Turkey blocks social media again to stall protests, here’s how to access them(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Turkey blocks social media again to stall protests, here’s how to access them
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/04/turkey-blocks-social-media-again-to-stall-protests-heres-how-to-access-them/
65 comments
A must watch: 3 rules for rulers from CGP Grey on YouTube. 20 mins, talks about how authoritarian regimes function. Sheds light on why all these stuff happens the world over.
Also take a look through the AKP Party's emails, which led to the discovery of a backchannel between Erdogan and Assad (and subsequently) the recent Turkish military coup attempt: https://wikileaks.org/akp-emails/
If there being such a back channel is a surprise to you, you should really reconsider whether you know anything about foreign policy at all.
Agreed. If the backchannel is news or surprising to you, you're probably just following and regurgitating someone else's propaganda.
Agreed with the OP: read original sources like Wikileaks.
Agreed with the OP: read original sources like Wikileaks.
Reading Wikileaks alone is essentially worthless because you will lack the necessary context.
A good example for this is all of the discussion about reporters colluding with Clinton based on the leaked emails because reporters are making request for comments, which is standard journalistic practice. Several such situations came up as a consequence of these leaks.
This is not to say you shouldn't look at the stuff released by Wikileaks at all but don't make the mistake of believing you get the entire picture from that or if you do, that you have the knowledge required to interpret it correctly.
A good example for this is all of the discussion about reporters colluding with Clinton based on the leaked emails because reporters are making request for comments, which is standard journalistic practice. Several such situations came up as a consequence of these leaks.
This is not to say you shouldn't look at the stuff released by Wikileaks at all but don't make the mistake of believing you get the entire picture from that or if you do, that you have the knowledge required to interpret it correctly.
Sure.
I don't think anyone, myself or the OP, has suggested reading Wikileaks as a sole source.
A good example is understanding the role that Benghazi State Department officials (Ambassador Stevens) played in illegally internationally shipping weapons between war zones: from Qaddafi's weapons caches into Syria under the direction of then State Department Secretary Clinton.
If you just read the emails you'll understand that Benghazi was important, that it was dangerous, that there was a secret CIA annex there. But when there's a big-to-do about Clinton emails and Benghazi, including her use of private email servers in violation of FOIA statutes that prevented journalists from investigating the breach of international law - if you just read Wikileaks you'd probably think that there wasn't really that much to the Benghazi thing.
I agree with you completely: read a ton of Wikileaked documents. But understand that they are communications between people; and that to understand what they mean you need to understand who those people are, when they were sent, and what objectives and constraints those people were under.
I don't think anyone, myself or the OP, has suggested reading Wikileaks as a sole source.
A good example is understanding the role that Benghazi State Department officials (Ambassador Stevens) played in illegally internationally shipping weapons between war zones: from Qaddafi's weapons caches into Syria under the direction of then State Department Secretary Clinton.
If you just read the emails you'll understand that Benghazi was important, that it was dangerous, that there was a secret CIA annex there. But when there's a big-to-do about Clinton emails and Benghazi, including her use of private email servers in violation of FOIA statutes that prevented journalists from investigating the breach of international law - if you just read Wikileaks you'd probably think that there wasn't really that much to the Benghazi thing.
I agree with you completely: read a ton of Wikileaked documents. But understand that they are communications between people; and that to understand what they mean you need to understand who those people are, when they were sent, and what objectives and constraints those people were under.
> backchannel between Erdogan and Assad
Can you elaborate on this? There are 300,000 emails behind your link.
Backchannels aren't necessarily bad. The communication on various levels is necessary even between the countries that at are at war. And, to my knowledge, only the US and the Sunni oil countries are basically against Assad, the EU is just acknowledging whatever the US wills.
Can you elaborate on this? There are 300,000 emails behind your link.
Backchannels aren't necessarily bad. The communication on various levels is necessary even between the countries that at are at war. And, to my knowledge, only the US and the Sunni oil countries are basically against Assad, the EU is just acknowledging whatever the US wills.
Turkey (presumably) cut all diplomatic ties with Syria in September 2011.
Pekin (former head of the Turkish Military Intelligence) and other high level officials had a backchannel to Assad for the administration, and were associated with parties and policies that had been trying to normalize relations between the countries.
This was discovered the week of the military coup attempt.
Pekin (former head of the Turkish Military Intelligence) and other high level officials had a backchannel to Assad for the administration, and were associated with parties and policies that had been trying to normalize relations between the countries.
This was discovered the week of the military coup attempt.
> Pekin (former head of the Turkish Military Intelligence) and other high level officials had a backchannel to Assad for the administration, and were associated with parties and policies that had been trying to normalize relations between the countries
So? Why do you point to this? Is this a proof that Erdogan is right to do what he does? Or is this a proof of Erdogan not supporting the US or other Sunni countries enough? What?
The US ambassador cable from 2006 showing the US planning to destabilize the Syrian government by any means available and that the US will work to increase Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Syria, also via Wikileaks:
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
Note, Assad and his closest forces are Alawite (Shia), Iran is Shia, but ISIS, al-Qaeda, Turkey (thanks to Erdogan continuously more Islamic), Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood are Sunnis. Assad's interest was always freedom of religion, as Alawite were minority in Syria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Syria
So? Why do you point to this? Is this a proof that Erdogan is right to do what he does? Or is this a proof of Erdogan not supporting the US or other Sunni countries enough? What?
The US ambassador cable from 2006 showing the US planning to destabilize the Syrian government by any means available and that the US will work to increase Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Syria, also via Wikileaks:
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
Note, Assad and his closest forces are Alawite (Shia), Iran is Shia, but ISIS, al-Qaeda, Turkey (thanks to Erdogan continuously more Islamic), Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood are Sunnis. Assad's interest was always freedom of religion, as Alawite were minority in Syria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Syria
> So? Why do you point to this?
I was trying to emphasize the importance of reading Wikileaks documents. I motivated this by pointing to some of the fallout of the documents being publicly released.
> Is this a proof that Erdogan is right to do what he does?
No. I'm actually really confused by this question.
> Or is this a proof of Erdogan not supporting the US or other Sunni countries enough? What?
No. I'm really confused by this question.
> The US ambassador cable from 2006
Of course also very interesting, though I'm not sure how it's related at this point, or how this conversation somehow is being directed into an 'argument'. (I have nothing to argue about with you - again I'm pretty confused by your exasperation)
> Note, Assad and his closest forces are Alawite (Shia), Iran is Shia, but ISIS, al-Qaeda, Turkey (thanks to Erdogan continuously more Islamic), Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood are Sunnis...
This is true but not a good or full enumeration and characterization of the actors and their allegiances.
Again I'm not sure what's at stake here, or the exasperated response to my pointing out that Wikileaks is an important source of information.
I was trying to emphasize the importance of reading Wikileaks documents. I motivated this by pointing to some of the fallout of the documents being publicly released.
> Is this a proof that Erdogan is right to do what he does?
No. I'm actually really confused by this question.
> Or is this a proof of Erdogan not supporting the US or other Sunni countries enough? What?
No. I'm really confused by this question.
> The US ambassador cable from 2006
Of course also very interesting, though I'm not sure how it's related at this point, or how this conversation somehow is being directed into an 'argument'. (I have nothing to argue about with you - again I'm pretty confused by your exasperation)
> Note, Assad and his closest forces are Alawite (Shia), Iran is Shia, but ISIS, al-Qaeda, Turkey (thanks to Erdogan continuously more Islamic), Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood are Sunnis...
This is true but not a good or full enumeration and characterization of the actors and their allegiances.
Again I'm not sure what's at stake here, or the exasperated response to my pointing out that Wikileaks is an important source of information.
You gave the link to the database of 300,000 e-mails, and mentioned some detail that has been found there. I wanted to know why the detail is important to you to mention it and give the link to 300,000 e-mails and I wanted to learn in which context you've read about that detail (I guess in some articles) as I don't believe you've discovered yourself and then just point to all 300,000 of the letters, you'd be interested to tell more precise story.
I asked if you believe in some "stronger" (and opposite) statements as an example of some possible views. I never claimed that any of these is yours, I asked to see what you think. That way, I wanted to get you to say something more, in order to learn more myself. I'm still waiting and hoping to learn how is the discovery of the "backchannel" in e-mails relevant and for what, in your view. If you don't want to elaborate, I can respect that too. Thanks.
Also as you consider my "characterization" "not good" I'm interested in your take.
I asked if you believe in some "stronger" (and opposite) statements as an example of some possible views. I never claimed that any of these is yours, I asked to see what you think. That way, I wanted to get you to say something more, in order to learn more myself. I'm still waiting and hoping to learn how is the discovery of the "backchannel" in e-mails relevant and for what, in your view. If you don't want to elaborate, I can respect that too. Thanks.
Also as you consider my "characterization" "not good" I'm interested in your take.
> I wanted to learn in which context you've read about that detail (I guess in some articles) as I don't believe you've discovered yourself
> That way, I wanted to get you to say something more, in order to learn more myself. I'm still waiting and hoping to learn how is the discovery of the "backchannel" in e-mails relevant and for what, in your view.
Definitely. I heard about the backchannel through international media reporting. You can find plenty of details by searching "Erdogan Assad AKP backchannel."
I heard several narratives about the backchannel discovery and subsequent coup attempt. Essentially at that time Turkey was considering (again) a reevaluation of its foreign policy, with an emphasis on Kurdish terrorism in the homeland, sputtering relations with the US, lost energy on regime change as the forces formerly led by Turkish intelligence (the FSA) had dissolved, loss of Turkish admittance into the EU, and a warming relationship between Turkey and Russia - which had earlier been further exasperated by the Turkish downing of Russian planes and the Russian bombing of Syrian Turkmen in the North of the country, and bickering with Saudi Arabia about logistics and outcomes.
While this potential pivot in policy was going on, the core of Turkish Military burgeoned to recommit to the alliance to change the Assad regime. The discovery of a backchannel launched what had been building inside the Turkish state in any case, and there was a manifest attempt to remove Erdogan from power and recommit to the alliance.
The coup failed with other members of the alliance including the United States failing to condemn it while it was happening. The confluence of interests and actions and partially soured relationships between the administrations led Turkey to blame members of the alliance for any support they may have provided, and at least the United States to spread rumors that the coup was self-initiated.
Some hard conversations were had between Turkey and the United States which resulted in a compromise, where the US would abandon much of its support for Kurds in Northern Syria in exchange for continued Turkish activity. With the settlement the Turks invaded Northern Syria splitting what would have been a contiguous autonomous Kurdish zone in two. As part of the settlement the United States would urge that the Kurdish forces would remove themselves from key cities that they had captured from the Islamic State Group.
Of course, there's still an 'edge' to the relationship between the rest of the coalition and Turkey, who has not wanted Iraqi Kurdish forces to be supported in the coalition invasion and occupation of Mosul and other Northwestern areas of Iraq (ongoing). It also maintains that, when forces converge on Raqqa, its invading military play a larger role than the Kojave Kurds.
Overall, while Turkish commitment to the campaign has wavered over the course of the proxy war, its deal with the United States to look the other way while it ousts its society of critical voices and the US hears in a serious way the long standing US demand that it stop safehousing a political aggravant ("Gulen") has led Turkey to stay its course.
At least, that's one narrative.
> Also as you consider my "characterization" "not good" I'm interested in your take.
It isn't a full whose-who of actors in the region. It doesn't mention other Gulf Countries (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait), it doesn't mention Yemen, it excludes Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It doesn't include Nusra, any of the splintered opposition groups, the terrorists supported by Israel in Iran, the pipelines being concerned, Russian naval forces - or curiously Russia at all, the United States, Hezbollah and/or Hamas, Iraq and Malaki and AQI and JTJ, etc.
Namely looking at Syria as a sectarian war is definitely part of the picture, but you've also got to look at Syria from a Ba'athist historical perspective and US target for regime change, as a Iranian client state, as a key decider in European energy security, as a Russian protectorate, as a victim of European "Ottomanization" (Balkinization).
Why does Israel have a stake in the outcome? Why have they supplied ISIL with arms and funding? How about Saudi Arabia? Qatar? The US? Why has Iran supported the regime, send intelligence and military elite and weapons there? Why is Russia supporting the regime, helping it to shape the ground with airpower the Syrian's can't muster? Why did the US ground the Syrian air force? What are the countries at diplomatic meetings trying to barter for themselves, and why isn't Syria invited?
Syria is more than a sectarian war, though sectarian tensions are exploited to mobilize people - be those tensions the Druze, Kurds, Shia or Sunni, etc.
Here we have a confluence of states with different interests all bidding for different outcomes, and not enough room for compromise for the aggravators, organizers and funders to find terms for a cessation.
> That way, I wanted to get you to say something more, in order to learn more myself. I'm still waiting and hoping to learn how is the discovery of the "backchannel" in e-mails relevant and for what, in your view.
Definitely. I heard about the backchannel through international media reporting. You can find plenty of details by searching "Erdogan Assad AKP backchannel."
I heard several narratives about the backchannel discovery and subsequent coup attempt. Essentially at that time Turkey was considering (again) a reevaluation of its foreign policy, with an emphasis on Kurdish terrorism in the homeland, sputtering relations with the US, lost energy on regime change as the forces formerly led by Turkish intelligence (the FSA) had dissolved, loss of Turkish admittance into the EU, and a warming relationship between Turkey and Russia - which had earlier been further exasperated by the Turkish downing of Russian planes and the Russian bombing of Syrian Turkmen in the North of the country, and bickering with Saudi Arabia about logistics and outcomes.
While this potential pivot in policy was going on, the core of Turkish Military burgeoned to recommit to the alliance to change the Assad regime. The discovery of a backchannel launched what had been building inside the Turkish state in any case, and there was a manifest attempt to remove Erdogan from power and recommit to the alliance.
The coup failed with other members of the alliance including the United States failing to condemn it while it was happening. The confluence of interests and actions and partially soured relationships between the administrations led Turkey to blame members of the alliance for any support they may have provided, and at least the United States to spread rumors that the coup was self-initiated.
Some hard conversations were had between Turkey and the United States which resulted in a compromise, where the US would abandon much of its support for Kurds in Northern Syria in exchange for continued Turkish activity. With the settlement the Turks invaded Northern Syria splitting what would have been a contiguous autonomous Kurdish zone in two. As part of the settlement the United States would urge that the Kurdish forces would remove themselves from key cities that they had captured from the Islamic State Group.
Of course, there's still an 'edge' to the relationship between the rest of the coalition and Turkey, who has not wanted Iraqi Kurdish forces to be supported in the coalition invasion and occupation of Mosul and other Northwestern areas of Iraq (ongoing). It also maintains that, when forces converge on Raqqa, its invading military play a larger role than the Kojave Kurds.
Overall, while Turkish commitment to the campaign has wavered over the course of the proxy war, its deal with the United States to look the other way while it ousts its society of critical voices and the US hears in a serious way the long standing US demand that it stop safehousing a political aggravant ("Gulen") has led Turkey to stay its course.
At least, that's one narrative.
> Also as you consider my "characterization" "not good" I'm interested in your take.
It isn't a full whose-who of actors in the region. It doesn't mention other Gulf Countries (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait), it doesn't mention Yemen, it excludes Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It doesn't include Nusra, any of the splintered opposition groups, the terrorists supported by Israel in Iran, the pipelines being concerned, Russian naval forces - or curiously Russia at all, the United States, Hezbollah and/or Hamas, Iraq and Malaki and AQI and JTJ, etc.
Namely looking at Syria as a sectarian war is definitely part of the picture, but you've also got to look at Syria from a Ba'athist historical perspective and US target for regime change, as a Iranian client state, as a key decider in European energy security, as a Russian protectorate, as a victim of European "Ottomanization" (Balkinization).
Why does Israel have a stake in the outcome? Why have they supplied ISIL with arms and funding? How about Saudi Arabia? Qatar? The US? Why has Iran supported the regime, send intelligence and military elite and weapons there? Why is Russia supporting the regime, helping it to shape the ground with airpower the Syrian's can't muster? Why did the US ground the Syrian air force? What are the countries at diplomatic meetings trying to barter for themselves, and why isn't Syria invited?
Syria is more than a sectarian war, though sectarian tensions are exploited to mobilize people - be those tensions the Druze, Kurds, Shia or Sunni, etc.
Here we have a confluence of states with different interests all bidding for different outcomes, and not enough room for compromise for the aggravators, organizers and funders to find terms for a cessation.
Thanks a lot for this longer answer, I fully agree that the sectarian war is far from enough to explain all the interests colliding, I've mentioned other very important players before too.
Do you have some specific links or sites that you can recommend for maintaining the balanced view of the events? It's not easy to read between the lines of all the propaganda present.
Do you have some specific links or sites that you can recommend for maintaining the balanced view of the events? It's not easy to read between the lines of all the propaganda present.
I recommend following:
- strategy outlets (geostrategy/geopolicy news) like the Strategic Studies Institute, papers out of foreign policy academics, Washington Security Thinktansk.
- leaked documents (Wikileaks). When a leaked document or audio clips are mentioned in the news, track them down and listen to the entire thing. Take note of what was said in the article and what was glossed over.
- International reporting from other countries. Understand who owns those companies. If you read from al Jazera on Syria recognize that that outlet is controlled by the government of Qatar and that Qatar is at war with Syria. SANA is the name of the Syria news outlet. Check out Der Speigel from Germany, Guardian from UK, RT from Russia, etc. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'.
- Foreign reporting from inside the US (foreign affairs, foreign policy, CNN international, etc). Pull from a lot of sources here. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'.
- Follow press sources. Many news outlets have the same exact information when they report (I won't go here into who controls that information...). So look up press breifings from the State Department and White House and look up the news wire service. It will contain the basic stories without it being 'sexed up' by good looking talking heads and computer generated graphics.
- Read history books, particularly military history. Be very careful getting reviews and understanding the reputations of the books and the authors. In general if it's something they could teach a university course with it is probably good. If it's something that is supposed to be 'entertaining' or a quick read it probably isn't.
- Read historical documents; like the Downing Street Memos, the 27 pages, the 'raw' version of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Pentagon Papers.
- Learn to read between the lines. Politicians use doublespeak. Things like 'enhanced interrogation' meaning 'torture' or 'communication' and 'information' being terms for propaganda, and 'humanitarian aid' often meaning 'military aid'. This is one of the core skills of politicking. If you don't want to get snared by the wrong impression, you have to be an active and practiced listener.
- Read wikipedia! Despite being highly edited for National Security concerns, it still has basic grainy picture of conflicts and events. Traditional encyclopedias are also very good, if not difficult to come by.
- Listen to what scholars on a region ("Professor Emeritus of Southeast Asia Studies") have to say about the dynamics of their region of study.
- Read the output of strategic thinkers, like Mearsheimer and Brzezinski, and take them seriously.
- Be on guard for narratives that are trying to manipulate you. Movies and films and music that makes you want to cry or feel a certain way. Sexy newscasters who state the opinion from their teleprompter but obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sober and somber sounding politicians who talk about a little girl who lost her parents in Conflict Area A. The human interest stuff is great and all, but it's much more useful to understand how to feel than it is to understand what's going on. You don't want to let someone else tell you how to feel.
- Remember things! The most insane thing about following modern events is that within single years the story can change and contradict prior versions of itself several times. Most people simply accept this and very readily forget the 'popular consensus' from just a few months back. Keeping notes and comparing them is a decent way to do this.
- Insist on consistency. This is a tool to discovering perspective. It's like interrogating a crime scene. You just simply can't talk to one person and make that your report. You NEED to understand how everyone at the scene thinks of it. You need to understand what everyone at the scene has for a motivation. Any individual country is going to condemn the other for bombing a civilian center and justify civilian deaths with "they are being used as human shields!" Insist that every power that makes an accusation/defense like that holds themselves to that criteria (hint, nobody does). This helps to defend against propagandistic exceptionalism from countries who want to motivate you to agree with their perspective and discount others before hearing and understanding them.
- I'm sure there's more but I've run out for now.
- strategy outlets (geostrategy/geopolicy news) like the Strategic Studies Institute, papers out of foreign policy academics, Washington Security Thinktansk.
- leaked documents (Wikileaks). When a leaked document or audio clips are mentioned in the news, track them down and listen to the entire thing. Take note of what was said in the article and what was glossed over.
- International reporting from other countries. Understand who owns those companies. If you read from al Jazera on Syria recognize that that outlet is controlled by the government of Qatar and that Qatar is at war with Syria. SANA is the name of the Syria news outlet. Check out Der Speigel from Germany, Guardian from UK, RT from Russia, etc. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'.
- Foreign reporting from inside the US (foreign affairs, foreign policy, CNN international, etc). Pull from a lot of sources here. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'.
- Follow press sources. Many news outlets have the same exact information when they report (I won't go here into who controls that information...). So look up press breifings from the State Department and White House and look up the news wire service. It will contain the basic stories without it being 'sexed up' by good looking talking heads and computer generated graphics.
- Read history books, particularly military history. Be very careful getting reviews and understanding the reputations of the books and the authors. In general if it's something they could teach a university course with it is probably good. If it's something that is supposed to be 'entertaining' or a quick read it probably isn't.
- Read historical documents; like the Downing Street Memos, the 27 pages, the 'raw' version of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Pentagon Papers.
- Learn to read between the lines. Politicians use doublespeak. Things like 'enhanced interrogation' meaning 'torture' or 'communication' and 'information' being terms for propaganda, and 'humanitarian aid' often meaning 'military aid'. This is one of the core skills of politicking. If you don't want to get snared by the wrong impression, you have to be an active and practiced listener.
- Read wikipedia! Despite being highly edited for National Security concerns, it still has basic grainy picture of conflicts and events. Traditional encyclopedias are also very good, if not difficult to come by.
- Listen to what scholars on a region ("Professor Emeritus of Southeast Asia Studies") have to say about the dynamics of their region of study.
- Read the output of strategic thinkers, like Mearsheimer and Brzezinski, and take them seriously.
- Be on guard for narratives that are trying to manipulate you. Movies and films and music that makes you want to cry or feel a certain way. Sexy newscasters who state the opinion from their teleprompter but obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sober and somber sounding politicians who talk about a little girl who lost her parents in Conflict Area A. The human interest stuff is great and all, but it's much more useful to understand how to feel than it is to understand what's going on. You don't want to let someone else tell you how to feel.
- Remember things! The most insane thing about following modern events is that within single years the story can change and contradict prior versions of itself several times. Most people simply accept this and very readily forget the 'popular consensus' from just a few months back. Keeping notes and comparing them is a decent way to do this.
- Insist on consistency. This is a tool to discovering perspective. It's like interrogating a crime scene. You just simply can't talk to one person and make that your report. You NEED to understand how everyone at the scene thinks of it. You need to understand what everyone at the scene has for a motivation. Any individual country is going to condemn the other for bombing a civilian center and justify civilian deaths with "they are being used as human shields!" Insist that every power that makes an accusation/defense like that holds themselves to that criteria (hint, nobody does). This helps to defend against propagandistic exceptionalism from countries who want to motivate you to agree with their perspective and discount others before hearing and understanding them.
- I'm sure there's more but I've run out for now.
Erdogan is trying to stall protests, but protesters saved his rear end just a few months ago.
Turkey's current political climate is endemic of the region. It's a molotov cocktail waiting for a lighter.
Technically it's already been lit, it's just not as big a fire as it could be. I mean: Turkey is at war, Russia is at war, Saudi Arabia is at war, Qatar is at war, NATO is at war, Syria is a warzone, Iraq is a warzone... we're lucky the big guns are somewhat not pointed at each other, which would literally be WW3, but the area is already burning alright.
Genuinely curious, only serious answers, please: can someone living in Turkey explain how the government can justify ordering a ban while publicly using Twitter themselves? What am I missing?
To add to the other answer you received, Turkey was in the habit of blocking social media after things like bombings well before the state of emergency was announced.
A bombing just happened, which could explain this current round of blocks: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/04/asia/turkey-kurdish-leader...
I'm reading from this site: http://www.amerikaninsesi.com/a/internet-erisiminin-yavaslat... (sorry for the Turkish)
The official power comes from a statue which allows restricting communication when "made necessary for national security purposes or a situation arises which might seriously impact social order", this was the justification for blocking after the bombing at Ataturk airport. People sharing videos and images of attacks is not good for the public morale, and that's ostensibly such an important concern that it merits blocking social media.
This current round of blocks has suspicious timing and extent but as my sibling points out, it's a state of emergency, they don't need justification.
A bombing just happened, which could explain this current round of blocks: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/04/asia/turkey-kurdish-leader...
I'm reading from this site: http://www.amerikaninsesi.com/a/internet-erisiminin-yavaslat... (sorry for the Turkish)
The official power comes from a statue which allows restricting communication when "made necessary for national security purposes or a situation arises which might seriously impact social order", this was the justification for blocking after the bombing at Ataturk airport. People sharing videos and images of attacks is not good for the public morale, and that's ostensibly such an important concern that it merits blocking social media.
This current round of blocks has suspicious timing and extent but as my sibling points out, it's a state of emergency, they don't need justification.
They are not "banning" in the sense of disallowing or prohibiting. They just slow it down to the point where it is no more usable. Media is only as good as they serve to the needs of the government.
As for the justification, nowadays they don't really justify anything, they just do, and it doesn't matter if it is unlawful or not. Especially after the coup attempt, there's this state of emergency situation which allows the government to bypass the parliament which pretty much translates to no justification for anything, capability is enough and it is not difficult to find stuff to use as pretext. Many of the government's recent actions are gross violations of constitution and several other laws, all possible due to the emergency status.
As for the justification, nowadays they don't really justify anything, they just do, and it doesn't matter if it is unlawful or not. Especially after the coup attempt, there's this state of emergency situation which allows the government to bypass the parliament which pretty much translates to no justification for anything, capability is enough and it is not difficult to find stuff to use as pretext. Many of the government's recent actions are gross violations of constitution and several other laws, all possible due to the emergency status.
Exactly. The real answer to the question is: they don't care and they don't need to explain anything
It is pretty clear now that the Turkey's Islamic government was behind the fake coup. They have used this to hit all of their opposition without worrying about laws (state of emergency = do whatever you want)
1. Complete clear all Gulen cult members from their infiltrated state positions
2. Hit secular Turks (Cumhuriyet newspaper behind bars this week)
3. Hit Kurdish opposition ( Kurdish party members behind bars this week)
Now that they are fighting in three big fronts. There is no way for them to succeed. On the other hand, if they win, this is the end of the secular, democratic Turkish Republic (which pretty much eroded on all those counts since the Islamic party came the power)
1. Complete clear all Gulen cult members from their infiltrated state positions
2. Hit secular Turks (Cumhuriyet newspaper behind bars this week)
3. Hit Kurdish opposition ( Kurdish party members behind bars this week)
Now that they are fighting in three big fronts. There is no way for them to succeed. On the other hand, if they win, this is the end of the secular, democratic Turkish Republic (which pretty much eroded on all those counts since the Islamic party came the power)
> overnment was behind the fake coup.
Has this been proven yet? I'm under the impression that we're still in the stages of better not believing any side of the arguments because any secrets - if they exist - will be fresh and well hidden for the moment. If you ask me, I would be very careful claiming to know who orchestrated what.
Has this been proven yet? I'm under the impression that we're still in the stages of better not believing any side of the arguments because any secrets - if they exist - will be fresh and well hidden for the moment. If you ask me, I would be very careful claiming to know who orchestrated what.
What is a "Islamic party"? Turkey is something like 96% Muslim population, so chances are, any particular cross section of society might just be called "Islamic" something, including the government.
That 96% is the amount of people registered as Muslims, and the religion status are registered at birth as parents declare. Further, who's not a registered Christian or Jewish is considered a Muslim by default. So that 96% includes: atheists, converts to religions other than those of book (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), Alawites (10 million of them, and Turkey's population is 70million), secularists and the non practising Muslims (edit: i.e. who are only nominally Muslim because parents are).
Confusion between "Islamic" and "Islamist" here I think; the first simply has Islam as a religion and the second uses it as a hammer.
Compare Germany's Christian Democrats (the former) and, say, Pat Buchanan (the latter).
Compare Germany's Christian Democrats (the former) and, say, Pat Buchanan (the latter).
there are multiple reports of cable internet subscribers' speed is downgraded to 1,44 mbps.
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5771998066
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5771998066
Surely 1.44 Mbps is enough bandwidth to access Twitter in a timely manner unless that bandwidth is heavily over-subscribed.
Keep in mind this is a government we're currently selling weapons to:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter-turkey-id...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter-turkey-id...
Presumably the US is selling/arming Kurds that are rebelling against the regime, too. This was one of the emails released yesterday, though it is dated 2014:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648#efmAtVAz1
>> On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, "H" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff,
>>> did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that
>>> they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The
>>> current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in
>>> Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be
>>> airlifted directly into the KRG zone.
Point 5. is missing from that email, for whatever reason.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648#efmAtVAz1
>> On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, "H" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff,
>>> did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that
>>> they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The
>>> current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in
>>> Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be
>>> airlifted directly into the KRG zone.
Point 5. is missing from that email, for whatever reason.
The KRG, despite being Kurds, are besties with the Turkish government (a pipeline going out of Iraqi Kurdistan exports oil through Turkey), and rather at loggerheads with the PKK (Kurdish rebels in Turkey), so there's little chance of the weapons passing from the KRG to the PKK.
This is good context, thanks.
Well, they're in NATO and the crucial barrier between the "West" on one side and Syria & Russia on the other.
yeah ,keep going keeping in mind , what were you doing with weapons at afghanistan , iraq , vietnam ? spreading democracy ?
sickbeard(2)
[deleted]
sctblol(1)
As a Turkish, there are so much hate going into most of the people's comments going on here.
I am a Turkish citizen and i live there so without the actual experience, most of the things said here is not true and heavily biased.
The people that got arrested last night were actively tied to terrorist organization called PKK and execute under their command. How would you feel there was a senator in your country representing such terrorist organization and continue to do so because he was untouchable because he was elected? How would you feel you left you house or dorm scared that you would be blown into pieces on your way to school or some errand etc?
Those people are widely connected and their supporters are trying to organize violent acts via social media.
Another thing is Turkey is %90+ muslim so It is very odd that people call Erdogan islamist. So what? It is a muslim country. People actually voted for him(including myself and most of the people i know). It is peoples beliefs. You dont say things about Obama or Bush 'Oh he is a Christian Leader' every time you have a conversation that has a negative context.
I am a Turkish citizen and i live there so without the actual experience, most of the things said here is not true and heavily biased.
The people that got arrested last night were actively tied to terrorist organization called PKK and execute under their command. How would you feel there was a senator in your country representing such terrorist organization and continue to do so because he was untouchable because he was elected? How would you feel you left you house or dorm scared that you would be blown into pieces on your way to school or some errand etc?
Those people are widely connected and their supporters are trying to organize violent acts via social media.
Another thing is Turkey is %90+ muslim so It is very odd that people call Erdogan islamist. So what? It is a muslim country. People actually voted for him(including myself and most of the people i know). It is peoples beliefs. You dont say things about Obama or Bush 'Oh he is a Christian Leader' every time you have a conversation that has a negative context.
Thanks Mr. Government supporting PR account. People ilke you are the main reason we are ashamed of and hopeless about our own country.
And if you are serious, definitely we are not living in the same country. I envy you.
BTW, Islamist does not mean Muslim. It's a political ideology. And it's not a democratic one. Erdogan is definitely an Islamist politician.
Edit: And Kurdish politicians and their leader are not terrorists at all. They have never been considered as terrorists since today. Only reason they are on target now is because Erdogan is obsessed with changing the regime and becoming the president while Kurdish party hinders that. The truth in Turkey is as simple as this.
And if you are serious, definitely we are not living in the same country. I envy you.
BTW, Islamist does not mean Muslim. It's a political ideology. And it's not a democratic one. Erdogan is definitely an Islamist politician.
Edit: And Kurdish politicians and their leader are not terrorists at all. They have never been considered as terrorists since today. Only reason they are on target now is because Erdogan is obsessed with changing the regime and becoming the president while Kurdish party hinders that. The truth in Turkey is as simple as this.
Watch out, if you disagree with government you are a terrorist supporter.
There is a whole list of things that are wrong with the democratic process in Turkey, one of them is the silencing of political parties & media.
There is a whole list of things that are wrong with the democratic process in Turkey, one of them is the silencing of political parties & media.
Yes i support my government. I am not going to be ashamed of it and proudly continue to do so. May be you should start supporting it too instead backing a situation where it is about fighting against a terrorist organization.
Just a few thoughts from another Turkish citizen.
The people that got arrested last night were allegedly (not actively) tied to a terrorist organization. The legal process is just starting, and these people didn't have their day in court. We didn't even hear what evidence the prosecutor is bringing forward.
You can try these MPs without arresting them. I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to the condition under which these people were arrested.
That said, the Turkish judiciary arrested hundreds of people as part of Ergenekon and Balyoz trials, kept them in jail for years and years, and then pardoned them. And we all just watched.
The people that got arrested last night were allegedly (not actively) tied to a terrorist organization. The legal process is just starting, and these people didn't have their day in court. We didn't even hear what evidence the prosecutor is bringing forward.
You can try these MPs without arresting them. I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to the condition under which these people were arrested.
That said, the Turkish judiciary arrested hundreds of people as part of Ergenekon and Balyoz trials, kept them in jail for years and years, and then pardoned them. And we all just watched.
Everyone in Turkey knows that who/what that party is associated to and supports. They run under PKK executives' commands and that is nowhere near ok and cannot be justifiable by saying they are elected. They knew what they were doing was illegal and kept doing it and now these are the consequences.
Allowing Sinn Fein to publicly represent the interests of a terrorist group equivalent and necessary. I don't know what is supposed to have changed in Turkey that isn't a direct result of the current government being against the Republic and the rights of the people. I also don't recall the current leader doing any time for his black money, so apparently consequences are discretionary.
Representation and and execution are not the same thing. If they only represented some group that does not kill unsuspecting innocent people and not acted like puppets of terrorists(PKK) then they would not be arrested for terrorism charges.
> then they would not be arrested
...because everything Erdogan does is appropriate?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/01/turkish-presid...
...because everything Erdogan does is appropriate?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/01/turkish-presid...
Another thing is Turkey is %90+ muslim so It is very odd that people call Erdogan islamist. So what? It is a muslim country.
You think like this but of those %90+ people, half of them don't vote for Erdogan and most of them still call him "islamist".
So, no, it is not OK to think that Islam is the same for you and me and people in IS (Deaş). That is what a secular government solves. You don't discuss things with religion interpretations, you discuss over actual facts.
You think like this but of those %90+ people, half of them don't vote for Erdogan and most of them still call him "islamist".
So, no, it is not OK to think that Islam is the same for you and me and people in IS (Deaş). That is what a secular government solves. You don't discuss things with religion interpretations, you discuss over actual facts.
Turkey is supposed to be a secular country, but unfortunately in the last decade this has been gradually weakened.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey#Weakening...
I openly criticise any leader who allows ancient myths to influence their actions, no matter which millennia-old stories they choose.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey#Weakening...
I openly criticise any leader who allows ancient myths to influence their actions, no matter which millennia-old stories they choose.
Except Erdogan and his anti-secular movement was a project designed to serve US foreign policy.
Turkey will only be what its people want it to be. Not some people who are not its citizens think it needs to be.
That's fair and how it should be.
Secular democracies are freer, richer, more stable and more powerful than theocracies (technical exception made for the United Kingdom).
Outsiders aren't saying "you are wrong". They are saying "have you considered your current path will likely leave you less free, more poor and at a higher risk of living in a failed state in one to three generations?"
Secular democracies are freer, richer, more stable and more powerful than theocracies (technical exception made for the United Kingdom).
Outsiders aren't saying "you are wrong". They are saying "have you considered your current path will likely leave you less free, more poor and at a higher risk of living in a failed state in one to three generations?"
Look how good of an example you are. Your input is not biased and not above a layer of hatred of Turkey's peoples religion. I find this very constructive and just and above all very true.
I am not supporting it drifting away from secularism. My issue is that whenever someone gets a chance to splash some mud on the country's leader, people are never wasting time and it is always raised with a comment about Erdogans being muslim. Those people getting arrested had nothing to do with religion.
I am not supporting it drifting away from secularism. My issue is that whenever someone gets a chance to splash some mud on the country's leader, people are never wasting time and it is always raised with a comment about Erdogans being muslim. Those people getting arrested had nothing to do with religion.
By the way, here is Erdogan prescribing secularism to Egypt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8jh68yICpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8jh68yICpk
One mans "terrorist organization" is another mans "freedom fighters" for their people on this planet.
That's not entirely precise. There might be different freedom organizations that agree on the cause, but disagree on the methods to achieve it. If this is the case (and in many cases it is) then there is a difference.
[deleted]
Don't expect American's to understand anything in your post. Just like the delusions of Wall Street with the housing mess, the tech sector is in deep denial about what their social networks do. Luckily the rest of the world is slowly but surely reacting.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-facebook-idUSKBN12...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-facebook-idUSKBN12...
How were communication services used by individuals and the state?
Did the threat model encompass the seen actions and techniques?
Which companies collaborated?
I see a lot of responsibility on our side to do better.