Slashdot Mirror
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.
There are emails showing that the President made this coup happen in order to weed out rebels and to strengthen his power?
Fascism is fascism, even when the fascist got the most votes.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
That RT has become a major source of news that you can't get on most major news channels.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I don't think Bush listened to Kissinger on Iraq. Or anyone with a lick of sense, for that matter.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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).
More likely he did listen to Brzezinski.
Destabilization does have a purpose.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
same thing Hitler did after the invasion of Poland.
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.
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.
If you're defense contractor it was a *brilliant* idea.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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....
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein