Top Menu

Open Thread: Turkey Coup Attempt


The events in Turkey have roiled the world, especially the Muslim majority world. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured and now there is statewide crackdown in which 6,000 people have been arrested. The coup attempt has been blamed by Erdogan on the Gulenist inspired Hizmet movement in coordination, or under the patronage of the CIA. The rivalry between Erdogan and Hizmet has been going on for quite some time now, as Erdogan accuses them of trying to create a parallel state and has arrested and disbanded Hizmet members and their institutions in Turkey.

What are your thoughts?

Erdogan demands extradition of Gulen:

Gulen responds to the charges:

, , , , , ,

  • Khizer

    llisha I believe Edrogan is a disappointment, he has recently become drunk on power, and is shutting down most criticisms of him, and Cracking down on some universities ( going against the Islamic ethic of seeking knowledge), however I agree that the West should stay out and mind it’s affairs, as the decision to stop the military coup was by the Turkish people themselves and hence it shows that they would prefer a less than stellar democracy over the military’s brute force. Edrogan may have been a disappointment but I am glad that another Pharoh Sisi is not in charge of Turkey and making the people’s lives miserable. The West should stay out and respect Turkeys sovereignity as a country.
    I do,however respect Edrogan’s attempts to diminish Turkey’s extreme secularism (despite wails and moans of euro-centric extreme secular Turkish Kemalite elite).

  • Tanveer Wan Khanobi

    Go back to indulging in your fetish, homedawg.

  • Bahubali

    I asked a question, about the likely scenario in case the UN is abolished? Am I doing some crime, if not then stop being psychopath and answer honestly. There is no point in finding faults in me, we are both humans and must respect each other.

  • Your views and mine are funamentally incompatible, so talking with you is pointless.

  • ShunTheRightWhale

    Sure America’s formation was based on Manifest Destiny, so its not surprising, that after the war against Spain, they succumbed to imperialism (mostly economical, to a lesser extent political like classical European colonial imperialism). But the dominant order of the 20th century was one of ideological dominance (the age of political blocs), with satellite countries which retained an amount of inner autonomy, the US made West Germany and Japan into strong satellites, like the USSR tried with China, but failed. The logic of proxy wars proved disastrous already even during the Cold War (Vietnam War), more so after its end, the US was slowly to adapt. Most political thinkers didn’t even really grasp, that one remaining superpower couldn’t go on like this, especially if it had no counterweight (this political mode was outdated after Soviet collapse like colonialism after WWII). Socialism simply proved to be very stiff concerning economy and politics, not because capitalism was inherently more humane. If the USSR had survived, certain habits would have remained in the same fashion as did with the US. Gorbatchev’s reforms (the most humane of all Soviet leaders) weakened Soviet grip on the world, so it finally collapsed. The outreach of hypothetical hegemonists as an alternative to US dominance would be smaller, but in its quality, would stay the same (just look at small scale reiterations of the Cold War between Pakistan and India or China’s ambitions in space or the South “China” Sea). As long as the idea of cultural blocs (Huntington’s “civilizations”) is virulent, true civilization in a global age (cosmopolitanism) can’t flourish, but that’s the challenge for our age, like the overcoming of estates-based society (or slavery in the US) in the 19th century.

  • The only point I disagree on is the assumption others would have aggressive foreign policies on a par with the US. I think the US is exceptionally violent and wed to evil weapons of death. I’m not saying other countries are angels, but I don’t see a reason to assume everyone would behave the same or worse. What’s the evidence for that?

  • I don’t care what you think of my ideas.

  • ShunTheRightWhale

    It’s not secularism, it’s laicism, the French version of secularism, you mean. It’s more strict. France’s neighbour Germany for example is more or less secularist, even if the two large Christian confessions (= denominations: Lutheran and Roman-Catholic) are present in many ways in state-run institutions, like public schools. Secularism was part of nationalism in the early 19th century, the end to feudalism, the dethronement of aristocratic and clerical princes. That doesn’t mean, Roman-Catholicsm is a private religion in France. On the contrary, after these ISIL assholes murdered the elderly priest in Normandy, politicians blow into the nationalistic horn once more, typically for France.

    Turkey’s laicism was a reaction to the defeat in the Great War. Atatürk forged a national state with military force against the imperialistic Entente. Like Japan, he saw the West had more efficient forms of social organization: the standardized organization of society (along a single national culture) and mechanized means of production, which, in the end, led to a military power, that was so overblown it had to be vented overseas and later on in World Wars. The process of nationbulding upon the Turkish trunk of the former empire was radical, he adopted even outward forms of the West, like the Roman alphabet. That worked for Turkey like for Iran, because there was a strong culture to build upon, but the Arab world nationalization didn’t work out that good, it became to soon subject to colonial fractures and the rush for resources.

    Every country has already adopted economical, educational and bureaucratic forms of the West, those who implement them most efficiently can even face foreign ambitions. Surely the West doesn’t like population backed autocrats like Putin and Erdogan, but Saudia-Arabia, its absolutist governent (that type that secularization was aimed against!) and its politics are in fact backed by the United States primarly for materialistic reasons (fossil oil). I am sure a China with a more aggressive foreign policy wouldn’t be better than the West (part of China’s policy, what makes it less threatening with its Confucian principle of focusing inwards) or even a united Arab world under a caliph elected by popular referendum. The Machiavellian element was always there and will be in politics, the only thing that can dampen it are interwoven economical dependencies (that means you can’t simply force your policies onto your opposite).

  • You also don’t need to reword my statement. I chose words carefully and meant EXACTLY what I wrote.

  • Your ignorance regarding “liberating” Kuwait is astounding.

    I have reason to believe you’re delusional. I presented a set of verifiable facts regarding the murderous nature of the UN. If you’re still stumping for them, then in my view you’re delusional, or possibly something even less flattering.

    Even ISIS hasn’t deliberately starved to death a half million innocent children.

    I did offer a solution. Dissolve the UN. We don’t need an international body to rubber stamp evil.

  • No one’s opinion holds value to Western elites, period. Not even their own people.

    Saudi Arabia is a client state and imperialist tool. If that regime ever steps out of line, they will then qualify as uppity Arabs and will most likely be treated accordingly.

    I don’t need you to provide me anything. Nothing you’re going show me can whitewash the colossal crimes the UN has sponsored and continues to sponsor. I said in my opinion it should be dissolved, and countries exiting would be a great first step. That’s what I believe and will continue to believe.

    Time to gree to disagree. Your whitewashing is wasted on me.

  • Bahubali

    Why is there no facility to edit comment. I clearly missed your point : “Because uppity Arabs are not tolerated, period.” I think that you mean to say that Arab viewpoints have no value at UN.
    However, that also raises the question that if Arab viewpoints doesn’t hold any value then why they are interfering in Yemen to install a puppet President Hadi? They are misusing the UN resolutions too, so where is the concept of suppressing Arabian uppity. Do you think that US is doing the job in Yemen too?
    And also, you explained your viewpoint about the reality behind UN but I don’t agree with that. Countries have their interest in having membership in UN, their interest-n-benefits far exceed anything else in the event of leaving UN altogether. Do you want me to provide the list of benefits too?

  • Where is your evidence being a member of the UN is a solution to be gobbled up??? I JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU how the UN not only stands by and lets countries be utterly destroyed, but gives that process a legal veneer. So how do you draw the conclusion the UN protects countries? How does that make any sense at all?

    I’m not going to read the rest of this., pase “country gobble.” You’re writing nonsense that isn’t worth my time to debunk–and it’s as if you don’t read (or doin’t comprehend?) what I write anyway. So I’m content to you meander about in your delusions.

  • Bahubali

    So you propagate countries to leave UN because, it didn’t do anything and is doing bad on every front, that’s Okay. However, tell me, what happens if some other country gobble the country which has left the UN fold, then what would be your solution to that? Furthering more, let’s for example assume that Saudi Arabia leave UN and then it’s invaded by Iran, then what would happen as no one will come to rescue Saudi Arabia from becoming part of Iran except in the condition that anyone helping Saudi Arabia also possess the desire of occupying it. Can you also cite possible solution in that situation or the likely scenarios?
    Regarding Iraq, the situation that so many casualties are going to take place was expected, Saddam was a dictator and his cronies or followers would have suffered fatalities. Even Hitler Germany have to face slaughter of millions of Germans from the hands of Allies including Soviet troops and American forces. Hitler didn’t attacked USA but US did massacre so many Germans, do you think that was unjustified too?
    As far as treatment of others are concerned, it’s a reality that countries preach one thing and practice another thing. European or even America do have high standards of living in their own countries but they practice different things over other countries, mainly for their domination. This holds true of other countries too, as one can see in other countries example, for instance, there is no need to propagate Communist ideology on other countries, there is no need to fund religion in other countries for proselytization and creating entities that are supportive of Wahhabism or Christianity in the form of Christian missionaries, but you deliberately chose to remain blind to that interference, from your excellent worldview, I don’t know why that happens.
    If you’re not against human rights, but against defining of human rights by West then I again request you to enlighten me the correct form of human rights that you hold dear. I’m willing to change my views and I’m not some bigoted person hiding behind western values or whatever Martian values. I wanna embrace your ideology, so kindly enlighten me.

  • I already mentioned Iraq. What did Iraq ever do to America? Nothing. Yet American destroyed that country, not only through a disproportionate bombing campaign, but through draconian sanctions that starved over half a million innocent children to death, as well as hundreds of thousands of others. Then to top it off, another round of bombing and destruction, which they bragged about with slogans like “bomb them back to the stone age” and “shock and awe.” Over a quarter century this SECULAR campaign to reduce a whole nation to rubble and chaos.

    Who has behaved more horrendously in recent memory? And all of it was under the watch of the UN, which GAVE MUCH OF IT SANCTION. The UN never protected Iraqis or Palestinians. They gave these colassal crimes against humanity a legal veneer!

    Humane treatment of ALL HUMANITY? Give me a break. America shows more respect for pet dogs than Iraqis and Palestinians, or for that matter anyone outside the Western orbit.

    We don’t even have to leave the domestic front to see problems. The income inequality and state of healthcare in this country are criminal as well. Secularism isn’t doing anything to secure people’s basic human rights—only civil and political rights, which the US misrepresents as “human rights.” Because actually taking care of people costs money, whereas letting them carry out “SlutWalks” in the name of “freedom” costs the rich nothing. Lofty talk of human rights won’t get you a bed in a hospital in America, nor will it prevent you from going bankrupt. There’s plenty of suffering right here.

    I’m not fooled by the preaching of lofty ideals and glitzy public relations campaigns. I watch what people and organizations actually *DO* and not just what they *SAY.* Stop listening and start watching.

    Where did I say human rights “doesn’t hold value”? Who is defining “human rights”? Who is safeguarding them and by what means? The UN is *NOT* in favor of human rights. They advocate starving and bombing innocent people on a massive scale. If that’s “human rights” advocacy, then NO, that certainly does NOT hold “value.” Unless you consider mass murder valuable.

    How YOU can look at the UN role in Iraq and still make that absurd comment about sharks is beyond me. Being a member of the UN guarantees nothing in terms of security. Obivously.

Powered by Loon Watchers