Turkey Extends Purge to Universities, Asking All Deans to Go
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I'm sure we all can agree that there is such s line since we probably all can agree that Hitler crossed it although I'm not sure in his case where exactly that line was either. Maybe when he dismantled the parliament? Maybe earlier?
As for as crossing a line, because he was democratically elected, there's two lines to cross: 1) when he makes death camps and starts gassing large numbers of his own people (probably minorities like the Kurds, or various secularists), and 2) when he invades some other country.
In WWII, other nations only finally did something after Germany invaded too many countries (they gave him a pass on Poland, saying "we'll have peace in our time!" by appeasing him). They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those. Just like they didn't care about the genocide in Rwanda.
I imagine the situation with Turkey will be much the same.
Um, the invasion of Poland was what caused England to declare war, and ask France to do the same.
My understanding was that the invasion of poland coincided with readiness to respond to a countermeasure by England. And that England called it war pretty much immediately and started mobilizing right then.
Seeing all the treaties that don't get enforced, I'm led to believe that England didn't have to attack.
Remember that England and France thought it would be crazy for another war after WWI that Germany really wouldn't invade Poland. And likewise, Germany/Hitler were surprised that England and France really did draw a line at Poland.
The allies didn't know about the death camps until 1942. They were already at war with Germany in 1942, and they issued a public condemnation of Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jewish race at the end of that year.
>Hitler was democratically elected.
He wasn't elected, he was appointed Chancellor then used violence and intimidation to rise to power. Only about 1/3 of the population supported the Nazis in the elections before 1933. Later after the Reichstag fire, the government enacted emergency measures limiting left wing opposition parties and arrested many communist leaders. You can't call anything that happened after that a free and open election.
Homosexual survivors were treated horribly because homosexuality was still a crime in Germany and most of the Allied countries after WWII. But the western allies weren't "fine" with systematically exterminating homosexuals or any other group--as evidenced by the fact that they ended the practice.
The allies discovered a bunch of gays locked up in concentration camps under a 1935 Nazi-enacted law, didn't repel that article similarly to e.g. laws against Jews when WWII ended and supported their re-imprisonment, nor did they make their times in the concentration camps count against their "crimes".
Granted saying they were "fine with it" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I don't think it's unreasonable in the face of historical evidence to think that the concentration camps would have been treated vastly differently by the allies if the only prisoners were homosexuals, given how the allies treated those prisoners upon their release.
Which I think goes to show that the allied forces didn't have an intrinsic objection to what went on in the concentration camps, they just minded the target audience the Nazis picked.
>they just minded the target audience the Nazis picked
This makes no sense. Most of the allied countries had a long history of antisemitism. If anything, targeting the Jews should have made it less objectionable.
No, I think they objected to killing millions of men, women, and children, using a horrific modern factory style process. No normal human (who wasn't slowly conditioned to accept it) who saw the result of those concentration camp could possibly have no intrinsic objection. The visceral reaction to seeing the bodies and the emaciated survivors would be the same whether the victims were Jewish or homosexual.
The simple fact is that Hitler did win the 1933 elections in a democratic system. And unlike sham elections like Saddam's where he won 99.9% of the vote, this isn't so obviously rigged.
The vote that you are talking about happened after the Reichstag fire and Hitler was appointed (not elected) Chancellor. Opposition parties were suppressed, and the Nazi party "monitored" the election. Thousands of opposition party members were arrested before the election. In Prussia, 50,000 Nazis were appointed as auxcillary-police to monitor the elections and to intimidate voters.
>this isn't so obviously rigged.
If you don't think the March 1933 elections were rigged you haven't read enough about them.
IMO, a coup can be justified if those that carry it out a) will be better governors than those they overthrew and b) they have popular legitimacy. By that standard, a Reichswehr coup in 1933 would have been justified, but the half-assed Turkish coup that has just happened wouldn't.
A client state of Russia and a client state of the United States, respectively, which is why neither is a country Turkey can invade without repercussions from Russia or "the rest of NATO" (or, at least, the US, which is pretty much the bulk of the military power of NATO.)
And while Iraq's status as a US client state may seem somewhat questionable, Iraqi Kurdistan is more tightly aligned with the US than the central government is, and may well vote soon on independence and is the part -- for both geographic and political reasons -- that one is talking about when one talks about Turkey invading Iraq.
They declared war 2 days after Germany attacked Poland. "Peace in our time" was a year earlier.
Highly doubtful. Turkey is a NATO member who's entire defense strategy hinges on that alliance. We don't live in the 20th century anymore. Countries are far too interdependent for a war of territorial aggression to be effective.
The parts (de facto, at least) of Russia that were, not too long ago, part (de jure as well as de facto) of the Ukraine suggest otherwise.
As might the parts of what is internationally recognized as Iraq and Syria that are now dominated by Daesh.
I would say this reaction to the failed coup is probably too extreme, and is being used (similar to crystal nacht after a terrorist attack) to dismantle criticts of the govt.
Erdogan replaced a lot of the officers, judges and key figures in the educational and judicial system over the years, cracked down on the press which lead to closure of many independent news sources and really been acting like a dictator including attempts at altering the constitution Of the country completely.
If a secular military coup looked likely to be successful, the west would be ecstatic.
When I was reading coverage during the first few hours of the coup Fethullah Gulen was mentioned repeatedly as the possible orchestrator.
What the West wants is a secular, pluralistic, economically and socially secure and stable Turkey under the rule of law. A military government might tick one or two of those boxes in the short term, but the rest (and all of them long term) can only be achieved via democracy.
This tale gets better every time its told.
It's already very bad in certain things. Like freedom of the press (and other civil liberties). Putin's Russia is sort of arriving there with the new communications wiretapping requirements, whereas China has the Golden Shield Firewall operating for the past decade.
Russian prosecutors going rouge and openly ally with the mob? A new and scary thing. But we never even heard of Chinese prosecutors doing anything other than what the current state (and regional, and their own) interests demanded.
A train derailed and folks thought it'd be easier to bury it (as in put enough dirt on it to hide it) than to report it and face whatever consequences.
Russia annexed Crimea, China does nasty things in Tibet and thinks very hard about how to make Hong Kong bend its knee.
Industrial espionage is encouraged. Dumping too. (Ordering stuff from China is simply too cheap. The cost of international shipping is likely paid by the State.) Just as questionable loans to state-owned enterprises. And there are a lot of those.
Not to mention environmental and health concerns.
Sure, things are getting better for the average Chinese, but that's _very_ far from a success story.
EDIT: from DominikR, it seems the Turkish government is encouraging others to report online posts of anti-government sentiment. Be careful to post anonymously if you are willing to post from within Turkey.
I've been out-of-country for a while, but my (very anti-islamist) family is basically saying "best hope is ending up like Iran, worst hope is Syria". There are continuing widespread, scary daily rallies of Islamist-supporters whipping up a frenzy, and secularists are completely cowed with no way forward. The secularist state is being completely dismantled.
Now, it is very clear to everyone that it was a fake coup. So that Erdogan can do his regime change without getting any resistance. Anyone who is against is a coup supporter and will be dumped to tens of thousands of people on the prisons, after getting beaten up by Islamist running around.
One of the significant changes he has made was to make mosques a part of the new regime. Mosques are now doing they have never done since the establishment of republic 90 years ago. The mosques are now constantly making announcement and telling Erdogan's people to "go outside and hunt coup supporters for the love of god".
A civil war has started but we don't know it yet. I hope I am wrong.
I hope you are already planning to leave the country cause from what you're saying it's going to get uglier.
Today Erdoğan declared that he has a surprise tomorrow. https://eksisozluk.com/20-temmuz-2016-rtenin-aciklayacagi-bu...
Erdogan understood long ago that Turkey would never be accepted in the EU (even with big pressure coming from USA and UK) and has used the EU membership as a bargaining chip.
Now the membership option is openly dead, and Erdogan can proceed with his fundamentalist agenda.
Also, having been clearly betrayed by EU and OTAN in this military coup, he really has nothing to worry about anymore. Turkey will be out of NATO soon, and it will become a Russia ally.
What a blunder the west is playing: only 25 years after the URSS collapse, and instead of integrating Russia into the global institucions, the USA decided to proffit the strategic advantage to expand and provoke. We have managed to turn the possibility of true global integration, collaboration and progress into a new cold (actually warm and soon hot) war.
In detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
So for the time being they're on their own. Hell, they can't even ally with most Sunni governments in the region because they've pissed all of them off by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
And what's with Cyprus? According to some coments it is the main reason why Turkey is not EU member, but according to you it's just a minor issue? I am confused.
Iran -- the US dislikes Iran (less and less every day), Turkey is neutral, no big disagreements there
Israel -- historically not an issue, only an issue now due to AKP government
Egypt -- Not an issue, until recently when the MB government got couped
All of those disagreements were nonexistent or of negligible importance until recently, when they were aggravated by actions of the AKP government. The EU and US have their problems, but they don't extend to geopolitics; it's not like the two have sponsored opposing factions in a war before, with the possible and very brief exception of Germany/Croatia vs US/Bosnia in the 90s. Turkey's problems with Russia are much larger in scope and severity than anything that has ever happened within NATO or the EU.
I did not say that Cyprus was a minor issue. It's a major issue with one member of NATO (Greece) whom the other members don't respect very much. The other members do not consider it much of an issue at all.
Will Turkey get closer to Russia? I think so because bipolarity is on the rise, with NATO on one side, Russia+China on the other.
And Erdogan apologized to Putin two weeks ago.
EU wants to be friendly with Turkey because it's the only other route for oil/gas pipelines towards the Middle East that doesn't involve Russia. EU is already heavily dependent on Russian natural gas, and has been seeking solutions [2] to remedy this, which Russia understandably machinates against [3][4].
NATO wants Turkey as a hedge against Russia, as a detente for Greek-Turkish disagreements, and a foothold in the Middle East.
Turkey could very well be in a position to court both NATO and Russia and see what it can get. This may not imply shifting alliances, just trying to get incentives from all parties.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_pipeline
Dont get we wrong: I dont think it's magic, just than then, and for Turkey, it would have worked.
And more important: it would have been the right signal to send, to the whole world
I sincerily think that was our best chance, ever, to kill fundamentalism for good.
We will never know.
These free-market types, they are really wreaking the world. The 1% capitalism we have reached is putting a death sign in the fundamentalist market ideology, but they are for sure going down with a bang.
It is true that fundamentalism is on the rise worldwide (also in christian countries) but my impression is that, in Turkeys case, it was the EU attitude which caused lots of turkish people to vote for a strong islamic president.
Or it was just a temporary aligning of views that Erdogan and AKP initially seemed to be moderates, but it turned out that the sheep is actually a wolf with a sheepskin. It happened in history already a few times.
Also, diluting the progressive thought of the EU would likely have prevented it from being an effective counterforce to radicalization. (Though it could have moderated things a bit in Turkey.)
Also, you are assuming that true global integration is both possible and necessarily a good thing, which are both far from clear.
Global collaboration and integration is surely better than conflict, and I dont see a third option, long term.
The choice between global integration and conflict is a false dichotomy. There are many other options: political decentralization and autonomy, linked by mutually beneficial and voluntary trade arrangements, for example.
Besides, historically, the integration of diverse societies with vastly different cultural norms and expectations can only be done through the use of overwhelming force. It has never worked any other way.
Exactly! The USA was leading by example (Kyoto, International Court of Justice, ...) and Russia said “me too“.
And the USA, feeling unchallenged, dared put offensive/defensive military infraestructure on the door to Russia.
Well played!
At first you said that Russia wanted to join international organizations and integrate with the world, but couldn't because the US was somehow actively blocking Russia from joining.
Now you are saying that the US itself didn't join certain international organizations, which encouraged Russia to also actively reject membership in international organizations.
Which is it? These are two very different and opposite arguments.
> What a blunder the west is playing: only 25 years after the URSS collapse, and instead of integrating Russia into the global institucions, the USA decided to proffit the strategic advantage to expand and provoke. We have managed to turn the possibility of true global integration, collaboration and progress into a new cold (actually warm and soon hot) war.
I stand by that: if the west (read USA) had lead by example, by transfering power to international organizations, truly independent, that would have reassured other parties to follow.
Instead, we got the neocons.
Foreign influence? Can you tell me once when the USA has submitted its interests to the will of the international community?
Expansionist? The USA has military presence all around the world, and has interferred politically and/or military everywhere, including central and south america, middle east, europe, and far east.
The USA does not annex countries because its strategy is different: invade and destroy country, plant friendly regime, build economic ties (corruption at highest levels) and profit. No need to be running countries when your puppets do it for you.
You're attempting to change the discussion from an analysis of Russia's historic motives in specific situations into an generalized anti-American polemic, because your analysis of Russia's motives was shown to be incorrect.
The people who seemed to be internationalists in Russia in the early 1990s were extremely weak and never actually in charge of the country. They couldn't have brought Russia into any sort of internationalist regime even if they had wanted to. They were totally unable to contain the criminal syndicates within Russia who actually ran things during their nominal rule, and then they were totally unable to avoid their own removal from power by Putin.
The United Nations is a joke. It has been an utter failure from the start. Countries large and small, powerful and weak, ignore it with impunity whenever they feel like it. It is little more than a debating society for intellectual bureaucrats who like to make themselves feel important by issuing thousand page reports that nobody ever reads except other UN bureaucrats.
Why on earth would the US, Russia, or anyone else want to strengthen that mass of bureaucratic dysfunction?
Fantasies of a worldwide internationalist government are long dead, and for good reason.
My analysis of russisn motives was pretty much “they did what they did because the USA prooved that they were an expansionist empire, with the goal of extending their influence on the world by expanding their area of influence without compromising ideologically“
I hold the USA to a highest standard, first because they have the means to lead, and second because they have extracted enough value from the world that a bit of compromising is just fair. But even though I feel that the USA are expected to be better than the rest, they never deceive in being much worse than anybody else: military interventions, lies, wars, political medling, ... everything goes.
The UN is indeed a joke, and the USA is mainly to blame. You are happy about it, and I think it's just a pitty.
What do you expect the world to look like in 200 years? Do you really buy that nonsense about perfectly isolated national identities, hapily trading with each other? How do you solve “tragedy of the commons“ kind of problems, without a supranational authority strong enough to force solutions on members? Or is the market fairy working for you there too?
Global problems must be solved by compromise.
or said in a vulgar manner, becoming USA's b\*tch , because that's basically what Poland is :
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27973473
> Using vulgar language, he(Sikorski) compared Polish subservience to the US to giving oral sex.
And now we are here.
The shield was mainly a signal by the USA: “I can do whatever, whenever and wherever“, and Russia has been saying “not really“ for the last ten years.
It was thus not a major factor in Russia's strategic calculations.
The signal value was, at best, an extremely minor signal. The shield was never a significant military threat to Russia, which was obvious and well known to both the US and Russia at the time.
The only information it carried was that Poland was choosing the US over Russia, which had also been extremely obvious to everyone for a long time, since they had been announcing it to anyone who would listen for years.
The shield was thus of utterly insignificant value as a signal in terms of Russia's decision to join or not join international organizations. It was a signal to Poland, not to Russia.
And Russia has made sure to send its very own signal too.
Turkey was never "liberal",the majority of Turkish people were always "conservative" Muslims. Istanbul doesn't represent all Turkey .this is a fantasy invented by the people who wanted Turkey in the EU. It's not the EU's fault if Turkey ends up like yet another dictatorship in the middle east. So stop blaming the EU for that. That's a lie.
No it wasn't. what gave you this impression? It has never declined, not in 80's, not in 90's not in the 2000's. You're like one of those people that look at pictures of Teheran,Iran or Kabul, Afghanistan in the 70's and say "Look at these women without hijab, these countries were liberal back then". Off course not, the majority of the population was still extremely conservative back then.
Turkey is no different. The EU did absolutely nothing and had no influence on the strength of fundamentalism in Turkey. Turkey has nobody but itself to blame for that.
36 years ago we had a military coup in my country (Spain). We overcame the situation, in part because the King (I am fiercely anti-monarquic, but whatever), opposed the coup.
We were obviously the same country, but if the King had supported the coup, I can assure you Spain would be much different (maybe in ruins).
That was an internal issue, but this would have worked the same with external signals. Keeping with Spain: if the allies would have interferred in the spanish dictatorship at the end of WWII, we would have spared us a couple of decades of Franco.
And so on. Dont try to make me believe that external events do not have any effect.
Or, put another way: what would have happened if EU and USA would have supported military coup last friday? (Impossible, I know, since both wouldn't have risked falling on the wrong side, but I digress)
Nobody here is trying to make you believe that. Perhaps fundamentalism in Turkey was helped along in political power (but not popular support--it's always been strong in rural areas) but EU rejection, but "fundamentalism was going down before the EU blew it up" is a statement without support, since in most of the places where fundamentalism has grown strongest the EU has zero influence.
> Turkey is no different. The EU did absolutely nothing and had no influence on the strength of fundamentalism in Turkey. Turkey has nobody but itself to blame for that.
How was he betrayed by the EU in this coup? I can see no evidence for that statement, from the limited amount I know about the situation.
The USA, experienced as they are, were more nuanced, siding with democracy early on, without clearly specifying what they meant.
Nobody explicitely defended the elected government until the coup was obviously failing. Pretty oportunist if you ask me:
https://twitter.com/gonvaled/status/754121385878913024
https://twitter.com/gonvaled/status/754079673403994112
https://twitter.com/gonvaled/status/754070719110193152
Pretty sure Erdogan felt betrayed.
The West was seriously duped by this guy. I remember The Economist's self-deluded/deceitful decade-long, apologetic editorial line, never letting a mention of the islamist AKP go unqualified with the adjective "mildly" (read: "market friendly"), and it is ironic that one of the most effective Brexit camp scare tactics was Turkish EU accession, when it was Britain under Blair and Cameron who were the most vociferous advocates of the policy in the first place.
The fix is in. This "coup" is a transparent manipulation by Erdogan so that he might grab absolute power. Who knows what havoc he will now wreak in the region, and in Europe, with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote#One_man.2C_o...
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man, he had the Vote." (Mort, Terry Pratchett)
Search for streetcar.
The West has also spent the past decade and a half fawning over the genius of the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA for the same reason. Look into their glorious human rights record, or the level of inequality there for that matter. Makes the USA look like an egalitarian utopia.
Dubai is another one. Look at those skyscrapers! What a dynamic economy! Never mind the slave labor and the caste system.
I'd throw Singapore in too. They're nowhere near as bad as the PLA or Dubai in practice but they are essentially totalitarian at heart. But the numbers look good and the streets are clean so it's okay.
Side note:
One thing that's disillusioned me about libertarianism is that the past 30-ish years of history seem to have proven that capitalism and economic health are absolutely compatible with totalitarianism. IMHO the Randian notion that the two are at odds and that a dynamic economy requires freedom and justice has been empirically proven wrong. Slave states work. GDP goes up. What's not to like?
They work when they're sitting on a mountain of oil, or Singapore's equivalent: a shipping bottleneck. Sort-of, at some point corruption becomes intolerable, or the oil runs out (or becomes too cheap to pay for the oppression).
That said, the Singapore comparison may be a little far-fetched, they resemble the West far more than the totalitarian Middle East states.
So yes, economies relying on slave labor can outcompete our economies in sectors where masses of low skilled labor are required (because of the lower price), but once these economies move up and require highly skilled labor they'll usually get into trouble.
It need not be codified into law. It can be accomplished by way of a severe wealth disparity, a glass ceiling, stratification of housing, stratification of education, etc., and a legal system that treats upper class people significantly better than lower class ones. Everyone is technically a citizen subject to the same laws but in practice a different set of laws apply to you based on your wealth, occupation, connections, and what neighborhood you live in.
Edit: yes the US is a bit like this, but you can take it a lot further.
So glad the US isn't like that...
If you're a semi-meritocratic secular authoritarian state like China that isn't too difficult. If you're a religious conservative authoritarian state, that's close to impossible. Knowledge workers are willing to live with authoritarianism as long as it doesn't overly restrict their personal lives and interactions, and religious conservatism is all about restricting personal lives and interactions.
Obviously caste systems and totalitarianism are at ideological odds with libertarianism.
The military never liked Erdogan and he's been locking up military leaders for 'plotting' against him for years. Some of them finally got fed up with him, but made a mess of it.
a) A coup-credible general or two or three, would have been bribed to trigger it, so that Erdogan could identify his enemies red-handed. The rest of the plotters in the army would have been under the impression a real coup was happening. This would explain the quick surrender of the bridge soldiers without a fight, because the horrible reality that they had been duped would have dawned upon them.
Or possibly more likely:
b) Noises and rumours were discretely circulated by his agents that Erdogan was preparing a large purge. This is credible because it is reported the list of all the 3000 judge firings, for example, was pre-prepared (as you would expect with such a large number). Tactical leaks to the right people of would have forced an immature half-baked coup plan hastily and prematurely to be executed, in panic and to protect themselves pre-emptively from said purge. This is the scenario where Erdogan basically raised the stakes in order to call their bluff, and thus flushed his enemies out into the open.
Personally I find the consequences of this "coup" to be much too neatly convenient for Erdogan, the purge too pre-meditated in appearance and logistically well organised, for the finger of prime suspicion not to point directly at him.
The Middle East is full of conspiracy theories like this. Pretty much everything that ever happens is either an Israeli or American plot or both. I get that there are actually a lot of conspiracies and plotting going on in the region. But sometimes a failed coup is just a failed coup.
I can kind of buy the big purge theory, but Erdogan would have had big lists of political enemies anyway whether he was actively plotting a purge or not. In fact hundreds of military personnel have already been tried an jailed for plotting and disloyalty over the years. Along with stripping opposition politicians of immunity and planning to try them for treason, he was already carrying out a step-by-step purge anyway. I don't think the coup plotters had any need to know about or believe in anything more in order to see what was happening and decide a coup was worth a shot.
But after these extensive purges it will be basically impossible to remove the elite that rose with Erdogan for the next decades, of that much I'm sure.
History has shown again and again that purges are a cruel but still extremely effective tool. After this there will be no opposition left.
I even expect that Turkey will leave NATO within the next years and get closer to Russia/China/Iran.
Also, I didn't know about this, but I guess I should be prepared for even more of it:
> President Recep Tayyip Erdogan clashed with academics earlier this year, when more than 1,000 of them signed a petition calling for peace in the southeast and criticizing the government’s handling of the state’s long-running battle with its Kurdish population centered there. Many ended up on trial, while others lost their jobs.
Pretty sad, given what it used to be.
We can not build walls between blocks, so perpetual war is the only answer.
Losing Turkey is even worse than losing the UK - and both are probably connected: Turkey is abusing a weakened EU.
Collaboration and compromise is falling apart: welcome to BoJo's future, where everything is a trade and people have no rights.
Eventually things will have to give. Navigating our increasingly global, complex, many-faceted, and all in all stranger world requires firm roots in rationality, of course, only if one wants to really get somewhere not just hide from the hard problems of life.
So far, it seems, we have billions of people very much reluctant to face this reality. Fighting tooth and nail against every kind of revelation, instead butchering reality to make it fit to their worldview.
Its saddening to see how the large secular part of the population that has no desire to live in an Islamic state has little recourse but to keep quiet and hope nobody points a finger in their direction.
The USA and Europe should welcome them. The American Century was in many ways built on brain drain from totalitarian regimes. When Germany went insane we got quite a bit of the cream of the crop of German intellectuals including many of history's greatest physicists, the Bauhaus School of design, etc.
You're assuming a country that broken won't also prevent emigration, and that everyone who wants to leave has the means to leave.
Preventing emigration is rare for non-Soviet-descended governments, even the most authoritarian ones. Most governments are pretty happy when dissidents leave.
> has the means to leave
Not everyone, but as the Syrian and Afghan refugees that were formerly pouring out of Turkey illustrate, if you are in decent health, have 2 feet and have a way of acquiring sustenance along your way, you don't need much means to leave. Most people are kept back by attachments to community and property, not a lack of means.
Aye, there's the rub...
I'm actually thinking to apply for a citizenship - I think I may be eligible after 7 years here.
My point is, yes, leaving is the right thing for most of the people who don't feel like they belong there.
Also, I think that will also help Turkey too. A very large group of like-minded people will (I guess) live up to their choices and they become very successful and everyone is happy or it all crashes and burns, hopefully leading to a story about successful recovery like Germany.
Maybe, but I'm not sure I see it likely with the current political mood that a wave of political refugees from an advancing Islamist movement in a country in that region will be welcomed with open arms in the USA. Just, you know, judging from recent history.
And if you haven't read it, this is a timely read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here
Thus the Madman, enters his final stage.
Isn't it possible that the more direct cause of success or failure are the circumstances and choices made by the people within these countries?
Turkey is firmly bent on following Iran's lead.
Ladies and Gentlemen - Ayatollah Supreme Leader Sultan Erdogan I, The Glorious, The Ever-Wise, Founder of the Modern Islamic Republic of Turkey!
Turkey may be headed down the Islamic rathole. No country with an Islamic education system is very successful, because Islamic education doesn't teach useful skills. Some of the oil states survive by bringing in outsiders to do the work, but that only lasts until the oil runs out. Then they become failed states like Egypt and Syria.
I can't speak to the quality (or lack thereof) of Islamic education. But I feel this generally holds true for any fundamentalist religion-based education.
it's almost like it takes a 1000 years, give or take, for a religion to blow off its steam and become reasonably peaceful.
Fundamental attribution error. It took Catholicism 1000 years to blow off that steam. That does not imply that the theology of Islam will ever move past barbarism.
Jesuits will survive and prosper long after movements like Quiverfull because they actually attempt to integrate modern scientific knowledge into their theology, instead of saying "well, the jury's still out on science."
Catholic schools are (by definition) not "fundamentalist" by the narrow original definition, and usually not "fundamentalist" by the broader, common modern definition.
Turks are not Arabs after all. Islam on the other hand is quite influential und universal in the Middle East.
I guess he wants more influence in the Middle East instead of trying to influence some Turkish minorities in China and a few minor Central Asian nations. (good luck trying that against China)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Islamic education system", but many important contributions [0] have been made by individuals from what would appear to be such a system.
If you're going to bring the "Islamic Golden Age" up, maybe we should discuss how to improve our diplomatic relations with Sparta and the Scythians, as well?
Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.
Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.
Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.
Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.
http://theexplanationproject.wikia.com/wiki/Directive_10-289
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_II
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/atlas-shrugged/summ...
Gross.
I don't believe you.
People have different opinions on Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, even people who have read it. Deal with it.
also, I don't care if you don't believe me. if you were really randian you would know that reality exists regardless of your belief in it, or to quote her quote of Socrates, "A is A."
I've also read and own literally every book she published, and a few published posthumously by leonard peikoff. I've considered her views extensively to see if they can coexist with mine.
Conclusion: gross.
Surprise: people read things that are hard/irritating to read when they're supposed to contain good lessons. Sometimes even more than once.
Case in point: the bible.
You're a waste of time anyway, later loser.
The book is poorly written and full of absurd Objectivist philosophy. I found Objectivism over the top even when I was a hardcore ancap libertarian.
EDIT: This was an ironic statement meant to reference Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure most people caught it, but its definitely interesting to see how primed up people are to voice an opinion. Its a good thing, if you take your time to understand what the other person has said. I believe is this a great representation of what is currently happening on both the left and right. People go straight for their opinions and demonize others without taking the brief moment to listen and think.
So if you're a doctor but actually discover one day you'd much rather be a musician and actually you eventually hate being a doctor, you just have to suck it up?
Sounds like Point Four needs to be extended far beyond "no new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever" to include "no new ideas, thoughts, emotions, or any cognitive state of any nature whatsoever" to get the kind of static state they're seeking.
So if you're a doctor but actually discover one day you'd much rather be a musician and actually you eventually hate being a doctor, but you do not suck it up, be a musician, and you may need to learn to keep yourself in prison.
I started with wardens, but the whole ecosystem would cause a chain reaction that would just cause extreme disorder.
I keep thinking and more ridiculous scenarios pop-up in my mind but I don't want to ruin the potentially fun game of finding them for everyone else.
source: gherkin0 and http://theexplanationproject.wikia.com/wiki/Directive_10-289