WikiLeaks Releases 300K Turkey Government Emails In Response To Erdogan's Post-Coup Purges (rt.com) 231
An anonymous reader quotes a report from RT: Despite a massive cyberattack on its website, WikiLeaks has published the first batch of nearly 300,000 emails from the Turkish ruling AKP party's internal server and thousands of attached files in response to the Ankara government's widespread post-coup purges. Some 294,548 emails pertaining to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) were made public on Tuesday at 11:00pm Ankara time. WikiLeaks says that the release of almost 300,000 email bodies together with several thousand attached files, is just part one in the series and encompasses 762 mailboxes beginning with 'A' through to 'I.' All emails are attributed to "akparti.org.tr," the primary domain of the main political force in the country, and cover a period from 2010 up until July 6, 2016, just a week before the failed military coup. The NGO also revealed that one of the emails contained an Excel database of the cell phone numbers of AKP deputies. Prior to the release WikiLeaks suffered a "sustained attack" as it warned that Turkish government entities might try to interfere with the publication of the AKP material. The attacks are still continuing and users are experiencing difficulties in accessing the material. WikiLeaks reassured the public that they are "winning" the battle. A few hours after the release, WikiLeaks tweeted a screenshot showing the database to be blocked in Turkey, claiming that Ankara "ordered [the release] to be blocked nationwide." More than 200 people have died and over 1,400 injured from the attempted coup. Thousands of people have also been detained and/or lost their posts across the judiciary, military, interior ministry and civil service sectors. The Turkish president Erdogan is blaming the U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen for orchestrating the attempted coup.
So what happens if... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are emails showing that the President made this coup happen in order to weed out rebels and to strengthen his power?
Re:So what happens if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Informative)
So long as Erdogan does as he is told, nothing. So long as he is our bastard, he can do what he wants.
But Erdogan does not doing what he is told. America would like to see Turkey become more democratic, secular, and bound to European institutions, including NATO, and eventually the EU. We would like Turkey to be tolerant of the Turkish Kurds in the south east, and support the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in the fight against ISIS. Erdogan is doing the opposite of all these things. He is undermining democracy, arresting judges, and rounding up political opponents. He is promoting Islamic law, and imposing Halal restrictions on pork and alcohol onto non-muslims. He is provoking and attacking the Kurds. He was lukewarm in the fight against ISIS until they started setting off bombs in Turkish cities (which he tried to pin on the Kurds).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
America has no interest in seeing any country become more democratic, least of all itself. America has been co-opted for the 0.001%, and true democracy stands in the way of the rentier class. NATO isn't democratic, the EU isn't democratic, and of course The Sultan isn't democratic.
Erdogan is being permitted to do whatever the hell he wants, so long as it is NOT democratic. Do not be mistaken.
Turkey should be divided, and it will be eventually, but not for it's own good, nor that of its many tribes and peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you get the idea from that the US gives a shit about Turkey being democratic? What matters is that the li'l mustache keeps his mouth shut, stays in the NATO and deploys his troops where we want them to, as long as he does that he can round up all judges and Kurds and whatever else he feels like.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get the idea from that the US gives a shit about Turkey being democratic? What matters is that the li'l mustache keeps his mouth shut, stays in the NATO and deploys his troops where we want them to, as long as he does that he can round up all judges and Kurds and whatever else he feels like.
Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Re: (Score:3)
>as long as turky moves American OIL up from South Sudan, through ISIS protected territory into Europe to fuck the Russians, they can do whatever they want. What the actual fuck? Get a map.
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely he did listen to Brzezinski [counterpunch.org].
Destabilization does have a purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mission Accomplished" was to be a popular wartime President with a war happening on the opposite side of the world to where the voters lived.
Winning or losing was going to be somebody else's problem after his second term.
Re: (Score:3)
You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.
I'll forgive Bush for Afghanistan, but Iraq was his choice.
Re: (Score:3)
You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.
9/11 and Afghanistan were thrust upon the administration. Even the benefit of hindsight doesn't give us much choice there. Iraq was the war that Bush really -wanted- to fight, and chose to fight.
"Mission Accomplished" referred to the mission performed by the aircraft carrier where that banner was displayed as it was returning home.
BS. Mission Accomplished referred to the end of the military operation in Iraq. It's kindof why George Bush piloted his own fighter jet onto the carrier -- not to celebrate one carrier's job being done.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have a selective memory yourself. Al Qaeda started its war against the US under the Bush the First administration.
FTFY. Oh, and its roots were funded with money from the Ford administration.
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're defense contractor it was a *brilliant* idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The Twitter guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Destabilization at that time served to annoy the USSR. There no longer is a USSR to annoy,
Well, the US will still happily annoy Russia at any possible occasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the US will still happily annoy Russia at any possible occasion.
Not really, although I can see why Russians might think that.
Re: (Score:2)
That falls under "or anyone with a lick of sense".
Brzezinski is insane.
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that doesn't mean that even more insane people don't listen to him.
The Iraq was maybe the only REALLY stable state in the whole area. Sure, Saddam was an asshole and he was no longer an US ally (like he was back in the 1980s... oh good ol' times), but he kept the lid on the pot of shit. The Iraq was not only the only state where terrorism could not get a food on the ground (because Saddam was about as much Muslim as the average politician around here is Christian, i.e. at best with a lip service to appease the idiots, but he didn't have to appease idiots, so...). And that country served as a wedge between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.
Now we experience what happens when that wedge is removed. We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
"You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq."
Got any facts on that?
I'm also surprised by the compete lack of interest in the USA regarding the Chilcot [theguardian.com] report. Is everyone in the US pretending that it has nothing to do with them? Why isn't Bush being grilled over misleading the people of the US and the UK? Blaire may end up in the Hague over this. Will the US just ignore it?
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.
You might want to support this claim with some evidence. I have heard that a few times now but it just doesn't hold much water. Saddam's interest in terrorism has been slim to nil, mostly because he knew VERY well that he's sitting on a powder keg with Sunni and Shiites. The last thing he needed was religion suddenly playing a major role in his country.
Then there is the fact that he kept attacking nations in the region - invaded Iran, invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel. I seem to recall there were "border issues" with some of the other neighbors.
It's not fair to blame Saddam for a war that he waged for the US. That 8 years in the 80s against Iran was backed and paid for by us. The war against Kuwait was on the other hand mostly him being a bit stroppy after getting a "thanks, idiot" from us when presenting his bill for the war. Basically he just wanted to be paid for his service and noticed that it's easier to cash in Kuwait than Iran. He sure was no saint, not by a long shot, but you have to admit, we cut him a raw deal and he just found a way out.
Nor was Iraq particularly stable. There were various rebellions again Saddam, assassination attempts, and various other issues. You may recall that some of these were put down by using chemical weapons against civilian populations.
You see, the Iraq is one of the few Muslim countries that isn't ONLY Sunnite or ONLY Shiite. It's a about 30/70 Sunnite/Shiite. And that fuels a lot of tensions. "Stable" is a relative term in the presence of this mix. His only option was to keep the country as secular as he could so that religious problem wouldn't surface. And that worked for almost half a century. Just take a look at the state the country is in now. Is that more stable than it was under Saddam?
And Saddam wasn't much of an ally. The US didn't want Iran to beat Iraq and threaten the entire region beyond the danger it already posed. Just think how lovely things would be if Iraq had collapsed and Iran leveraged that into controlling not only Iran's oil, but Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's.
Actually yes, Saddam was an ally. Remember 1979? When that Ayatollah kicked out our buddy the Shah and took over his arsenal? We built the Iran up to be the fourth biggest army on the planet, complete with kick-ass technology like the back-then ultra modern F-14 jets, complete with state-of-the-art arms. We sure as FUCK didn't want to go to war against that, that wouldn't have been the cool asymmetric wars that we knew, where we'd mow down rice farmers and towelheads, that would have been more like WW2 where you fight an enemy that has weapons on par with yours. Hell, he even HAS the same weapons you have!
Instead, we hired Saddam to do that for us. And he did. For 8 years he kicked that Ayatollah's butt for us 'til all the modern crap that towelhead had was crushed. No, the US never wanted the Iran to crush Iraq. It was more the other way 'round.
As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, China, or other communist bloc states. Most of the rest was from France.
In the end, yes, when the US stopped being interested. That's the problem with the US, they just don't know how to treat an ally. They're not supposed to be used like tools made in China, i.e. used once and tossed away 'cause if we need more we just buy a new one. People don't like being tossed away. They tend to resent that. And sometimes they find new allies and turn against you. But we're talking about Saddam now, not Osama.
We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.
So w
Re: (Score:2)
>You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.
I dunno - there seems to be a hell of a lot more "terrorism" in the world today with Saddam long dead than there ever was before. Barring 9/11 for actual death count, but that was the Saudis not Saddam.
Re:What would Kissinger do? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW my American friends:
That link to the Guardian should not be brushed aside as an idle reference. The public inquiry into the Iraq war [wikipedia.org] is as close to a thorough investigation into a modern democratic government as you will ever get. It took from 2009 to 2016 (17 years) to investigate and the report comprises 2.6 million words in 12 volumes. The inquiry had access to the intelligence services, the parliament and all records related to the Iraq invasion. They interviewed anyone they believed to be of interest.
In other words, it's a big deal, and if your local media is not reporting on this for whatever reason, then I advise you to appraise yourself of what it contains and what it's all about.
Re: (Score:2)
>Got any facts on that?
He left the facts right next to the evidence on all the Weapons of Mass Destruction....
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you tired to rehash old Chomsky bullshit that was d too many debunked too many times to count?
Just wondering.
Re: (Score:2)
"You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq."
Got any facts on that?
Well, most of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (left-wing Iranian nationalist opposition group) took refuge in Iraq, and were considered a terrorist organisation and specifically mentioned by W. Bush as a reason for a the invasion, until, well, right after Saddam's fall.
I kid, the State Department still considered them terrorists until 2012, however the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009 (up until President Barack Obama took office).
Re: (Score:2)
>Got any facts on that?
He left the facts right next to the evidence on all the Weapons of Mass Destruction....
Well, there's this [washingtonpost.com], for starters: "...multiple independent and bipartisan reports before and after the war have established beyond any doubt that Hussein was deeply enmeshed with terrorist activity from the time he took power in the late 1970s until the eve of his last war." Of course, you have to consider that the Washington Post may be stretching the truth a bit, if you think they may have an agenda here.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's a pretty big wall of text that I wrote there, you might want to point to what has been debunked, please? Preferably with a source for the debunking.
Re: (Score:2)
Good lord, do I really have to become a history teacher now? Pretty much everything therein is easily available, if you're lazy try wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing. Erdogan will say it's fake and his loyal followers will believe it.
Those who don't believe are traitors and will be dealt with accordingly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Agree wholeheartedly... I love the amazing, "Gee, just 24 hours after the coup I happen to find a list in this drawer of nearly 3000 judges that must be dismissed..." coincidence ;)
I've long said that Erdogan is Turkey's Putin, and he shows it ever more with every day. Thankfully he's not in a position to start "annexing" his neighbors...
Re:So what happens if... (Score:4, Informative)
He is just bombing them.
Erdogan is far worse than Putin. At least Russians are still allowed to leave Russia [telegraph.co.uk] and Putin made it perfectly clear that death penalty is unconstitutional [bbc.com] due to the right to life.
Re: (Score:2)
It is already blatantly obvious that there has at the very least been some sort of expectation of this, and the people cheer and celebrate the wannabe dictator anyway. You think that knowing that he staged the coup would change anything?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know about your place, around here what they destroy is shops and cafes that are (allegedly) owned by Kurdish owners.
Turks ain't just Turks, ya know...
"Democracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that Hitler was initially democratically elected to his position.
Erdogan is clearly following Putin's play book. After terming-out as Prime Minister, gets elected to a mostly ceremonial position (President) and then turn that position into something like dictator for life.
Why are judges being arrested? Clearly, Erdogan is using this situation to get rid of many opponents.
Re:"Democracy" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And Erdogan has already mentioned Hitler as an example to be admired...
Re: (Score:3)
Then he should do as his great example did in May 45. The sooner the better.
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh* He didn't need to be. In a parliamentary government, the leader of the majority party wields considerable power and influence. The Nazi Party was democratically elected and became the largest party in the Reichstag.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* He didn't need to be. In a parliamentary government, the leader of the majority party wields considerable power and influence. The Nazi Party was democratically elected and became the largest party in the Reichstag.
Yeah, and that's why Hitler became Reichschancelor after the mid 1932 elections, where the NSDAP first became the largest party. No, wait, he didn't.
No, in a proportional representativeparliamentary government, the leader of the largest coalition party wields considerable power and influence. Which doesn't have to be the party with the most votes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you are still wrong I think. But it is probably because you do not fully understand the multi-party system in many European democracies.
In 1932, the nsdap became the largest party, although they did not have a majority. However, other when considering other antidemocratic elements (the DNVP), there was a majority. In many countries today this means the largest party gets to form a government, often a coalition. It is common that this party also delivers the prime minister, though not required.
Hitler lost th
Re: (Score:2)
Hindenburg didn't give a shit about the democracy. Actually one of his demands to Hitler was that this was to be the last elections held (a demand Hitler could easily and gladly fulfill...). Hindenburg didn't want to appoint Hitler because he thought that he's actually a socialist.
Just because someone is celebrated, famous and popular doesn't mean he knows jack shit...
Re: (Score:2)
Even after Hitler became chancellor the deal to power wasn't absolutely sealed until the positions of Chancellor and President were united via referendum.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, in the elections in March 33 he gained 43% of the votes. One can argue that there has been massive intimidation going on that bordered on civil war, but in the end it was still mostly a democratic election with different parties and various parties gaining sizable amounts of votes, so the socialists with 18% and the communists with 12%. It was a landslide victory for the NSDAP, though, with them gaining 92 seats in the assembly.
I think you might be mixing a few events together here. Before this, Hitl
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he did win the last halfway democratic elections [wikipedia.org] in Germany. What you probably are thinking of are the "elections" held half a year later that were at best a show event.
But technically, yes, he was elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he did win the last halfway democratic elections [wikipedia.org] in Germany.
Cough - "To further ensure a Nazi majority in the vote, Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as so-called deputy sheriffs or auxiliary police ", Meanwhile all MPs from the third largest party were in jail.
You call that halfway democratic? Heck, even Erdogan and Putin aren't that "halfway" democratic yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Who never won an election? Remember Hitler was not a president and most of the world does not vote for a figurehead. His party most definitely did win an election, and even after he was leader there were several key democratic processes he won, e.g. Austria joining Germany was won with a 99% majority, and Hitler was the primary campaigner.
Let's not pretend that Hitler didn't have the overwhelming support of the population just because he wasn't elected as a president in an American style system.
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you have a vote and 99% of the population agrees on any issue I guarantee you there's massive vote fraud taking place.
You could take a referendum on whether every U.S. citizen should get a free car and blowjob and you wouldn't get 99% voting yes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No he wasn't. That's an urban myth.
He was beaten by Hindenburg when he ran as president and the nazi party was never able to gather more than a third of votes in any free elections.
Even in the elections of 1933, held under SA terror after the Reichstag Fire decree, the nazi weren't able to form a majority in the parliament. His actual 'position' as fuehrer and the whole nazi rule was based on a continuous 'state of emergenc
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was never elected to his position of chancellor. He was appointed.
Unlike the U.S., Germany has a parliamentary system. Mrs. Merkel was appointed by the parliament because she led the largest faction. Same thing in 1933.
Re:"Democracy" (Score:5, Informative)
Leading the largest fraction is not enough to be appointed a a chancellor. The fraction has to have the absolute majority in the parliament, otherwise a coalition is necessary.
But Hitler wasn't appointed because NSDAP was the largest fraction. He was appointed by a scared senile president because he was coerced to do that by big business and Franz von Papen, who wanted Hitler to be his puppet. Needless to say, von Papen was an idiot to believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSDAP (Nazis) won the most seats in the Reichstag in the 1932 German federal election, but not a majority.
Adolph Hitler did run for Reichsprasident (President) in 1932 and lost to Paul von Hindenburg's re-election. Hitler received 36.8% of the vote in a 3-way race.
Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler (Chancellor) in 1933 by President Hindenburg. The chancellor and his cabinet were appointed and dismissed by the president during the Weimar Republic. No vote of confirmation was required in the Reichstag.
Re: (Score:3)
A coalition was necessary. It was also what convinced Hindenburg to agree to it. Hitler had 288 of the 647 seats. With the 52 seats from the DNVP he had a comfortable majority, and that coalition was also what swayed Hindenburg who thought that Hitler was actually socialist (I have really no clue what gave him that idea, maybe senility is the best explanation here).
The last coup, the enabling act, needed a 2/3 majority, which he pretty much gained by having the communists arrested and keeping the socialists
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, ministers have to be a member of the parliament too. In most parliamentary systems they can be outsiders, members of the coalition of parties that forms the government and usually has a majority in parliament.
The US system, with a directly choosen president, results in practice always in a 2-party system. So does a district voting system like the UK has. In a parliamentary system where one person = one vote, smaller parties can have some influence too if they are required for a majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Several aristocrats (who would be ineligible as MPs due to being members of the HoL) have even served as PM, e.g. Lord Salisbury.
More recently there have been a few appointments of union leaders and prominent people from outside The House.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Several aristocrats (who would be ineligible as MPs due to being members of the HoL) have even served as PM, e.g. Lord Salisbury.
More recently there have been a few appointments of union leaders and prominent people from outside The House.
You are confusing the Parliament with the House of Commons (lower house). The House of Lords (upper house) together with the HoC forms the UK Parliament. And for a non-MP to become a UK minister all you have to do is ask the Queen to make him/her a Peer and such a Member of the HoL (and thus MP).
Re: (Score:2)
No, he won about 43% of the votes and almost an absolute majority in the March 33 elections.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
No. Read [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Dictatorship doesn't automatically imply fascism, still it's a better link than the standard use as "something I don't agree with".
PS Nazism isn't fascism either - just inspired by it.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's fascism? Complaining about a free and fair election and trying to overthrow the legitimate government with armed force. "I don't agree with this" isn't what fascism means...although far too many people who are educated enough to know better are using the word that way.
In turkey the Military has (had) a role in preserving the secular state. A number of times they have overthrown governments moving towards islamic theocracy, then either immediately or in a few months held fresh elections. This time they lost. The muslims have won and turkey will inevitably go the way of anywhere the muslims have control and become a hell-hole. The dream of Turkey as a modern secular state is over.
Re:"Democracy" (Score:5, Informative)
You seriously don't understand what fascism is. The USA is far more fascist than the Turkish army. In fact, Erdogan's AKP is a highly fascist party, espousing the traditional fascist values of Strength, Purity, Unity, Corporatism and adding in ultra-orthodox Islam in the mix. As can be seen in the firing of 100's of thousands of teachers, judges etc.
If you had actually studied the history of Turkey in the 20th century, you'd have learned that the turkish military coups have actually served to protect the secular constitution and democracy, while Erdgogan is hell-bent on dismantling it, by for example seriously violating the few powers he has as president. He has a private army in the form of the indoctrinated AKP members, which he did order out into the streets. Erdgogan is also on record as admiring Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be 10's of thousands, got one 0 too many.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not exact opposites. A military coup is a method of change, just like armed insurrection/rebellion. A military coup can be used to remove an autocratic regime and pave the way for a democratic regime. As has been done in Turkey a couple of times, when some political leaders went towards an authoritarian islamistic regime and sharia law instead of secular law and democracy. As has been pointed out elsewhere, military intervention in such cases was an actual part of the constitution of Turkey, an
Re:"Democracy" (Score:5, Interesting)
With that said, there is an increasing amount of indication that this coup was staged. The small scale of the whole affair, the strange decisions made by the military insurgents (they went for loudness rather than effectiveness), the ease with which groups of them surrendered (according to some rumours, a lot of the soldiers were just conscripts thinking they were going on a military exercise), the repeatedly reported lack of any attempt to go after or at least capture high ranking government officials, followed by the sudden emergence of stories of miraculously narrow escapes by some of them, including the Heroic Leader. And of course the incredible far-reaching purges that were set in motion moments after the coup was suppressed. There's no proof this was staged, and even if it was I doubt we'll find evidence in the leaked emails, but I still say something smells. Bad. If you want to stage a coup without doing too much damage and without the danger of it escalating into an actual coup, then this is how to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If even a tenth of the people being arrested were actually conspirators or even sympathisers, they'd have won. And the investigation is going incredibly quickly, isn't it?
I'm detecting a distinct whiff of false flag around this. For those who aren't familiar with it, it's a bit like Reichstag embers.
coup? (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite the fact that this is how it is reported, it's somewhat misleading to call it a coup. While it's extra legal, it's been reported that the Turkish constitution puts military in charge of being the last-ditch effort of dissolving and reforming the government if the government goes too far in making Turkey a non-secular state. Given that the current President of Turkey belongs to the party which officially started out as an Islamist party, but then de jour (albeit not necessarily de facto) abandoned
Re:coup? (Score:4, Informative)
He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact it used to be the case before Erdogan changed the constitution in 2003.
P.S. what exactly is wrong with fornication?
Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
That RT has become a major source of news that you can't get on most major news channels.
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just the other half of the propaganda puzzle. Ever since 2013 update to the NDAA the US government was allowed, after a 64 year ban, to perform propaganda operations against it's own citizens. So now, even more than before, the news inside the US can't be trusted. What you're seeing is Putin's operations... they cover what works for them. What works for them is often exactly the opposite of what works for the US government... as a results RT seems to have many stories that you don't see if most of your other news sources come from the US or it's allies.
A prized nugget for the Soviets and the Russians has always been the racial divide in the United States. Over the last two days US sources have had numerous stories about police departments having cook outs and such trying to engage with the community, the black community specifically, trying to end the wave of divisive violence. You won't see one mention of that on RT. You will see that RT did immediately cover the shooting targeting officers in New York. Anything remotely on their message gets sensationalized.
US domestic news sources continue to plug the headline of the thwarted coup in Turkey. He's their man, and Russia hates him. US news keeps repeating the US narrative. It's not Putin's narrative, so RT was a great source for news and footage of the riot police indiscriminately firing on citizens.
They're all lying to us. Your only options are to listen to it all and try and merge it into a cohesive logical picture... or just check out and listen to none of them. Both equally sound choices that should yield equally ineffective results. What ever their agendas, there's just too much disinformation to ever really sort it out.
Re: (Score:2)
That RT has become a major source of news that you can't get on most major news channels.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide what, if any, value RT has by providing the following link. It has "highlights" of their coverage of the situation in Ukraine 2 years ago.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kathe... [buzzfeed.com]
RIP Turkey (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Erdogan has the EU by the balls with the refugees. If the EU doesn't dance to his tune, he simply doesn't take these people from the EU and Greece is going to sink in a flood of people washing against the shores.
Re: RIP Turkey (Score:4, Interesting)
You are aware that part of the deal with Erdogan was free travel between Turkey and the EU, yes?
Are you also aware that he plans to hand those refugees Turkish passports?
Do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother seek asylum when you can work here?
And if you really want to, you can conveniently "lose" it somewhere along the way, as you did before.
end of turkish secular state: summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:end of turkish secular state: summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we need that bastard. He knows that and is using this. If it wasn't for refugees and ISIS, nobody would give half a shit about his hide.
At some point, though, it becomes easier to simply replace one dictator with another one. It's a bit like with every extortionist, at some point, paying an assassin gets cheaper than paying the extortion money.
NATO Member & EU Candidate (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a disgrace that this country remains a NATO member and has candidature for the EU. Not that those two organisations are a shining light of moral rectitude but regardless....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason Turkey is a NATO member is its position and its control of the Bosporus Strait, which pretty much kept the Russian Black Sea fleet contained.
With Russia no longer being an issue, at best it's now the entry point to the daesh controlled areas. And we can get there via other ways, no need to keep that albatross around the neck.
So what? (Score:2)
300k emails is just the size of my 'Junk mail' folder...
Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything (Score:5, Interesting)
The "coup" was most likely covertly triggered by Erdogan, to allow him to initiate yet another purge of anyone opposed to him becoming the new Sultan of the Neo-Ottoman empire, as can be seen in his purge of not only teachers, but also judges, university deans, his further clampdowns on media etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The "coup" was most likely covertly triggered by Erdogan
While I thought this at first, It would have had to have been quite an engineering feat though without the truth getting out. I saw the coup-backing military shooting protesting civilians in Ankara live on Periscope. It looked pretty real to me. Erdogan would have had to convince a lot of military people that the coup was real.
The most interesting headline is Military crew sent to nab Erdogan told they were after a terrorist [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need that many to be truly in the know. Remember, he's purged the military before, people who have been found to be too secular, too pro-constitution etc, and replaced with people loyal to him, via his party.
What most likely happened is that those loyal to him discovered that there was a group left who were not happy about Erdogan's policies(which includes supporting ISIS), and then at an opportune time fed false intel, while in the background they prepare their own moves for securing more power, such
Re: (Score:2)
That's not difficult. Military is used to following orders. And they are usually fed only very selected information. Remember 1968, Prague? The East Bloc soldiers crushing the democratic uprising were told that they're quelling unrest agitated by the West and that the population would welcome them as their saviors.
They were honestly surprised to be welcomed with stones.
Re:The media hasn't really elucidated anything (Score:4, Interesting)
There's still no proof of a real coup or a staged one, and I doubt we'll ever see it. But I am still very sceptical. That headline you mention is another red flag: would real insurgents entrust a mission of that importance to a crew not in the know, being told only at the last minute they were going after Erdogan? Seems terribly risky. On the other hand, if you're staging a coup and you need some military action without cluing in a lot of people, this is exactly what I'd tell them.
Re: (Score:3)
Just the facts checker here, you cant use blanks on rifle without a blank adapter. Unless the conscript are truly clueless, that does not fly.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Blank adapters are in no way necessary to fire a blank. The mechanics of the rifle (firing pin, primer, etc) all have NOTHING to do with the blank adapter. What you will run into problems with is trying to fire semi-automatic with blanks, without a blank adapter, because the purpose of the blank adapter is to ensure that enough gas pressure exists to operate that mechanism.
To explain another way, the reason an M-16/AR-15/etc can fire in semi-automat
Re: (Score:2)
It would have had to have been quite an engineering feat though without the truth getting out.
You don't need truth when a large number of people suspect it already. There's enough evidence to suggest this was a likely outcome, and people believe the evidence enough that "truth getting out" makes no difference at this point. People are already politically divided on the topic. If someone leaked the truth the supporting people would say "I knew it", and the opposing people would label them as "just another instrument of the coup"
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Erdogan engineered the coup attempt. But, I think he's still paranoid enough about the *possibility* of a coup that he has significant monitoring of the officer corps (whether eavesdropping, informants, etc) and he was able to figure out that it was going to happen.
So like some kind of a police sting, he figured it was best to let them proceed as much as possible and then pull the plug just after it got started. This would give him more justification to further purge the officer corps of dis
Re: (Score:2)
I think he partially engineered it, by feeding it false intelligence, conflicting signals etc, and moving his own assets around to capitalize on it when triggered.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's take a look at the coup, shall we?
1) We're talking about a military that knows how to stage coups. It's likely that some of the upper level officers have already been in the force when the last one happened. This would have been the 4th coup in Turkey since WW2. In other words, we're not talking about some stage performance military that is at best useful to look pretty when some guest of honor arrives, this is a military that KNOWS how to run a coup successfully (because this is actually the first on
Re: (Score:3)
"1) We're talking about a military that knows how to stage coups. It's likely that some of the upper level officers have already been in the force when the last one happened. This would have been the 4th coup in Turkey since WW2. In other words, we're not talking about some stage performance military that is at best useful to look pretty when some guest of honor arrives, this is a military that KNOWS how to run a coup successfully (because this is actually the first one that fails)."
Here we come to one of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turkish delight on a moonlit night?