Turkey belongs to the party which officially started out as an Islamist party, but then de jour (albeit not necessarily de facto) abandoned its Islamic direction, it stands to reason that making a decision on whether the ruling party is trying to undermine secular institutions is legitimately the military's judgement call.

It's not a clean solution to having a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of the government can completely dismantle all other branches, but it's also not a blanket attempt at a power grab which is usually associated with a coup.

Certainly, having so many dead an injured over, what amounts to, a political dispute is tragic. But having a secular state descent into a theocracy would almost certainly result in much more losses of life and civic freedoms and, therefore, would be a larger tragedy.

Re:coup?

[righteousness]

[...] it's been reported that the Turkish constitution puts military in charge of being the last-ditch effort of dissolving and reforming the government [...]

Seriously, why are basing your conclusion on what's "been reported"? The Constitution of Turkey is easily available via a Google search away. Just read it for yourself. If you did, you would see that the Turkey constitution states no such thing.

Re:coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]but then de jour (albeit not necessarily de facto) abandoned its Islamic direction[...]

You seem to have confused du jour and de jure.

Re:coup?

[Hognoxious]

He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.

Re:coup?

[dunkelfalke]

In fact it used to be the case before Erdogan changed the constitution in 2003.

P.S. what exactly is wrong with fornication?

Re:coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.

Well, he did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

Re:coup?

[superwiz]

You seem to have confused du jour and de jure.

Yes, I did make that mistake. Thank you.

Re:coup?

[superwiz]

He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.

If I were pretending to be a lawyer, I would have said that this was what the Turkish constitution stated rather than saying that this is what I heard on the news. For the sake of disclosure, I'll make the unnecessary disclaimer. I am not a lawyer.

Re:coup?

[righteousness]

Do you have any proof of that? I managed to obtain a copy of the Turkish Constitution as it was in 2002 and still did not find any reference to that supposed role of the military. Maybe I missed it so could you kindly point out in which article is such a role spelled out?
What i did find interesting is that as of 2002, the Turkish Constitution used the term "laic" and "laicsm" instead of "secular" and "secularism". Apparently it was during Erdogan's tenure that the constitution was amended to change the term used from "laic" to "secular".

Ironic

[MrKaos]

That RT has become a major source of news that you can't get on most major news channels.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just the other half of the propaganda puzzle. Ever since 2013 update to the NDAA the US government was allowed, after a 64 year ban, to perform propaganda operations against it's own citizens. So now, even more than before, the news inside the US can't be trusted. What you're seeing is Putin's operations... they cover what works for them. What works for them is often exactly the opposite of what works for the US government... as a results RT seems to have many stories that you don't see if most of your other news sources come from the US or it's allies.

A prized nugget for the Soviets and the Russians has always been the racial divide in the United States. Over the last two days US sources have had numerous stories about police departments having cook outs and such trying to engage with the community, the black community specifically, trying to end the wave of divisive violence. You won't see one mention of that on RT. You will see that RT did immediately cover the shooting targeting officers in New York. Anything remotely on their message gets sensationalized.

US domestic news sources continue to plug the headline of the thwarted coup in Turkey. He's their man, and Russia hates him. US news keeps repeating the US narrative. It's not Putin's narrative, so RT was a great source for news and footage of the riot police indiscriminately firing on citizens.

They're all lying to us. Your only options are to listen to it all and try and merge it into a cohesive logical picture... or just check out and listen to none of them. Both equally sound choices that should yield equally ineffective results. What ever their agendas, there's just too much disinformation to ever really sort it out.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

RT is not for domestic audiences!

If you want news from Russia, better to read Russian newspaper. You will be surprise that even the Echo Moscow, owned by Gazprom is one of the most government-critical media.

Among the well-known English, government-sponsored Russian news sources:

RT is more opinion-oriented reporting.
Sputnik, mainly reports, cites from other sources. It's like a radio.
RBTH, rather balanced, but very few news are reported daily.

Some of "not-propaganda" news from RBTH:
http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/07/08/decision-to-name-bridge-after-chechen-leader-backfires-in-st-petersburg_609921
http://rbth.com/business/2016/06/08/more-than-40-of-top-managers-plan-to-leave-russia_601329
http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/07/06/poll-freedom-for-russians-is-professional-career-and-free-expression_609357
http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/06/07/jailed-for-a-repost-the-definition-of-extremism-in-russia-gets-ever-looser_600997

Re:Ironic

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

That RT has become a major source of news that you can't get on most major news channels.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide what, if any, value RT has by providing the following link. It has "highlights" of their coverage of the situation in Ukraine 2 years ago.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kathe...

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

That RT has become a major source of news that you can't get on most major news channels.

Wikileak's drama is not news.

These emails could be juicy, but where's the report on the actual meat and potatoes here?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

A prized nugget for the Soviets and the Russians has always been the racial divide in the United States.

I suppose so. As someone born in USSR, I was never exposed to racism until I moved to Canada. I didn't understand the meaning of a word. Racist pricks of all colours want me to be sorry for something my entire family tree wasn't even aware of. In USSR we screwed each other equally. No matter race or creed. From my perspective first people to scream racist are racist themselves and I treat them with the respect they deserve. For example I make a mental distinction between nigger and black. Black is a person with different pigmentation. Nigga is a racist piece of entitled shit with different pigmentation.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some news you can't get on major news channels. Most of it is inaccurate and shows me in a good light though.

Fuck that commie Snowden and his boss Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is a communist KGB scumbag traitor. Where are the wikileaks from Russia, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean and Pakistani server?

Right. Silence.

Re:Fuck that commie Snowden and his boss Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, you're right! Why haven't I seen it till now?

Re:Fuck that commie Snowden and his boss Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't trust Snowden until he personally hacks Putin's email account and releases everything on Wikileaks!!

Re:Fuck that commie Snowden and his boss Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I'd completely forgotten that Snowden had also worked for the intelligence services of each of those other countries.

I'd also forgotten that he'd taken over the running of Wikileaks from Assange. Thanks for reminding me, fellow AC!

Re:Fuck that commie Snowden and his boss Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden has nothing to with WikiLeaks. And if you didn't even know that, I'm going to guess you wouldn't recognize a communist if it came up and gave you ownership of the means of production in the ass.

RIP Turkey

[Chrisq]

Turkey has turned it's back on Ataturk's dream of a modern secular state, and is destined to become yet another muzzy hell-hole.

Re:RIP Turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

this. 100%. And the sad thing is the US and EU still seem to support sultan erdogan. At least in the EU the press is cracking down on him.

Re:RIP Turkey

[Opportunist]

Erdogan has the EU by the balls with the refugees. If the EU doesn't dance to his tune, he simply doesn't take these people from the EU and Greece is going to sink in a flood of people washing against the shores.

Re: RIP Turkey

[Frankzy]

And as a European I'd rather have the turks suffer under Erdogan than the EU being swarmed like we were before the deal... Don't get me wrong, immigration is fine but the levels we saw last year was a little crazy.

Re: RIP Turkey

[Opportunist]

You are aware that part of the deal with Erdogan was free travel between Turkey and the EU, yes?

Are you also aware that he plans to hand those refugees Turkish passports?

Do the math.

Re: RIP Turkey

[Frankzy]

Then they will have Turkish passports which means they can't seek asylum in any European country or they'd be sent back to Turkey....

Re: RIP Turkey

[Opportunist]

Why bother seek asylum when you can work here?

And if you really want to, you can conveniently "lose" it somewhere along the way, as you did before.

end of turkish secular state: summary

[Anonymous Coward]

What has to cement the Turkish Islamic empire the most is the unbridled purification of the court. The media were already restrained (internet, prohibition of AV media, nationalization of newspapers and conglomerates, government control of the news, persecution of journalists and bloggers, intimidation of foreign correspondents). The purpose of this internal putsch was the abolishment of the separation of powers. 542 administrative judges detained 2,204 prosecuted. 48 members of the State Council, two members of the Constitutional Court, 140 members of the Court of Appeal. The Turkish secular state is buried now. More Koranic schools, increasing violence against women and secularists (such as the non-sanctioned attack on Radiohead fans during Ramadan), stop of prosecution for sex with minors and severe punishment for child rapists, the astronomical increase in alcohol prices, the plan to establish alcohol-free zones. The narcissism of Erdogan (for over 2,000 processes for defamation) goes beyond his megalomania (the construction of the expensive White House, the proliferation of mosques, the scornful disregard of the protests in Taksim Square in 2013) which defies imagination. Erdogan has only one goal: to cultivate a godly generation. Say, one country, one people, one leader. Hitler was inspired by Atatürk. Erdogan now is inspired by Hitler. Even with its fifth column in the rest of Europe. But one man benefited from the outlawing of any opposition. That Europe is now cheering "the salvation of democracy" is particularly cowardly. Even with the loaded Turkish army tradition. Chamberlain did this as well in 1938. Europe forgets Erdogan recently glorified the approach of Nazi Germany. That nightmare in Turkey closer than expected.

Re:end of turkish secular state: summary

[Anonymous Coward]

now 21000 teachers lost their license, 1500 university rectors and deans lost their jobs, probably all too soon to be prosecuted. erdogan wants reintroduction of death penalty. How are we still even talking to turkey ?!

Re:end of turkish secular state: summary

[thygate]

same thing Hitler did after the invasion of Poland.

Re:end of turkish secular state: summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing Russia did for decades since the turn of the 20th century right through to the 1970s.

Re:end of turkish secular state: summary

[Opportunist]

Because we need that bastard. He knows that and is using this. If it wasn't for refugees and ISIS, nobody would give half a shit about his hide.

At some point, though, it becomes easier to simply replace one dictator with another one. It's a bit like with every extortionist, at some point, paying an assassin gets cheaper than paying the extortion money.

hahahah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, including the email orders for Turkish Deserts! What a respone! hahahaha

Re:hahahah

[Opportunist]

Turkish delight on a moonlit night?

Re:hahahah

[Anonymous Coward]

How did constantinople get the works? Thats nobody's business but the turks.

I read some emails

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that technologically developed countries do not sell any surveillance technologies to countries such as Turkey and other less democratic countries. Moreover, I also wish to see engineers refusing to develop such technologies to be used by anti-democratic counties. Italy and EU made some steps in controlling to export such tools to Egypt but the outcome is unknown. If EU control the export of these tools, others countries can still export it.
I have checked some emails from the Gezi uprising period and I think that the ruling party which is using surveillance technologies recklessly know better not to use emails to discuss some important issues. I hope to read some but I do not think that we will have access to a scandalous email. We already have enough wiretap of Erdogan with his son on youtube and some people broadcast them in subways and buses but people are afraid to react and nothing has changed.

one oligarch to trump them all

[Anonymous Coward]

And the irony of the biggest oligarchs becoming the heroes of the masses: Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Boris Johnson.
Most deserve the next wave of fascism that's presenting itself.

Re:one oligarch to trump them all

[nomad63]

Don't over-estimate Tayyip Erdogan.He is by no means an oligarch. He is a peon in the game, who will be sacrificed when his time comes. And that time is very close.

NATO is losing Turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no doubt NATO is losing Turkey to Islamic control. We saw this coming as Turkey was reluctant to engage ISIS even at its own boarder. Turkey has been a solid member of NATO since WW2. It will be another terrible loss of logistic power in the region if the US and NATO lose bases in Turkey. It will mean any military air operations will have to be launched from bases or carriers further away. Sadly Clinton or Obama has not even addressed the significance of this because both are to blame for allowing this.

NATO Member & EU Candidate

[ArgonautThief]

It is a disgrace that this country remains a NATO member and has candidature for the EU. Not that those two organisations are a shining light of moral rectitude but regardless....

Re:NATO Member & EU Candidate

[CanEHdian]

I'm sure that EU was hoping that dangling the membership carrot (e.g. billions of Euros coming their way) would pacify Erdogan, in the sense to keep things at least looking civil from the outside. Erdogan knows how to game the politically-correct, pacifist Europeans perfectly. You can see that with the "refugees" (actually pawns in a huge political game) deal. Heaps and heaps of Euros coming his way, and a one-for-one swap of refugees (i.e. zero-sum). Erdogan has also taken control of the selection process (see here so you can imagine what that means. And gets away with this, the EU even lies for him (or to save their own face) by calling this "cooperation", while the fact is they only get the names that Erdogan allows them to have. So he knows exactly how to deal with the EU. And he will get away with this one. And he knows why: the floodgates can be opened in minutes, and bases can be overrun, of course with the foreign military allowed to leave with their tails between their legs.

Re:NATO Member & EU Candidate

[Opportunist]

The main reason Turkey is a NATO member is its position and its control of the Bosporus Strait, which pretty much kept the Russian Black Sea fleet contained.

With Russia no longer being an issue, at best it's now the entry point to the daesh controlled areas. And we can get there via other ways, no need to keep that albatross around the neck.

Re:NATO Member & EU Candidate

[nomad63]

It is a disgrace that this country remains a NATO member and has candidature for the EU. Not that those two organisations are a shining light of moral rectitude but regardless....

Ha ha ha... Candidate for EU ? You're dreaming my friend. Turkiye, never had a chance to become a EU member and never will. They will dangle the membership carrot, when they need Tayyip to do something for them and pull it back when the need is over. NATO is a different story, but NATO needs military, which Tayyip has decimated with Ergenekon trials and this staged coup. Whatever is left in the military command is, or will soon be is his puppets, who has no idea about strategizing or actually commanding anyone other than a prayer chorus. So, until later time, Turkiye's membership in NATO, will not be a major concern for anyone.

Some rumors bla bla bla

[Anonymous Coward]

Some rumours say that a lot of the soldiers were conscripts thinking this was all a military exercise. Hand them rifles loaded with blanks, and plant a handful of agitators with live rounds amongst them.

Just the facts checker here, you cant use blanks on rifle without a blank adapter. Unless the conscript are truly clueless, that does not fly.

Re:Some rumors bla bla bla

[Fire_Wraith]

Just the facts checker here, you cant use blanks on rifle without a blank adapter. Unless the conscript are truly clueless, that does not fly.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Blank adapters are in no way necessary to fire a blank. The mechanics of the rifle (firing pin, primer, etc) all have NOTHING to do with the blank adapter. What you will run into problems with is trying to fire semi-automatic with blanks, without a blank adapter, because the purpose of the blank adapter is to ensure that enough gas pressure exists to operate that mechanism.

To explain another way, the reason an M-16/AR-15/etc can fire in semi-automatic (or burst, or fully automatic) mode is because part of the expanding gases from the round being fired are pushed back through a tube, and reset the firing mechanism. Without a bullet in front of them, the gas pressure heading back wouldn't be enough to reset the firing mechanism. This is what the blank adapter is for - to delay/retard the release of the propellant gases from the muzzle enough that sufficient force goes back to reset the firing mechanism. Without it, you can easily fire, but you'll have to manually chamber the next round and re-cock the firing mechanism, etc.

A better argument is that soldiers would know they're loading blanks, and would likely ask why they're not using blank adapters - but then again, maybe the fact that they're conscripts is why? Their NCOs still ought to know better, even in that case.

Re:Some rumors bla bla bla

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, I stand corrected.

Talking of turkey governments.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If Trump gets in then that will be a turkey of an administration, and maybe their winning tune should be from the Cranberries?. But I'm sure Donald will do his baste. If he fails he'll be stuffed.....

So what?

[Xenna]

300k emails is just the size of my 'Junk mail' folder...

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing's gonna change the outcome. People with guns > wimps with computers.

Lord of the Rings

[entropy01]

I glanced at the story, saw "Erdogan" and "Gulen," and thought there was a new Lord of the Ring movie on the way.

Where are the new Hillary emails?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or was the Iraq War release all of that?

Turkey 2016 = Iran 1979

[Anonymous Coward]

Hoardes of "young men" supporting a "popular" change of government and ranting about foreign influence etc are ACTUALLY Islamofascists supporting the destruction of a secular state and its conversion to an Islamic theocracy. There are MANY parallels here:

(a) In Iran: secular govt being replaced by muslim theocracy, in Turkey: secular govt converting to palace tyrant+mullahs model like Saudi arabia.

(b)The return of the veil/hijab/etc for women, who were not so muzzled in either Turkey or Islam before these foul events.

(c) The secular courts and schools are being purged.

(d) The increasingly powerful ruler is even demanding a US president (and even a Democrat at that) return his only high-profile political opponent for "justice" back in the land that is rapidly spirallying into Islamist rule from secular rule.

(e) The about-to-be Islamofascist country is on the cusp of getting top-line NATO warplanes (F-14 Tomcats for Iran, which actually got a few incomplete ones before the revolution, F-35 Lightning IIs for Turkey which (insanely, for the West) will soon get the 1st ones)

The people of Turkey who are being told this plunge is actually freedom are goint to awake to the truth when it is too late, just like the people of Iran did. The Iranian people were told they were being freed from the "evil" shah, and they ended-up living under the thumb of the extreme whackos who persecuted/imprisoned/murdered far more people and made far more things illegal than the shah (who was certainly bad) ever did. It's VERY suspicious that this supposed coup was as incompetent as it was given the normal competence of the Turkicsh military and its long track record of success in coups, and also very interesting that all the "civilians" in the streets during the "coup" were young fighting-age men. There may have been some women,but none of the photos I have seen contained any.

History never PRECISELY repeats, but it prevents plenty of lessons and warnings, and we're all stupid to ignore them.

And 9/11 was an inside job by the RNC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you REALLY hear yourself think, or do you cover it with special pleading?