After the coup, Turkey turns against America
economist.com
economist.com
I strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia article on Kemalism (the principles of Atatürk for the Turkish Republic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalism
Erdogan dreams of bringing Turkey back to its Ottoman glory and is willing to exploit religion (and abolish Laicism) to do so. I don't think he staged the failed coup himself but it is clear that he's benefited the most from it:
He told the Turkish people to go out and stop the coup, risking their lives and knowing full well that the soldiers wouldn't massacre the civilians but creating an opportunity to make his supporters seem like a peaceful opposition to the "violent" military.
He spread the narrative that the coup was staged not to defend Atatürk's principles but by a religious sect his ruling party fell out with. He used that narrative and the failed coup to get rid of thousands of educators, judges, officials and military officers (calling it a "purge" even).
He's basically doing what he did before: eliminating all opposition to ensure his rise to permanent and unlimited power. Except because of the clever PR move of risking his citizens' lives he now has public support for his autocratic ambitions.
Atatürk created a nation that should have been an inspiration to the entire Islamic world with a degree of secularism far outmatching that of many Christian nations. Instead Erdogan is heading full speed back into the dark ages of theocratic dictatorships. This is a political tragedy of disturbing proportions and a huge loss for Europe and the Middle East.
A provision in the constitution for military coups doesn't excuse it. That just means the Turkish constitution is a bad one, that doesn't offer its citizens democracy. Handing over control to the people "once the situation is stable again" is a joke - then the people the military disapprove of will have been purged, their parties outlawed and the public sufficiently intimidated from supporting them for a while.
Which is not to say Erdogan is any friend of democracy, obviously. I don't think his recent reliance on free media during the coup will provoke any change of heart in him. It's just that Turkey's democracy was always a bit of a sham.
As a German and knowing my country's history I think a violent escape hatch is always necessary and justified. Both Germany and the US have something quite similar except they don't have a designated protector but instead put that duty on their citizens -- which means the citizens would have to fight against professional soldiers, which is exactly what a military coup would avoid.
You cite Popper, I cite Clausewitz: violence should be avoided, but if all else fails it should be regarded as the continuation of politics with other means. The important distinction is that it must be temporary and it must be avoided if at all possible.
The coups wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for autocrats like Erdogan who try to corrupt the ideals they were supposed to uphold. Turkish military coups are the equivalent of law enforcement using lethal force: it should never happen, but when it becomes absolutely necessary it will save more lives than it costs.
I'd even go so far as to say that if post-WW1 Germany had been modelled like Turkey, the nazis could have never risen to power. Unless the government, like Erdogan did, corrupted the military by replacing its leadership with its conspirators.
I hope that this is ignorance. In '61 the prime minister and two ministers were executed. In '80 there were about 600 thousand arrests, thousands of torture cases and thousands of killings. The sufferers were mostly communists and leftist alike, and extreme-right.
I'm from Turkey and I'll tell you this: If we have all these problems, it's because Kemalist revolutions. I would certainly love to live in his dream country (except for the extra-nationalism part), but the revolutions were without tolerance and impatient. Most of the people sort of swallowed it, when muslim reformists got power, they had the army in front of them. Up until the mid-90s bloodshed solved everything. But since one and a half a decade, they have asserted themselves, they now think that they have the power. Erdogan and the like know how to speak to them. He shows them the carrot, all run. They believe they'll get back the old glorious days, except they don't know nothing about the old glory, thanks to century long assimilation and constructed history. Thus, being already ignorant, and in the spell of The New Glory, they believe what they are told on the TV. This ignorance has been created by the anachronism and traditionmaking of the post-WWI regime and sequent politics of nationalism, fed also by the coups, inventing an anatolian people that came from central asia, and that only remotely knows what happened between 10th and 20th century.
Now the people is at the hands of them to be manipulated. They have forgotten the reality of pre-40s, and they are searching an identity, that's honourable and clean, and they follow whomever that invents likeable things. Why are the potent are shouting to the US now? Because it pleases who thinks «The US runs the world, and there are 5 rich jewish families behind them,» i.e. ignorant conspiracy-theory lovers. Why are they this ignorant? Because the past was intentionally distorted by the nationalist and patriotist elite, the revolutionists, the coupists and the like.
and that's a fricking huge difference. Speaking of the military's freedom to topple governments as a duty, as if it was a burden and not a pure power of privilege?
Imagine that the military fails in its "obligation" to topple governments. They let a government stay that should have been toppled. Will they pay? Will anyone punish them? Of course not. You say it "must be avoided if at all possible", but who gets to make that call? That's right, only the generals themselves.
But for the people it's completely different. They - we - have skin in the game, it's we who will suffer if a tyrannical government is allowed to stay. Which is why we, and only we, none of our high-minded "protectors" internal or external should have the final word on whether revolution might be "worth it".
> Unless the government, like Erdogan did, corrupted the military
You think that the default status of a military is to be uncorrupt. Interestingly enough, that is a mistake the US founders didn't make - although their opposition to standing armies has fallen by the wayside long ago.
Why do you think having an element of the military providing a check on democracy is obviously less legitimate? (Regardless of whether it's sensible.) If coup-leaders were formally separated from the military and wore black robes, would this make it better?
All sorts of minorities, for instance, may be protected in flowery words, but it isn't worth the paper it's written on unless the majority (of power, sadly, not of individuals) actually care about it. A constitutional safeguard that doesn't have the support of actual power is worked around, it's just a question of lawyer rhetoric. In the end, the only check that can exist on us is ourselves.
That said, at least supreme court judges in the US (and other countries) don't have the power to topple the government, execute ministers, outlaw political parties etc. That's one way the military providing "a check on democracy" is even worse.
Flowery words are actually better than nothing, and at least the US constitution tried to set up institutions that made sure that law complie(d/s) with that supreme law of the land. Radical democrats would do well to look at the kinds of Jim Crow laws that appeared after the Civil War which were completely unconstitutional and were judged so and overturned against popular demand by judges given the power to strike down laws.
I really don't have faith in the mob. It's clear the framers of the Constitution didn't either, and there are plenty of examples of the tyranny of the majority that should give us pause.
Minority rule has all the problems of majority rule, and then some.
Yes, once in a blue moon the guardian councils of the world may be right when public opinion is wrong. But it seems to me ten times as often, it's the other way around.
And even then, you must remember that public opinion is far from democratic. Some people have far more power to make themselves heard, influence how people see things, etc. I'm for majorities of people, not majorities of power-shareholders.
Right, so I doubt anyone in this thread would claim the Turkish coup system is better than the US system, except perhaps by making a strained appeal to a very different culture necessitating more drastic checks on democracy (or something). So you don't really need to argue this.
And the rest of your argument for radical democracy doesn't have much to do with Turkey per se, the topic of this thread.
It provides that an amendment can be proposed either by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate or by a convention, called into being by Congress, after a request from two-thirds of the states.
In NL: it requires a simple majority in both houses, but we don't have the escape hatch of initiating such a change from lower government tiers.
then comes step two: ratification by three-quarters of the states.
In NL, step two is harder: the proposal must wait until the next parliament term (or parliament can dissolve itself and trigger early elections). Now it requires a supermajority (of 2/3rds) in both houses to pass.
In my opinion democracy is only a tool, not goal. And I think sometimes (Kemalist Turkey is one example) it's better for a society to not implement "pure" democracy in the name of better values like secularism, freedom etc.
UK/Brexit is also a good example of majority of people being stupid and hurting themselves by using democracy.
That said, I do think you're awfully quick to assert that people don't know what's best for them (re. Brexit)
Anyway, that's one way Popper's definition is insufficient. Democracy is not just about whether a government can be replaced, but about how different the government we replace it with can actually be. Replacing a government isn't worth much if what you can replace it with is functionally identical in every way.
Being legal or coming from the State is orthogonal (means nothing) to being moral.
If not, then I still call these countries non-democratic.
At least in UK politics, 'government' explicitly means "Her Majesty's Government", ie the Prime Minister and those they appoint to assist them. Not the Crown, not the permanent state.
Though I agree that Popper doesn't focus enough on degrees of change or feasibility of change (if the only parties essentially agree on everything, is government really replaced?)
I'm not saying that Turkey was ready for membership back then, but it became pretty clear that it wasn't a lack of democracy or poverty that was the main hinderance of turkish membership: there were just too many EU countries (and you only need one) that Turkey just had an inacceptable ratio of churches to mosques.
Around election-time EU leaders would conveniently drop most pretenses and admit to this more or less in the open.
For Erdogan, who was achieving ever more success at home, every EU visit became a humiliation. Pretty soon, he turned his back on Europe.
The following is quoted from https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/
Turkey first applied to join what was then the EEC in 1987. It was declared an eligible candidate in 1997. Negotiations were formally opened in 2005.
Now, in 2016, negotiations have closed on just one out of 35 chapters—‘science and research’, which was completed in 2006, the year after it was opened.
Of the remaining 34 chapters, 14 have been opened for negotiation.
In 2006, the EU decided that until Turkey agrees to remove obstacles to free movement of goods (including transport restrictions) between it and Cyprus, no more chapters will be provisionally closed. Eight chapters (including areas fundamental to EU law, such as free movement of goods and right of establishment and freedom to provide services) will not even be opened.
I remember Merkel actually saying that Europe was founded on "Christian ideals" (nevermind the actual ideals having more to do with post-renaissance secularism than original Christian dogma) -- the same Merkel nationalists are now blaming for the "Islamification" of Europe.
If Turkey had been more compatible and the EU members had been less bigoted, I imagine Turkey could have even helped with the "Islamification" so many people are now worrying about -- it would created a European example for how Islam can work under Western ideals and prevented a lot of the guilt and xenophobia that lies at the root of a lot of the conflicts with Islam we now have in Europe.
Could you go in to that a little, a few examples maybe of the main non-Christian ideals that underpin the founding of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
the central doctrines [..] were individual liberty and religious tolerance in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church [..] along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A...
The ideals of the French Revolution eventually became the underpinnings of both the US Constitution and the European and UN Declarations of Human Rights. The reason why they're called non-Christian is because they originated as a countermovement to religious doctrine.
The ideals of the French Revolution eventually became
the underpinnings of both the US Constitution and the
European and UN Declarations of Human Rights.
There are very few actual democracies in existence today. There is a reason most democratic countries don't put every decision to a public vote and why there are often certain laws no government is allowed to change. You can agree or disagree with the priorities Atatürk set in place but from his point of view even an elected leader can become a traitor and enemy of the state and it's the duty of the military to stop him (because they are the only power not directly under the government's control and are able to resist with force if necessary unlike e.g. supreme court judges).
What the comment you're replying to is correctly pointing out is that what you can't say about a coup is that it's democratic. It's the opposite of democratic.
How so? If there's a dictator in power and the majority of the people want to return to a democratic election and the only way to remove the dictator is with a [violent] coup - how is that not democratic? How can the imposition of a democratic system by the majority will of the demos _not_ be democratic?
[I'm not claiming that the situation in Turkey was supported by the majority or not, just trying to drill down on the general point of what [you consider] is democratic].
Let's put it this way, let's say 60% of people vote to kill the other 40%. And then a third party enters and stops such madness. You know who is more democratic of them all? The third party, for allowing the existence of more than one party. A coup can be more democratic than any election. It's all about context.
In reality, it's in no way the simple ground truth that Turkish coups have uniformly sought to achieve "greater democracy". What they are in fact is a terrible misfeature of the Turkish system; a way in which Turkey joins the ranks of Pakistan and Egypt on a faster or slower arc towards autocracy. Which is the other word for "democracy that remains democratic until the people do something that make you uncomfortable".
Edit: typos
Second, just because a coup is overthrowing an elected government that, having achieved power, is subverting democracy, doesn't mean the coup is itself democratic. A military coup is the opposite of democracy. Democracy has been restored in plenty of countries previously ruled by authoritarians without recourse to the military.
World politics isn't my strong suit, could you give a few examples? Thanks.
Would a military coup in China be the opposite of democracy? Then what do they have now? A different opposite of democracy? I think you wanna paint a black and white pic of the subject but that is impossible
To borrow your analogy: In general there are more sheep than wolves, but the wolves have a habit of twisting things - gerrymandering will give them a fresh kill for every vote.
Suffice to say, a modern democracy is supposed to have strong safeguards for minorities; take filibustering, for example, or the various human-rights courts and treaties. Modern democracy is not just "one head, one vote", or there would be no safeguards against a new Holocaust.
I wonder if we'd be as supportive of the US military taking over, in the interests of National Security if say, Trump, won the election and withdrew from Europe and East Asia? Or if Scotland voted to secede from the UK with the consent of the Commons, and the British Army decided that its duty was to protect the Union, and overthrow an elected government?
There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them?
In any case, I fear this is all going to be moot. The commentariat is starting to make noises about the Kremlin supporting all manner of extremist candidates and positions in the West, including Brexit, Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself. Putin may have found the soft underbelly of Western democracy: money. I hope this isn't the case as I'll be as much a victim as anyone; but if it is, it will be the first bitter taste of the foreign meddling and sense of imperious entitlement we've been demonstrating for centuries.
Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
This has may have led to a perception from Americans that constitutions ought to be difficult to amend by their nature, and that is an essential feature of republicanism, since the US Constitution is practically set in stone-hence the immense power of the US Supreme Court justices. In fact, most countries do make it considerably easier to change their constitutions (with a straightforward super-majority, in most cases), and to adapt to the needs of the people. The idea of an unbreakable and sacred tyranny of people who are long dead (The Founders) is something unique to the US, among constitutional democracies.The arguments about things being needing to be set in stone confuse cause and effect.
*http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...
Most systems route around the problem by requiring "supermajorities", or majorities with different qualifications, to amend the most criticals bits (constitutions and the likes) or even to progress regular legislation in some cases ("filibustering"). But the problem is still there. If representatives of a constitutional democracy voted to transform it into an absolutist hereditary monarchy, following all necessary constitutional rules, would that be legitimate?
What we often take for granted, in constitutional sciences, is a set of rules that is often less than 100 years old, and which was achieved with much bloodshed. We risk re-learning painful lessons.
There have been lots of amendments to the US constitution, and I expect if a solid majority of people wanted something changed, it would not be hard to pass another. This could easily happen if one major party strongly supported something and the other party was merely split.
But in recent decades it has been easier to change the constitution by the back door through getting judgest to give creative interpretations.
Yes, it is: it's the rule of the demos — the mob.
> There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy.
I blame Woodrow Wilson and all his nonsense about making the world safe for democracy. I don't actually care about whether I live in a democracy or not: I want to live in a republic, where the fundamental liberties of even the smallest minorities are secured from even the great howling mob.
I was indeed referring to a republic where majority of modern democracies operate. I assumed given the context of the discussion this was obvious. Turns out, that it is not.
I don't know what changed in Turkey but it now seems that his support has grown not only outside the country but also within and he seems to be hellbent on exploiting religion to gain political support. I don't know whether he actually holds fundamentalist views himself but he certainly knows how to use them to his advantage.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turke...
At a conference in 1998, Erdogan quoted from an Islamic poem: "Democracy is just the train we board to reach our destination. The mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the cupolas our helmets and the faithful our soldiers."
Not so much fundamentalists fleeing from secularism, but people emigrating from the poorest backwater parts of the country, where, coincidence or not, both religious traditions and AKP are much stronger than in well-educated urban regions.
Wanting to practice your religion in it's most basic form makes one a fundamentalist?
He does, actually. Google what he said about women.
It's fairly safe to say that Atatürk's ideals have always been in strong conflict with the will of a certain part of the demographic (e.g. fundamentalists) as well as people from many of the neighboring countries.
Consider the controversies in France and other European countries surrounding (proposed) bans on headscarfs and burkas -- then consider that headscarfs have been banned in Turkish universities for decades (though this ban was not always extended to students).
It's entirely possible to democratically elect a government that reaches majority support while harming the entire nation and the well-being of future generations. This is why certain laws are treated as immutable in most republics -- no matter how much the people want to change it.
I.e. the only people on the streets where those against the coup. We do not know how many of the majority, who didn't take to the streets where for or against its success.
A doubt all of them are. Just as with Brexit, popular opinion might be divided.
Democracy is playing by the rules, not changing these rules each few years as you see fit, even while quoting "popular support" (but not holding any referendums, definitely).
Why does he have to be pleasing to you?
Why do you support hillary.. she killed millions.. Why do you support obama... yest 320 and today 124 (in idp school in syria) dead becasue of him
Why do you support any damn politican in the west? All their pockets and morals are stained.
They compare no where close to Erdogan. But your media has him hating with all kind of funny things.
Anyways, You should be ashamed about the ban of headscarfs .. while claiming the "freedom"-superiority.
Instead you are giving it an example for the "democracy". Guess we should re-define democracy as "bigotcracy"
Erdogan jails journalists who don't like him, and has committed a purge of police, judges and teachers who he disagrees with.
If President Obama dissolved police departments, school districts and judgeships on a wide scale, there would be mass protests or a civil war. We expect freedom of speech and freedom of thought, unlike many in Turkey, it seems.
edit: I'd like to leave this here to show what he has done since the "coup". https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4tq4sd/all_turki...
Is he trying to force Germany to punish a comedian?
Is he trying to reintroduce death penalty?
Has he purged more than 2000 judges? Is it reasonable to think he has verified that all of them were bad judges during the two-three last days?
- PKK is killing your soldiers what do you do? This has nothing to do with IS.
- Ok, he has a temper and does not have a good sense of humor but please, did you find "that" poem funny?
- Oh come on. You know it was not about being bad judges.
Though yes, reintroduction of death penalty is a very bad idea. Also things are being done too hastily. All allegations are need to be verified.
The poem was just saying "THIS is what an actual insult looks like".
In light of the recent events though it appears that goats have been insulted in the poem, not Erdogan.
Saying Erdogan has sex with goats isn't funny. It's crude and it's even potentially racist (considering that sounds more like an ethnic slur than a personal insult). But that was the entire point. The poem actually went out of its way to be so appallingly insulting to drive this point home.
I don't think the performance was particularly good and I think the same point could have been made in a more tasteful way, but it should be protected as satire and I hope the German courts will rule accordingly (as many lawyers are predicting).
The entire point of the performance was a reaction to the ridiculous complaints about the earlier satirical song about Erdogan (which btw was almost entirely factual and only "insulting" because it presented Erdogan unfavourably and ridiculed his eccentricity and blatantly autocratic behaviour). It didn't set out to insult Erdogan, it was explicitly phrased as "That wasn't an insult that is illegal under German law. The following is what an insult that would be illegal under German law would look like".
Taking the poem in isolation is intellectually lazy and dishonest. It's like showcasing a replica of Michelangelo's David's penis and saying David is obscene because it's entirely about genitalia.
solid reasoning behind pursuing a criminal conviction to be sure.
But no, I did not find that poem funny, but the fact that he hasn't got a sense of humour, that turned out to be a bit funny.
I don't know if this is true, it may as well be that he caters to the majority in current Turkey.
Things are a mess in Turkey, but I'm not sure that is Erdogans fault. He's got ISIS, Russia and an aggressive West to deal with, along with a divided nation.
I'm all for an open democracy, but I don't think that would work in Turkey in this horrible situation. A measure of safety does come before democracy, a reality we are quick to forget in the more peaceful parts of the world.
IIRC, his political opponents had their chance and blew it in a spectacular manner, so that even more people voted for Erdogan. What good is a military coup, if the current government is the least of the possible evils?
I don't know much about Turkey, but I feel we may be guilty of judging Erdogan out of true context.
- Turkey gdp has increased unparalleled in the whole of europe under Erdogan. - Erdogan has resettled 2.2 million syrian refugees in new cities (much more than whole of europe combined) with monthly food and money .. although 2.3 million are yet to settle. - He was elected with 60% votes and current stats (before coupe) say he enjoys support of 70% of people.
This is sufficient for him deserving to be the democratically elected president of Turkey, even if with some wrongs (from turkish people perspective) here and there.
But for some people in west and unilaterally in your media: - He is evil - He is religious - He is undemocratic - He talks about death penalty (although quitely we would rather support coup dictat sisi in egypt who gave 6000 people death penalty for "protests") - He has degraded morals (even though we in west have shown our real colors with regards to the refugee sit
I'm saying he is objectively harming the ideals the Turkish Republic was founded on by Atatürk. I'm not saying this because I think those ideals would allow holding Turkey back for the West to exploit. I'm saying that because I genuinely think Atatürk was a great leader whose principles should be an example for all nations, not just Turkey.
I genuinely wish Germany was founded on Atatürk's principles instead of the mess we have (though I'm well aware of how much worse we could have it). I am genuinely upset by those ideals being betrayed by Erdogan and the Turkish people having chosen a path that stands against everything Turkey was founded on.
I am German, a lot of my classmates in school were Turkish immigrants. I even took a Turkish language course in elementary school (although I can barely remember anything beyond "bir iki üç"). I would have loved to see Turkey succeed as a modern state and become an example other nations in the Islamic world can look up to.
At this point I'm not even sure Turkey would be salvageable if Erdogan was gone. When I said this is a political tragedy, I mean it.
Curious, what mess does Germany find itself in with respect to Ataturk's principles?
Also they suggest that the present mass nationalism in Turkey has vague equivalence in what happened in Germany after WW1 leading upto WW2.
PS: I am finding this page discussions very educating. Thanks for several comments by @pluma, and also some very good arguments against.
I'm sure that some people say that. So what? Some other politicians that have been called the same: G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Nigel Farage, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande.
He is religious
Are you suggesting that he isn't?
He is undemocratic
And there's ample evidence that he is. Democracy requires freedom of the press and free speech. When his government raids newspaper headquarters and installs puppet editors, he very much is undemocratic.
He talks about death penalty
It's not that he talks about it, it's about why and when he talks about it. Namely, to get rid of political rivals.
we would rather support coup dictat sisi in egypt who gave 6000 people death penalty for "protests"
Who is "we" here? Most European governments did as much about that as they do about Erdogan's latest purge: they wagged their finger.
In the US we've had decades of anti-Islamic propaganda, since it has helped sell various war efforts.
All countries have some internal forces of pluralism and some internal voices of absolutism, for a variety of contemporary and historical reasons, and all citizens have the ability to consent and to dissent, and to thus influence their own destiny.
In the US, we are such sheep that we enjoy indignantly criticizing the character of foreign leaders we know nothing about... while ignoring the atrocities committed by our own nation and the humanitarian disasters that we create abroad (and tolerate at home).
Propaganda isn't simply about promoting specific beliefs, it's about creating a distorted sense of what is important. So many Americans view "stopping Islamic fundamentalism" as significant and more important than so many other things. This view is the result of Billions of dollars spent on propaganda over decades.
Dehumanization propaganda (which the US is expert at) creates a political environment where many (most?) American citizens are dismissive of the basic rationality (and basic human rights) of anyone characterized as Islamic.
I believe that power systems gradually progress from "power by force" into something that looks more like pluralistic democracy. Not because the power holders decide to give up some of the power, but because they are successfully able to whitewash their nature by using propaganda messages. Over time, the government that waged genocide against native Americans and killed millions of Japanese civilians becomes the government that wants to wage a Trillion dollar war to free Iraqi women from oppression.
This is not the steady march of humanitarian progress. It's the enveloping propaganda narrative. We are just as barbaric now as ever, and our most recent genocide has been against the Iraqi people and the victims of the drone attacks throughout the region.
The anti-Islamic narrative used by the US Government to sell wars in the middle east has resulted in massive transfers of wealth... Generally, the plunder of a natural-resource-rich region by the US.
There is absolutely no desire on the part of the US to create democracy or pluralism in the middle east. Islamic solidarity groups, the only sort of grassroots political movement likely to stop the region's US-supported dictators, are of course vilified by the US because they also oppose US-led destabilization of the region.
I don't like Islamist governments (any more than I'd like a Christian Fundamentalist government here --- "Christian", by the way, being a word that could fairly be applied to me), but I too get the strong sense that the only factor being weighed by supporters of the coup on this thread, whether they're well-informed enough to invoke Ataturk or not, is "Islamism bad, anything else good". No.
In the US, the word "Islamism" comes with a payload that is a gift-wrapped propaganda message:
- Islamism will trend toward and harbor fundamentalist "strains".
- Islamism cannot be pluralistic or largely secular due to structural reasons or ideological invariants.
- An Islamist political system is permanently at odds with the sort of Enlightenment values that guide the West.
I've read a lot of very serious arguments that claim that Western pluralism and democracy were largely germinated by doctrinal aspects of Christianity.
Quotes like the "Render unto Caesar" passage are hailed as the cornerstone of the separation of church and state, and Islam, lacking the equivalent, is deemed to devalue such separation... Even things like the Schism of 1054 are hailed as helping to usher in the values of representative democracy.
To be frank, prior to Erdogan I didn't even consider Turkey an "Islamic nation". It was just a Western nation with a Muslim majority -- which was the entire point of Atatürk's republic.
If western powers were so concerned about democracy in Turkey, they should've talked much sooner, when Ergodan and gulen were throwing thousands of kemalist from all of Turkey's instituations since 2007 with ridiculous accusations.
They started to raise concerns only when Erdogan turned his attention from the kemalist to his former allied gulen.
The sentiment that America and gulen are behind the coup didn't happen in 1 day, its started WAY BEFORE(for 12 years). And the first to believe it are the kemalists themselves because they were the first victims of Gulen and his followers.
And please stop with this Islamic propaganda, there is no way that Sharia is coming in Turkey. This is just wishful thinking. Yes Erdogan is a authocratic fuck, and he will do anything in his power to muster more, but everyone in Turkey right know is focused on the gulenist right now.
Anti-American sentiment is at an all time high and it is this time from every factions of the population.
Indeed. It is is pretty irrational for a grandee to "fake a coup" if the said grandee is not in 100% control of military-spook set. (And if 100%, it makes no sense, since you already have full control.)
> He spread the narrative that the coup was staged not to defend Atatürk's principles but by a religious sect his ruling party fell out with.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir...
You know, you can try and spin this n times till eternity, but it is pretty clear that either US or NATO tried to remove the legal government of a NATO member.
This is Bay of Pigs v2.0 + "who lost China" all rolled in one.
> You know, you can try and spin this n times till eternity, but it is pretty clear that either US or NATO tried to remove the legal government of a NATO member.
The fact that the US military base is without external power is hardly proof, much less "pretty clear" that the US or NATO was involved.
If I were in charge and there were a coup by the military, turning on power to military bases, especially foreign ones, would be way down my list of concerns.
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1193-sibel-edmonds-d... http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO18July2016.php
300 Energy Ministry employees dismissed
184 Customs Ministry employees dismissed
8 top-level parliamentary executives removed
All Turks require extra documentation to travel outside country
86 Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BDDK) employees dismissed
51 Borsa Istanbul (national stock exchange) employees dismissed
245 Sports Ministry personnel suspended
All Turkish academics banned from traveling abroad
140 members of the Supreme Court and 48 members of the Council of State (the highest court) got arrest warrants 4 days ago, no info on releases etc.
15,200 Ministry of Education personnel fired
24 news/media outlets broadcast licenses withdrawn
492 state religious personnel (Diyanet) removed
21,000 private teachers licenses revoked
393 personnel in Ministry of Family and Social Policy dismissed
257 personnel at PM's office dismissed & ID's seized
Demand for all 1,577 University Deans resignation
30 governors of 99 fired
9000 in Interior Ministry fired
180 intelligence officials (MIT, Turkey's national intelligence agency) suspended
2,745 judges dismissed
3,000,000 civil servants banned from going on holiday
Talks of reinstating the death penalty
1,500 Finance Ministry officials suspended
103 generals/admirals detained for questioning
Can't see any HN posting rules that this violates. On the contrary I can very well see its major interest to the discussion at hand.
The Reichstag fire was blamed on the communists by the nazi party to brand them as traitors much like the coup is being blamed on the Gulen movement (which had a fall out with the AKP, Erdogan's ruling party). All signs point to the coup not being related to the Gulen movement at all and a lot of Erdogan's actions post-coup have been publicly justified with allegations about the Gulen movement that are obviously blatant lies.
Whether the coup itself was staged by Erdogan like the Reichstag fire was staged by the nazis is debatable. I personally think it was inevitable given the history of Turkey but it was carried out so incompetently and with little to no support from the military leadership that it's at least possible that it was intentionally made to happen the way it did (e.g. using agents provocateur to trigger the coup at a time when it was doomed to fail).
I don't think the actual soldiers who carried out the coup were knowingly working for Erdogan, them simply being "useful idiots" is far more likely. Either way, if you ask "cui bono?" all answers point to Erdogan and the AKP.
It's been reported that Turkish intelligence knew about it and did nothing.
It sounds like the perfect project for a intelligence team located in the president's basement tech bunker.
See http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/turkey-big...
And it is not a unique event, perhaps just the most widely known. To my mind (having grown up in the Soviet Union), immediate historical references are the murder of Kirov, the murder of Uritsky, both followed by powerful persecution of the "unwanted elements" of the society. (I am sure everyone will recall something similar, either from the history of their nation, or from a textbook or a classical reference).
Every loss of life was tragic but it was entirely Erdogan and the mosques that told people to attack the soldiers. Otherwise this would have been purely between the military and the police. He was fully aware that he could be sending his people to certain death but he did it knowing that he would be able to use it for publicity no matter which way things played out (bloodbath = martyrs for democracy, surrender = victory of the people).
The coup didn't have to be staged to fail. It was doomed to fail to begin with. The only question is why the military either did not see that or didn't mind failing. Considering how much control Erdogan already had over his country (and even the military) before the coup, it's entirely within reason to consider the possibility that he triggered the coup because there was no way it would harm him.
> Turkish authorities encircled the base, cut off the power
> supply and temporary closed the airspace around Incirlik
> as they fought off the coup launched on Friday.
* the US because of Gulen
* Europe because ... whatever
* Germany because of satire
* Russia because of border violations
* Syria because of Assad
That's quite a list. No wonder he has so much public support -- the entire world seems out to ruin Turkey.
According to Erdogan, "crimes against humanity" are things like "Zionism" (or Israel) or "Turkish emmigrants integrating into [German] society" while the Sudanese president (acutally convicted for crimes against humanity) is not, because he's a muslim. Also the Armenian Genocide isn't one, nor the one against the Kurds. The EU is a "christian club" which is why "Turkey should stay out of it".
The two predecessors of his Party AKP were both outlawed and deemed unconstitutional because of such traits like sympathizing with jihadism. Quite an impressive CV for an "ally".
Freedom, Rule of Law and Democracy?
or
torture in Guantanamo, invasion of Iraq based on complete BS reasons resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, support of the Saudi Regime, thousands of citizens dieing from stupid gun laws, probable genocide of the original Native American population, Agent Orange, support for apartheid during most of it's time, lack of healthcare for the poor, support for rightwing Israeli policy, de facto not giving a crap about climate change, mass surveillance etc etc.
So I'm just guessing that in a few weeks a classified document will be leaked that some portion of the US government was involved in the coup attempt and American citizens will all be embarrassed that we can't let other sovereign nations deal with their own business.
I hope that it doesn't hurt our relations so much that it hurts any innocent civilians or that we restrict travel. I hear Turkey has some cool castles and is a very interesting place to visit. It's relatively inexpensive and I'd like to go there one day.
If there was any CIA involvement, they obviously let the interns run the show.
>a classified document will be leaked that some portion of the US government was involved
..so which is it?
Also, how is it relevant whether or not the general American can find Turkey on a map? It's not like diplomacy and foreign intervention is done by the general population.
While diplomacy isn't done directly by the population, it should be supported by the general population. In general Americans are against communism, the war against ISIS/terrorism and support many government actions across the world. They supported invading Iraq (with the information that was provided to them). They supported invading Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I doubt that most Americans would support action against Turkey at the current state of Erdogan's government.
Knowing the CIA's recent performance, most likely they heard about it from watching Fox News.
You phrase this as though it should somehow be easier to find things on an unfamiliar map than on a familiar one.
<someone> couldn't <X> even if <Y>.
That structure only works when Y makes doing X easier. But you've filled in something that makes it harder. You're so caught up in insulting people that you seem to have forgotten how.
Until about his recent to the US for Muhamed Ali's funeral, Erdoğan was his usual grumpy-old-grandfather self. He was on television every day spreading conspiracy theories, hatred, and misogyny. Within days of returning, he surpised us all by
- Repairing ties with Israel - Sending two ships of aid to Gaza (which was related to the rift with Israel) - Apologizing to Russia - Repairing trade and tourism ties with Russia (which is important. Between construction, agricultural exports and tourism, Russia means 10-15% of Türkiye's economy - Ordering the mayor of Istanbul (half) apologize to a Korean guy whose store was attacked on Ramazan, and chastizing the brutes who lead this attack. - Showing some flexibility about the schools being forced to convert into Imam Hatip (think Madrassa-Lite) - Suggesting that rich and educated Syrians would be given citizenship - Changing his public EU-accession rhetoric from dismissal to willing to negotiate
Even before the Atatürk airport attack everybody just knew something was coming, and the more general conspiracy theory was that Kerry either warned him of something coming, or made some pretty serious threats.
There is some credibility to this theory. Before the past few attacks embassies sent people home or told them not to show up for work, the Bastille day celebrations at the French Embassies in Ankara and Istanbul were canceled, friends at the US consul told us to stay home and cancel travel plans the day of the Ataturk attack (Surreally I flew back from a vacation 3 hours prior)
Unfortunately, Erdoğan has been very emboldened by the Coup, and most of this progress is gone for good.
We are hoping this all dies down, but I wouldn't advise visiting here this year. The nationalistic sentiment is very strong, the thugs are all out in force.
Well, I wouldn't entirely advise it. The very pleasant direct flight on Turkish Airlines from SFO to IST is about $1k right now. In Taksim nice hotels that used to cost $150/night now cost about $60. Hostels with breakfast are down to $7-$8 pretty much nation-wide. The beach-towns on the EGE & the Med rely almost solely on Russian and British touritsts who no longer come. Pansiyons (think B&B before AirBNB), AirBNB rooms, hotel rooms, and resort packages are almost free.
The dollar and the euro are very strong, and the GBP is still respectable. You no longer have to wait in line for attractions like Aga Safiya, the Basilica Cistern, the Topkapi Palace,or wade through a mob of people in the Grand Bazaar or the Spice Market.
Unfortunately this means that the music in Istanbul has died. Most of the best venues for Balkan/Turkish music have either shut down or switched to Spotify, many of the regular street musicians have given up.
"Come, come, whoever you are. Wanderer, worshiper, lover of leaving. It doesn't matter. Ours is not a caravan of despair. come, even if you have broken your vows a thousand times. Come, yet again , come , come" - Rumi
Erdoğan is the dictator we know, and while replacing him would be nice, it needs to be done democratically or the country would fall into civil war, or possibly worse. Türkiye is the last line of defense between the East and the West. Any instability right now could be disastrous for all of Europe.
Gülen is an Islamist seeking to build a non-secular government. An Islamist had control of the military, they could enforce Sharia law to some extent and destroy what is both an important shipping route and block access to an important route of defense against Russia.
Contrary to popular belief, this is a semi-functioning democracy. The HDP received 13% of the vote last year, and now they have representation in parliament for the first time.
Also, allowing a coup to happen, or even worse, causing one, would have disastrous consequences for NATO.
We can't know that for sure. I wouldn't underestimate our intelligence. Even if they didn't participate, it's likely they were informed.
It is rumored that even the Saudis knew of the coup
If there was American involvement, I'd bet that the people that knew about it only number in the dozens. It seems a shame that the actions of a few could affect so many lives this way.
A new president could help isolate Russia, provide more advantageous basing agreements for the military, and in general do what the US government wants.
For example, that sentence is really strange:
From the American perspective, Turkey has never been fully committed to the war against Islamist groups in Syria.
It's so sad that a Nobel Peace Prize has the worst foreign policy ever.
Russia had obvious strategic reasons to support Assad but even to a neutral observer it should have been obvious supporting the rebels would be a bad idea as soon as the Islamists showed up and the dangerous consequences of the Arab Spring (i.e. destabilizing entire countries that were now democratically electing radical groups) became apparent.
ISIS gets funds by shipping oil to Turkey "Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629409/Russian-jets-smas...
Where it's quite likely traded by Erdogan's son http://www.mintpressnews.com/211624-2/211624/
Various on Quora https://www.quora.com/Is-Turkey-supporting-ISIS-If-so-why
ISIS fighter having a Turkish beach hol before getting back to the beheading http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173135/Jihadi-swimm...
I think Turkey is a similar situation to the US supporting Bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to try to get rid of the Russian proxy except in Syria this time.
The coup wasn't a big threat. Only a fraction of the military was mobilised, all important government officials were able to flee and he was able to turn the entire population against the military because both mosques and TV channels spread his propaganda.
The military couldn't have followed through without creating a bloodbath that would have turned the populace even more against them. The coup had already failed the second Erdogan was able to escape.
If anything the government are fanning the flames, not the other way around.
Shoot down a Russian plane and then months later accuse the USA of a plot while arresting thousands of judges ... I worry that this is all the start of something really, really terrible.
There is a big rush to try to get the world to peacefully co-exist, and technology is doing that. Seriously.
At the head of all of the chaos of military action, is a technological breakthrough that cannot be weaponized. We're all still looking for it, because its in the mix, somewhere, but in the meantime: technology of death and warfare is way, way ahead of us.
Quick, invent something socially amazing, that cannot be weaponized, and will get everyone - of any nation state and language and cultural background - working and playing and co-existing, together. Its really the only thing we can do while this crazy stuff goes down.
Perhaps there is a new rule to be tested, which goes thus: "no two nations which had a functional Pokemon Go community ever went to war with each other" ...
I'm not sure something like this exists even in theory. Except maybe a benevolent, friendly, superhuman AI that doesn't listen to us. Other than that it seems that absolutely everything can be weaponized. It seems to be a fundamental property of technology as a force multiplier. We call "technology" the things that we create that help people exert their will on the physical world - and violence is, in general, exerting your will against another person.
Are you assuming that population spontaneously acquires "anti-US sentiments"?
I would attribute it to some kind of propaganda campaign, therefore cause and effect will be switched.
It will also be interesting to see if the EU will condemn this "democratic regime" they were so quick to defend after the coup.
I'm also not sure how realistic losing Turkey as a NATO member is. They are in a strategic position that makes it worth to put up with most of their nonsense.
Granted you can legitimately harp on Russia for free speech/human rights abuses, but America is no shining example here either. America is fraying, because it's largely ruled by its own set of oligarchs and the marginalized populations are lashing out.
Mostly empty, USA (and the EU) needs Turkey for various reasons. Turkey could unleash floods of refugees into the EU if pissed off and USA needs its bases in Turkey. That's effective power. Erdogan can basically do whatever he wants right now.
THe inclirk aribase has 60 nuclear missiles which is cruicial for NATO to maintain its influence (a.k.a. hegemony) in the region.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/17/turkey-coup-...
It's like how no one is willing to take care of the North Korea problem because leaving it alone is less of a headache than the alternative.
When Turkey (unapologetically) shot down the Russian jet it put a serious strain on relations with the USA because they are a NATO member. It's like when the biggest kid on the playground has your back but you go around getting yourself in trouble constantly.
I think this is the latest in a successive displays of megolomania by Erdogan. The public perception of Turkey has shifted.
Turkey should be concerned about whether its strategic value still exists as such. We could probably live without them in the post-Soviet world. They are certainly extremely useful to have in the fold, but Erdoğan should take care not to assume they're indispensable.
A land invasion of North Korea would almost certainly be successful, the casualties and cost is the unacceptable part.
Modern warfare really seems to be less about the actual war and more about post-war occupation.
It also goes without saying that if America was willing to fully occupy Iraq for a few more decades, I'm completely confident Iraq would be stable - the cost is ridiculously prohibitive, however.
Yeah, no. Russian weapon systems are far more advanced than the stuff Turkey has, and they outnumber Turkey.
Their best equipment is some F-16 stuff that would be vastly overwhelmed by the number of MiG-29/31BM's that Russia has.
Across the board Turkey has a lot of 80s era gear that's been lightly upgraded over the years and generally the Russians have about 10x the quantity of 2000s to 2010s era gear.
For example Turkey has 240 very theoretically active 80s era F-16 planes (how many are not deadlined / mission capable at this instant is a mystery, half maybe?) vs the Russian military theoretically has 1531 active 2000s and newer era SAM launchers. I mean obviously the Russians can not send every anti-aircraft unit they have to a skirmish with the Turks but its instructive that if they did, they'd have roughly 10 missile launchers fighting over the chance to fire on each target...
Its a similar situation WRT armor. Turkey has about 400 1980s era Leopard tanks. Russia only has 2500 2000s+ era main battle tanks.
Nobody is going to be rolling into the other side's capital any time soon.
Also worth keeping in mind the Russians have some recent-ish real combat experience but the Turks only have experience trying to genocide Kurdish civilians.
Many have already been upgraded to Block 50 and the most basic are Block 30, all well beyond 1980s capabilities.
Avionics maintenance might be an issue but but the Israelis are quite capable of aiding there.
Your criticisms were quite valid in the 1980s when both Turkey and Greece were considered liabilities in terms of NATO capability but certainly not today.
Turkey has a slow-burning civil war involving Kurds in the east of Turkey. It also has suffered attacks from ISIS. The risk is that the government resorts to increasing violence to maintain order, which is how the Syrian civil war started.
As proven by USA itself, it's easy to invade countries, it's harder to effectively control them.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments...
for some context.
We are getting a dictatorship evolving in real time. If you are in the Balkans and hope that NATO will protect you - France and UK betrayed Czechoslovakia and Poland pre WWII and it has never been tested if US will go to war for its NATO obligations over the smaller countries.
So the Iraqi-Kurds-wanna-be-Kurdistan are like Southern Ireland. In fact they broke away from the main empire around the same time "about a century ago". Turkey is like England or maybe "all UK except Ireland". The PKK is like the IRA during the troubles. So Turkey and Kurdistan are pretty chill and they're swinging some profitable oil deals and generally get along surprisingly well given the demographics. Meanwhile the PKK thinks if they bomb and shoot Britain, err, I mean Turkey, enough, then a magic wand will be waved and the ethnic minority Kurds in Turkey will secede and join Kurdistan. Which is about as likely to be successful as the American Southern Confederacy experiment a bit over a century ago, or better comparison, the actual IRA.
Its almost like an uncanny valley thing. Turks want to genocide Kurds that are like 5 miles away and blowing up their buildings, they'd rather shoot them than let them leave which seems like a pretty dysfunctional relationship, but whatever. But move that same Kurd 500 miles away and the hate evaporates and they're businessmen bros lovin that sweet sweet oil money ahh remember the good old days when we were all an ottoman empire together ahh the good ole days. Just stay where you are and don't move next door, that's all.
And so what if they shout allu-akbah? Isn't it allowed at football to inspire winning the great match? Terrorists surely don't own the usage rights of allahu akbar. It's not audible anyway on videos.
Let's forget that the majority of Turks elected a half-mad men that bases his discourse in the superiority of Islam and in the ethnical cleansing of Kurdistan.
Let's forget that Erdogan supported the Islamic state.
Let's forget that the Turks re-elected him after all this.
Let's forget all these pro-Erdogan demonstrations going on in the streets of Ankara and Istambul right now, just as the guy wants to re-implement capital punishment and is sacking judges, deans, policeman and military as he pleases.
Let's forget that Erdogan is bombing the only guys that are opposing the Islamic State in the field right this moment.
No, let's instead do what all the cool kids do and blame the West. Cause you know... in the end, it's always the West that must get to be blamed for all evils of the world.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12128627 and marked it off-topic.
But that doesn't negate the fact that the fate of nations can be influenced from the outside. Actions – those in foreign policy – have consequences. Otherwise: why bother?
This also doesn't fit in your narrative of me being critical of some sort of post-colonialistic lack of altruism. I am saying that Europe had a golden opportunity to gain a strong foothold in the middle east and just let it go to waste. It's also another failure in the rising culture war between democracy and authoritarian capitalists (Putin, Erdogan, Trump, China, Hungary). This time around, the enemy isn't quite as stupid as during the cold war...
But I think that is showing some misunderstanding about the role and purpose of the EU: it simply is not and was never intended to be an imperialist engine. It is a trading bloc that primarily operates to harmonize markets, not governments.
The entire reason why Turkey had to jump through so many hoops to join the EU is because the EU isn't there to regulate governments: it requires a stable and open government to guarantee market access. Europe already has huge issues dealing with Poland and Hungary voting in parties with strong isolationist tendencies, do you really think the EU could have done anything to stop Erdogan's current direction?
Free movement of labour is a market requisite in the EEA. Britain stands to find out the same: want to remain in the single market, accept free movement.
human rights law
The ECHR is not part of the treaties of the EU. Yes, it is a prerequisite of EU membership, but it is a different treaty. Plenty of non-EU nations are signatories, even Russia.
Let's go into each of the past instances of history and make it excuse to blame TURKEY today
Lets forget how many turkish lives did kurdish terrorist attacks claimed before we claim "ethnic cleansing" for fighting men in uniform
Lets forget Erdogan returned US citizens trying to cross to syria and the airbase from where 95% airstrikes happen
Lets rant on capital punishment for treason-ers but claim to the torch of democracy and support dictators (sisi) giving dealth penalty to protectors
Lets try to say.. I am the different one. Because I have a better conspiracy theory than you
Perhaps you don't understand the difference.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/16/12184772/white-boy-privilege-ro...
You are right... blame my privilege for what's happening in Turkey.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12129043 and marked it off-topic.
Well, it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder
"Mad" is simply a descriptive qualification of perceived irrational behaviour, it's not a diagnostic assessment of mental ability.
If someone is irrational, how should we react? Sympathetic? Fearful? Most things we consider mental illnesses are irrational behaviors.
When used as a propaganda terms, calling a political opponent "mad" or "half mad" is intended to call into question his/her beliefs and statements, and to create fear that his/her actions will be unpredictable (counter to his/her stated objectives, etc.)
But the converse is not true: not every irrational behaviour is a mental illness.
You also left out the word perceived, which changes the argument from individual interpretation to universal absolutes, of which there are very few.
calling a political opponent "mad" or "half mad" is intended to call into question his/her beliefs and statements
Yes, it is. It is not intended as a medical diagnosis, which is what you were implying.
So then it is intended to rally political action.
Suppose two people agree on the same set of factual assumptions and are both rational. They may still disagree on priorities. We see this in the US in cases where two rights are in conflict, a court may find in favor of one taking precedence.
The problem with calling one's political opponent irrational is that doing so is intended to marginalize him by making his assumptions irrelevant. In fact, it is intended to make his entire thought process irrelevant by framing it as disconnected from reality.
If I assume the person sitting across the coffee shop from me is rational, I can assume he won't come over and take my life in a murder-suicide. If I assume he is not rational, I can be assured of no such thing.
So the name calling of "irrational" is predominantly a propaganda technique intended to marginalize an opponent, not to simply find fault with his reasoning, since if a person is irrational his reasoning is irrelevant (since his reasoning process is, by definition, broken).
If the facts were laid out in plain view, perhaps it would not be so clear that the political opponent was in the wrong. Perhaps we might find some common ground or focus narrowly on differing priorities.
Which is why we find accusations of irrationality in situations where compromise or moderation is not desired. Similarly, accusations that a person is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorism" is a similar ploy.
We live in a world in which character assassination campaigns are levied against many foreign leaders.
Do we think for a moment that our own leaders are in unique possession of rationality? Of morality? Judging by the framing in the press, nearly all foreign leaders are suspect or corrupt in some way.
The reason I disapprove of this is because having a knee-jerk adversarial expectation of other nations does not benefit us at all.
In fact, the technique is used to draw attention away from the many failings and shortcomings of our own political leaders. It's far easier to vilify someone like Putin or Saddam or Erdogan than to own up to one's own horrid track record. The public loves this, and considers it sport much like the olympics. It's an ugly side of humanity, and has the effect of harming our own institutions and leaders by deflecting much-needed scrutiny.
This is like Afghanistan in the 80s, all over again. We should have let the Russians keep them in check, and here we are, arming the wrong side the entire time.
Good times.
America like always, behaves as if no rules, no agreements, no pacts, no UN decisions matter to them. They are the big guys above everything. They denied handing the person accused of treason to Turkey.
The title should be.. "This time its Turkey: America deceives... again"
Simple: US started or participated in every war in last 50 years, so maybe they started coup in Turkey also?
US shows himself as a good guy, lawyer, builder, developer, savior and etc, etc. But in reality government of US (not people!) is war machine, as a bonus Hillary is a WARMACHINE (with big, bold letters)
So what do you expect from Turkey?
What US government loves: - torturing - oil - mass surveillance - killing innocent for the sake of their dual-faced democracy (even US government doesn't practice real democracy) - and many more
So what do you expect from other countries? Love? hell, no, what kind of love could be towards such shit guys.
I am only talking about US government not about people, I have lots of friends from there.
Also, there are easier targets to invade than a NATO member that is an ally against Russia.
What I always like to remind people is this: A government is not made up of people from Pluto or Jupiter. They are us