7 ms·

You'll find yourself modded up and down over this. In a purely intellectual sense, it is definitely a shame that the coup failed. The turkish miliatry has a his

by kweks 10y ago

You'll find yourself modded up and down over this. In a purely intellectual sense, it is definitely a shame that the coup failed. The turkish miliatry has a history of stepping in when a government no longer adheres to the pricipals of the republic, specifically in relation to secularism. By any metric, Tayyip's leadership is not secular. However, the turkish people (at least according to my friends) are are badly shaken after the two recent terrorist attacks - the coup represents more violence - regardless of its 'benevolance'. Turkey's admiration of Atatürk, the 'founding father' of modern Turkey is absolute: a benevolant dictator, he molded Turkey into a modern balanced country, uniting multiple social, ethnical and religous systems. It is widely held that Tayyip is doing exactly the opposite: peice by peice dismantling the social balance and fundamentals of Turkey. Naturally, his actions are liked by some - but his goal is to divide, as opposed to unite. Based upon this, the coup seems to be yet another tangile proof of the disquiet that has been installed under the Tayyip regieme. Essentially, the turkish people have had enough of bloodshed, division and disharmony.

cm3 10y ago
You and I may not like it, but the vast majority of the population supports the views and policies of the AKP and Erdogan. Democracy means the government can be controlled by unreasonable politicians, but it's not a dictatorship. If anything it's probably a bug in the political system in how a majority number of seats can control so much despite a considerable number of opposing seats in parliament. Switzerland has a direct democracy where, if the population were to vote for it, they would pass all kinds of crazy policies. This is in contrast to the UK where people now believe the referandum means the government has to embark on an EU-exit process. They don't, because the UK is not a direct democracy. If Front Nationale ruled France and pushed discriminatory policies, would we call Le Penne a dictator as well? Speaking of Ataturk, back when he introduced the reforms, some of it was unsupported by parts of the electorate, just as some of Edogan's policies are. Democracy means what the majority votes for wins, unless there's some rigging like in US, Russia, or probably Turkey as well. I mean, if votes can be rigged in the US and any and all objection is silenced by friends in the Supreme Court, then what do you expect from Russia or Turkey, really? Isn't the current situation in Turkey just another case of shock doctrine, as unfortunately happens annually all over the globe?
- rayiner 10y ago
  > I mean, if votes can be rigged in the US and any and all objection is silenced by friends in the Supreme Court, then what do you expect from Russia or Turkey, really? What vote rigging are you talking about?
  - cm3 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount Edit: Is rigging the wrong term?
    - rayiner 10y ago
      There is a lot of misinformation about what happened in the 2000 election and about the Florida recount. In the 2000 election, the close result in Florida triggered an automatic machine recount under Florida law. The machine recount still had Bush leading. So Gore sought hand recounts in only four heavily-Democratic counties. The Florida Supreme Court then ordered statewide hand recounting only of "undervotes" (ballots where the machine failed to detect any vote for any candidate). But the recount process itself was a total disaster: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000 http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000. The various counties doing the recounts were applying totally different standards to counting the votes. In a 7-2 decision,[1] the Supreme Court held that the Florida recount violated the Constitution's "Equal Protection Clause," which requires the law to be applied equally to all people. It found that recounting only some ballots and recounting them using different standards in different places resulted in unequal application of the law based on where people voted. In my opinion,[2] the Supreme Court got it right. The right thing to do would have been to stop after the machine recount. There is no way a hand recount was going to be a more fair and trustworthy process than the machine recount. The machine might not properly count what everyone intended to vote (e.g. because they didn't punch out the chad on the voting card all the way), but machine error is going to be random. Hand counting, on the other hand, will be biased toward favored candidates. Moreover, a subsequent $1 million study commissioned by news organizations found that Bush still would've won under most recount scenarios. [1] The oft-reported "5-4" decision in Bush v. Gore was not about whether the recount was valid. 7 of 9 Justices agreed it was not. It was about whether Florida still had time to do a proper state-wide recount within the statutory deadline. [2] I was too young to vote in 2000, but at the time I supported Gore. I too was infuriated about the 2000 election until I actually studied Bush v. Gore in law school.
mda 10y ago
So essentially you say "Tayyip's leadership is not secular, military is secular, coup needed, shame it failed. Tayyip is a baddy, Ataturk was a benevolent dictator, united everyone, all were nice and dandy. But not anymore." Excellent, super analysis of recent Turkish history. I am speechless.
vowelless 10y ago
> The turkish miliatry has a history of stepping in when a government no longer adheres to the pricipals of the republic, specifically in relation to secularism. Is there any indication that the coup of to try to restore secularism, and not instigated by Gulen and his followers? I ask this sincerely because a couple of my very educated Turkish friends in the west do think Gulen was behind the coup attempt in some form or the other.
- gorkemyurt 10y ago
  Zero indication at all. None. Exactly the opposite actually. Not sure about the exact numbers but a lot of the the generals that were promoted after the Ergenekon and Balyoz cases were behind the coup. A lot of secular Generals were put to jail after those cases and West didn't seem to care at all.
  - cm3 10y ago
    Are you saying Erdogan replaced pro-Ataturk generals with pro-Islam generals, and that led to more Gulen followers with control of troops than there were before?
    - gorkemyurt 10y ago
      Yep exactly ! Erdogan and Gulen were close allies until 3 years ago. A stadium full of Gulen supporters cheering for Erdogan, just 4 years ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP7r0U8mfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP7r0U8mfg Erdogan's speech; "I wish Gulen was here with us today"
      - afsina 10y ago
        Actually it was not a friendship. Perhaps a mutually beneficial partnership. And things went downhill probably much before 2012, regardless of political speeches.
    - afsina 10y ago
      Erdoğan and public was convinced with the coup plan in 2009 ( who knows probably they were plotting for real and gülen supporters in the army exposed it) and Gülen probably have put some (many?) of his supporters among replacements. They are extremely secretive so I doubt anybody got suspicious. I read some of the captive coup army officials statements, they are quite shocking.
mercurial 10y ago
> You'll find yourself modded up and down over this. In a purely intellectual sense, it is definitely a shame that the coup failed. The turkish miliatry has a history of stepping in when a government no longer adheres to the pricipals of the republic, specifically in relation to secularism. Preferably after a bloody purge. It has a distinguished history of organizing death squads, torture, murder of political opponents, and probably a few false flag operations, not to mention a cozy relationship with business interests. This, obviously, doesn't make Erdogan into a nice guy, but the rosy picture many people outside of Turkey seem to have of these good old secular generals risking it all to uphold their moral values isn't, IMHO, supported by facts. > a benevolant dictator I think the Kurds in particular will take issue with such a description.

by kweks 10y ago

cm3 10y ago

You and I may not like it, but the vast majority of the population supports the views and policies of the AKP and Erdogan. Democracy means the government can be controlled by unreasonable politicians, but it's not a dictatorship. If anything it's probably a bug in the political system in how a majority number of seats can control so much despite a considerable number of opposing seats in parliament. Switzerland has a direct democracy where, if the population were to vote for it, they would pass all kinds of crazy policies. This is in contrast to the UK where people now believe the referandum means the government has to embark on an EU-exit process. They don't, because the UK is not a direct democracy. If Front Nationale ruled France and pushed discriminatory policies, would we call Le Penne a dictator as well? Speaking of Ataturk, back when he introduced the reforms, some of it was unsupported by parts of the electorate, just as some of Edogan's policies are. Democracy means what the majority votes for wins, unless there's some rigging like in US, Russia, or probably Turkey as well. I mean, if votes can be rigged in the US and any and all objection is silenced by friends in the Supreme Court, then what do you expect from Russia or Turkey, really? Isn't the current situation in Turkey just another case of shock doctrine, as unfortunately happens annually all over the globe?

rayiner 10y ago
> I mean, if votes can be rigged in the US and any and all objection is silenced by friends in the Supreme Court, then what do you expect from Russia or Turkey, really? What vote rigging are you talking about?
- cm3 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount Edit: Is rigging the wrong term?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    There is a lot of misinformation about what happened in the 2000 election and about the Florida recount. In the 2000 election, the close result in Florida triggered an automatic machine recount under Florida law. The machine recount still had Bush leading. So Gore sought hand recounts in only four heavily-Democratic counties. The Florida Supreme Court then ordered statewide hand recounting only of "undervotes" (ballots where the machine failed to detect any vote for any candidate). But the recount process itself was a total disaster: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000 http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000. The various counties doing the recounts were applying totally different standards to counting the votes. In a 7-2 decision,[1] the Supreme Court held that the Florida recount violated the Constitution's "Equal Protection Clause," which requires the law to be applied equally to all people. It found that recounting only some ballots and recounting them using different standards in different places resulted in unequal application of the law based on where people voted. In my opinion,[2] the Supreme Court got it right. The right thing to do would have been to stop after the machine recount. There is no way a hand recount was going to be a more fair and trustworthy process than the machine recount. The machine might not properly count what everyone intended to vote (e.g. because they didn't punch out the chad on the voting card all the way), but machine error is going to be random. Hand counting, on the other hand, will be biased toward favored candidates. Moreover, a subsequent $1 million study commissioned by news organizations found that Bush still would've won under most recount scenarios. [1] The oft-reported "5-4" decision in Bush v. Gore was not about whether the recount was valid. 7 of 9 Justices agreed it was not. It was about whether Florida still had time to do a proper state-wide recount within the statutory deadline. [2] I was too young to vote in 2000, but at the time I supported Gore. I too was infuriated about the 2000 election until I actually studied Bush v. Gore in law school.

mda 10y ago

So essentially you say "Tayyip's leadership is not secular, military is secular, coup needed, shame it failed. Tayyip is a baddy, Ataturk was a benevolent dictator, united everyone, all were nice and dandy. But not anymore." Excellent, super analysis of recent Turkish history. I am speechless.

vowelless 10y ago

> The turkish miliatry has a history of stepping in when a government no longer adheres to the pricipals of the republic, specifically in relation to secularism. Is there any indication that the coup of to try to restore secularism, and not instigated by Gulen and his followers? I ask this sincerely because a couple of my very educated Turkish friends in the west do think Gulen was behind the coup attempt in some form or the other.

gorkemyurt 10y ago
Zero indication at all. None. Exactly the opposite actually. Not sure about the exact numbers but a lot of the the generals that were promoted after the Ergenekon and Balyoz cases were behind the coup. A lot of secular Generals were put to jail after those cases and West didn't seem to care at all.
- cm3 10y ago
  Are you saying Erdogan replaced pro-Ataturk generals with pro-Islam generals, and that led to more Gulen followers with control of troops than there were before?
  - gorkemyurt 10y ago
    Yep exactly ! Erdogan and Gulen were close allies until 3 years ago. A stadium full of Gulen supporters cheering for Erdogan, just 4 years ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP7r0U8mfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP7r0U8mfg Erdogan's speech; "I wish Gulen was here with us today"
    - afsina 10y ago
      Actually it was not a friendship. Perhaps a mutually beneficial partnership. And things went downhill probably much before 2012, regardless of political speeches.
  - afsina 10y ago
    Erdoğan and public was convinced with the coup plan in 2009 ( who knows probably they were plotting for real and gülen supporters in the army exposed it) and Gülen probably have put some (many?) of his supporters among replacements. They are extremely secretive so I doubt anybody got suspicious. I read some of the captive coup army officials statements, they are quite shocking.

mercurial 10y ago

> You'll find yourself modded up and down over this. In a purely intellectual sense, it is definitely a shame that the coup failed. The turkish miliatry has a history of stepping in when a government no longer adheres to the pricipals of the republic, specifically in relation to secularism. Preferably after a bloody purge. It has a distinguished history of organizing death squads, torture, murder of political opponents, and probably a few false flag operations, not to mention a cozy relationship with business interests. This, obviously, doesn't make Erdogan into a nice guy, but the rosy picture many people outside of Turkey seem to have of these good old secular generals risking it all to uphold their moral values isn't, IMHO, supported by facts. > a benevolant dictator I think the Kurds in particular will take issue with such a description.