SocraticGadfly: Erdogan (Tayyip)
Showing posts with label Erdogan (Tayyip). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Erdogan (Tayyip). Show all posts

November 01, 2023

A few brief new Gaza-Israel notes

Credit where credit is due to Elon Musk IF he follows through on his promise. Last Saturday, Musk said he would extend Starlink connectivity to internationally recognized aid organizations in Gaza. To #BlueAnon who say "But what about Crimea?" I pre-emptively say FUCK OFF.  That said, the "internationally recognized" gives Elmo all sorts of outs.

Turkish President Reçip Erdogan threatened on Sunday to send Turkish troops to Gaza to fight Israel. A mix of thoughts here, with this overall appearing to be good, bad and ugly. The good? This is in theory a "tripwire" on Israel that the US won't establish while it continues to largely write blank checks to the Israeli government. The bad? What I just said, in reality rather than theory. The ugly? If Israel doesn't respect the tripwire, Erdogan is out on some sort of limb domestically, and will do something, in all likelihood, even if not sending a bunch of ground troops. And, if any "advisors" get killed, the heat in Ankara increases. We could have a mix of a giant game of "chicken" with other games.

Reminder: Any claims you hear about Khaled Mashal or other Hamas founders being billionaires is nothing other than Israeli hasbara, which has been amplified by the "telephone" game or similar since first being pronounced.

The "global South" thinks Warmonger Joe is an even bigger hypocrite by far on this issue than on Russia-Ukraine. And, contra Mr. Dorsey, I don't think Mike Johnson as Speaker constrains Biden's options that much more than would be the case if Kevin McCarthy were still in charge.

#GenocideBibi claims that calls for a cease-fire are really calls for Israel to surrender.

Reality or wishful thinking? I'll take the under, so to speak on David Rothkopf's claim that Biden and Netanyahu are near a "breakup" on how genocidal Israel gets in Gaza. Rather than wishful thinking, let's call this what it is: #BlueAnon hopium. That said, Mondoweiss wonders somewhat the same.

"A Textbook Case of Genocide" at Jewish Currents, by Jewish academic Holocaust scholar Raz Segal, is BIGLY stirring the shit within the Jewish world. And, uh, no, it's not referring to Hamas as that textbook case.

Nathan J. Robinson has a good backgrounder on what led to this point. But, as I, Sabby Sabs and others know, unless his feet are held to the first nine months from now, he may still go off Democratic sheepdogging.

And, speaking of sheepdogging, gotta "love" how many Berners like "Beth: An Alien" are only just now freaked out by St. Bernard of Sanders' visceral hatred of Gaza, despite him having people arrested 30 years ago for protesting the bombing of Serbia, having hated on Gaza before, and having a long history of lusting for F-35s.

July 03, 2023

Prigozhin: Will this commissar also vanish? The more credulous precincts of the left never will

This is a reworking plus an expansion to a series of updates on my post a week ago analyzing Western mainstream media and Nat-sec Nutsacks' PR spinning after their would-be triumphalism over Yevgeny Prigozhin was dashed when his mutiny failed. It is also a crystallization of my thoughts about some leftist writers takes on the Russia-Ukraine war, and albeit not cited, even more of such takes scattered about Twitter.

A fair part of it is looking at, per Jeff St. Clair's bon mot of years ago over Julian Assange, "the more credulous precincts of the left." My one addition is that, per motivated reasoning, they're usually willingly credulous.

With that, we start with this old book:

 
The Commissar Vanishes:  The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's RussiaThe Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia by David King
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Excellent book.

After Stalin muscled his way to the to of the Soviet hierarchy, he of course then started muscling Trotsky and his allies aside. Later, he threw away people he had once used, of course.

As part of this, Soviet PR flunkies began "disappearing" people from official photographs. People like commissars of people's affairs, etc.

Hence, the title of the book.

On the flip side, a subtitle could be "Stalin appears."

For various reasons, he was not at a lot of early Revolutionary events in 1917-18. So, same flunkies started cutting him in.

King has "before" and "after" documentary evidence in both cases.

In some cases, this pre-Photoshop photoshopping was easy. In some semi-hard cases, it was done crudely. In others, it was done quite skillfully. As a newspaper editor and nature photographer, while decrying the playing with history, I have to salute the skill.

View all my reviews

And, we now look at those updates, starting with those willingly more credulous precincts.

John Helmer expects Prigozhin's fate will be similar to former Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Unlike Alexander Litvinenko, he did not take a Polonium 210 bullet in the ass, but was stripped of most of his assets before being pushed into exile. If Prig in Belarus is in house arrest, Helmer insinuates that the only way he gets out of that is by accepting similar punishment willingly.

The other biggie is that Helmer insinuates Shoigu and Gerasimov may stick. He also notes that, contra western triumphalism, Shoigu reportedly was IN Rostov, and knew of Prigozhin's plans in advance, at least the broad outline. So, while not fully a "rope enough to hang himself" scenario, it's something to that effect. It sounds conspiratorial, though; why wouldn't Prig be arrested before causing as much trouble as he did? Or, get the Litvinenko treatment?

Since Helmer's claims are based on state and semi-state media, this comes off as possibly being a case of Putin writing himself into the scene, even if he didn't actually know so much in advance, as in, in the wonderful book "The Commissar Vanishes," Stalin's photo retouchers often wrote him into the scene in pictures from 1917-18. Moon of Alabama goes down the same path, claiming that "orders were obviously given for everyone to stand down." Cuing Jeff St. Clair and his "more credulous precincts of the left" bon mot.

That said, since Helmer has a background of conspiratorial thinking, as noted by me here, let's turn it on its head.  Both Khodorkovsky and Prigozhin are half-Jewish. And, Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio, going by his Twitter, with as of the time of typing this, his 10th tweet being a retweet of a claim that Universal Basic Income is going to be enacted by a fake banking crash, engineered by banksters, using "Central Banking Digital Coupons"? Well, since Helmer, per my link just above, talked about the Rothschilds' past conspiring against Russia, this is obviously all a Jewish or half-Jewish plot, isn't it? Oy.

I'm not yet done with Cook, though. Half a dozen tweets below that is a retweet of RFK Jr at his antivaxxer worst, claiming the CIA conducted vaccine-based medical torture. Yes, MKUltra's Subproject 68 existed, but this is reading a LOT into it, and contra Orisanmi Burton at Truthout, and especially contra the artwork, I doubt even the CIA would have administered LSD, the main drug of Subproject 68, with a vaccine needle.

In another retweet, Cook has someone else calling Putin "soft" vs Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he put down the mid-level officers' mutiny in Turkey a few years ago, which inspired the title for this.

I'm also not fully done with Moon of Alabama. I've had previous problems with MoA, too, as with Helmer. See here for my take on his take on Sy Hersh and Nord Stream.

And, final sidebar on MoA's link about Prig? He also talks about the Kramatorsk attack. Just because one mercenary there may have had a sign related to the US 3rd Ranger Battalion this does not mean that any current US military is there. Lots of ex-US soldiers become soldiers of fortune.

Also contra these nutters is the fact that Putin used troops loyal to Chechen boss Ramzan Kadyrov to cut off Wagner, and not conventional military. Had Putin and his General Staff flunkies known about Prig's move in advance, they'd have been better prepared. That said, that piece itself is interesting, on how "tentative" Kadyrov's engagement was and how he, no less and possibly more than Prigozhin, looks out for himself first, Vladimir Putin second.

And, per this piece by UnHerd, I don't know how many of the "more credulous" accept at face value all of Prigozhin's claims that Putin was misled into the war, or at least some of its details, by Shoigu et al.

Finally, Helmer has a new piece, much of it actually looking at Prigozhin's right-hand-man at Wagner and its actual founder, Dmitry Utkin. Putin himself knew about Prig's graft and grift detailed in the piece, of course. And, contra his claims that the "special military operation" had de-Nazification of Ukraine as a major goal, he surely knows about Utkin's SS tattoos that are known to the public, and probably about others not revealed. Interesting that Helmer doesn't comment on that. Also "interesting" is that for a guy who has been reporting from Russia as long as he has, Helmer doesn't refer people to a blog tag for more about Utkin, but rather, his Wikipedia page.

Or, per an Unherd piece, especially for Helmer and others like Eva Karene Bartlett inside Russia, we could talk about Putin's useful idiots. That said, take Justin Ling himself with a grain of salt, or call him a "US-NATO useful idiot." Remember, no twosiderism!

===

For better information on Prigozhin?

An unlocked Radio War Nerd interview with Anatol Lieven has him calling more bullshit on the idea that Putin's Russia is about to collapse. Lieven also notes that Prigozhin seemed frustrated that all his previous videos were just not getting Putin's attention. At the same time, as also discussed in his second-latest piece at Quincy, at the end of May, Lieven notes that a proto-succession crisis may be starting to creep over the horizon. From there, on the podcast, Lieven says, siting the Kursk disaster, that Putin doesn't like to appear to be doing things under pressure. So, if that's the case, how long until Shoigu and Gerasimov get sacked? On the war itself, in April, he said the battlefield was already "frozen," due to a mixture of mines and artillery. He adds that the rich in Kiev act as unaffected by the war as the rich in Moscow. Finally, in his latest piece, contra #BlueAnon in the US, and neocons as well, and their equivalents in other NATO countries, he shows that this war shows the power of draftee infantry — and the need for it — and that NATO countries ignore this at their peril. Lieven concludes with the pressure on Zelensky's political future to not give up one inch. RWN host Mark Ames joked sardonically about a Jewish president and a stab in the back. (I know he was joking; that said, per the above?)

Joe Costello also briefly riffs on the mutiny, noting an exchange he had with Ames. He, like me, picks up on the parallels with America and Blackwater, while noting, indirectly, that we never had Blackwater patrolling the border with Mexico or making an excursion against "narco-terrorists" there. Indeed, this was playing with fire to use Wagner semi-domestically, but, that's part of how Putin was able to launch this as a "special military operation." Thoughts like these by both Costello and Ames also at least indirectly undercut Helmer, Gorilla Radio, MofA and others claiming that Putin had this all in hand, all along. This is why I'm a skeptical leftist.

But, not a skeptical leftist who's born a high degree of animus since the start of the war. And, so?

At Counterpunch Radio, Eric Draitser finally weighs in on the mutiny, but not until June 29, kind of an eternity in this world. Judging by the list of topics, he doesn't sound like he has any new insight, for the wait, and that his old insight probably isn't as good as Radio War Nerd. I mean, a week on, his rhetorical question second bullet point, and the expansion of that in his first 30 seconds, without mentioning the word "mutiny"? Indeed, that word is never used in the entire podcast. Halfway in, about "why it ended so soon," Draitser halfway peddles backdoor bank-shotted Nat-sec Nutsack rumors. He is better with rhetorical-question analysis about what could mean for Wagner in specific and Russia in general in Africa.

Worse? Sy Hersh weighs in with something that has even less new analysis of Russia than Draitser, but with plenty of ax-grinding against Warmonger Joe.

Assuming Helmer et al are at least half full of shit, none of the non-MSM analysis answers me "why" question, and that is, really a two parter: Why didn't Putin see this in advance and thus, why didn't he nip it in the bud earlier?

April 21, 2017

Facts, allegations and strawmen on Syria

Bashar al-Assad
As the dispute continues over who was behind a sarin attack earlier this month, what form that attack took and more, and as I've gotten more involved with some question-answering on Quora, all three of the items in the header are coming into play.

There's three — and only three — incontrovertible facts related to this issue at the most macro level, although surely there's many lower-level facts we could state. Those three biggies are:

1. Syria is in a civil war;
2. One or more parties in that war have used sarin on one or more occasion.
3. Identifying a "signature" for a particular sample of sarin in order to trace its origin is pretty damned hard.

With that, let's get to those allegations and strawmen.

Allegations, or assertions?
1. That Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been behind all sarin attacks.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Reality on this? Obama's "red line" attack of 2013 was very likely done by rebels, rebels backed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

It took a couple of weeks for this to start being questioned, a couple of months for good evidence, and deduction from it, to weigh against the "Assad did it" line, and several months for that all to be pieced together to point a fairly solid finger toward somebody else. See this recent post of mine for details. See also the link at Fact No. 3.

Strawman
1. Claiming that it's likely Erdogan did it is the same as "he did it," on the 2013 incident. I've tried to be careful on that, although I have occasionally slipped, I'm sure.

Allegation or assertion
2. That on the attack earlier this month, "this time," "we" (whoever "we" is) have the goods on Assad.

Strawmen?
2. Claiming that offering multiple different possible objections to that is weaker than offering one objection. (It's not; try learning modern logic.) Claiming that "we" have the goods on Assad when that was exactly what was what was claimed after that 2013 Ghouta attack, per my blog post linked above. Or, per Atlantic, the UN itself backtracking after a May 2013 attack.

Assertion or allegation
3. Claiming that raising objections to "Assad did it" is defending Assad.

Actually, of course, that is ...

Strawman
4. Claiming that raising objections to "Assad did it" is defending Assad.

Assertion or allegation
4. Claiming that attacking those raised objections to "Assad did it" is not acting as defense for all the various rebel units.

Actually, of course, that is ...

Strawman
4. Claiming that attacking those raised objections to "Assad did it" is not acting as defense for all the various rebel units.

Assertion or allegation
5. Assad has used chlorine, barrel bombs, torture, and more as well as sarin.

Strawman?
5. The unspoken (and highly untrue) idea that ONLY Assad has done all this.*

Assertion or allegation
6. It's sarin, so it had to have been Assad.

Strawman
6. Independent actors can't make sarin. In reality, also per SciAm, like the issue on the difficulty of tracing a sarin signature, it's not that hard.

Assertion or allegation
7. The rebels have managed to take control of the majority of Syria and inflict major losses on Assad's force while causing minimal civilian casualties.

Strawman
7. This is of course a strawman to booster the "purity" of at least some rebels in the hopes that this will pass ill-informed Americans' smell test. Mondoweiss crushes it. Via Mondoweiss, N+1 has more detail on how there have been mistakes galore, starting with Assad but about equally by the fractious oppositions, that have led to today's point.

Assertion or allegation
8. That one can talk about how bad Assad is while ignoring the issue of, "if he's that bad, then don't we need to take him out"?

Strawmen
8. Such questions and issues don't exist in vacuums — despite at least one person on Quora trying to pretend they do.
8A. Presumes Assad is the worst option to rule Syria that's currently out there and reasonably attainable.

Assertion or allegation
9. That, on the issue of "cui bono," Assad benefits from launching such attacks more than anybody else.

Strawman
9. Making that claim without analyzing other actors, as I did with Erdogan.

Assertion or allegation
10. That you have to have followed the Syrian Civil War 24/7 for six years.

Strawman
10. That if you haven't, you're an uninformed idiot, who needs to defer to smug, asserted national-security establishment defenders.

Assertion or allegation
11. (Tacit, from No. 8) Really, air strikes can take him out, just like Libya.

Strawman
11. The idea that this will work; the idea that this will put someone better in his place. (See "Libya" and "slave markets therein.")

Assertion or allegation
12. (Tacit, from No. 8) That, if we do take him out, we'll have somebody better lined up, and this will be easy. Also tacit from No. 8 — that "we" have learned from Libya or Iraq.

Strawman
12. The idea that President Donald Trump and his national security establishment could do anything that sane.

The real issue here?

Are neocons, on one side of the coin, and liberal hawk interventionists, on the other side of the same warhawk coin, hoping they can manipulate a mercurial President Trump into a greater degree of intervention?

Survey says yes.

Anyway, when presented with these strawmen, whether tacit or spoken, demand that the hawks put up or shut up on what they actually want to do with Assad and how.

* This also ignores that if barrel bombs are terror weapons, then Israel and the US (shock me) are the first terrorist nations to use them. (That said, I have no good evidence that Syria's army wasn't first on this.)

==

Update, July 2: We have even more reason to slow-walk Syria after Trump's lies about Khan Sheikhoun, as reported by Sy Hersh.

And, beyond strawmen, I haven't even mentioned the PR lies of the White Helmets on behalf of the ISIS that President Obama funded.


April 11, 2017

Once again, let's slow-walk Syria

In my blogging about the 2013 chemical attacks in Syria, the ones that allegedly crossed President Obama's red line, only for him to do nothing, I at first signed off on the UN report, proclaimed loudly by American mainstream media, that Assad — or at least, Assad's military — were pretty red-handedly guilty.

Well, not so fast.

By spring of 2014, Sy Hersh was pretty much demolishing that claim, as well as exposing the whole geopolitical and military background behind it. (In the current geopolitical climate, it's worth noting that someone from Russian intelligence gave British intelligence the chemical samples that led the Brits to tell Obama — "Assad did NOT do it.")

Also claiming "Assad did NOT do it"? The country's most interesting sub-5-foot politician, Denny the Dwarf, also known as Dennis Kucinich.



Denny has one other good point — there's a difference between Assad having chemical weapons, and Assad using them, whether sarin, or the relatively mild raw chlorine gas. (ISIS, by the way, has been accused of using mustard gas, scourge of WWI battlefields.)

And, even before the end of 2013, the Old Gray Lady had backed off its initial claims based on vector analysis of the rockets' paths, mainly because they had too short of a range to be traced back to Syrian army units. On the other hand, at least one could be traced, on the same vector, to a rebel unit that was within range to have used them. (And, the cheapness of the rocket warhead also is an indirect argument against Syrian military firing.

Robert Parry, a recognized former investigative reporter for the AP, has further analysis of both the NYT and Hersh pieces.

His conclusion? Turkish President Reçep Tayyip Erdogan was behind whichever group of rebels — and he believes it was rebels — who launched the 2013 attack.

Also claiming Assad did NOT do it? Erm, the UN itself over an earlier 2013 strike.

As for the current airstrike, it seems ever more clear that this was the Syrian Air Force attacking a rebel ground site that had the sarin. (Ted Postol, a weapons expert in academia is now claiming another option — that this was a false flag by rebels. That, I doubt. First, I'm not an explosives expert, but I think it would be hard to tell, under current Syrian situation, the difference between a deliberately set explosion in the ground, on the one hand, or an impact explosion by a bomblet or a rocket, on the other. Second, I'm not a conspiracy theorist in general. I know Theodore Postol was among those who refuted "Assad did it" in 2013. But, there's a more conventional refutation of "Assad did it" for this attack already out there. And all Postol says is "more likely," in contrasting this to the MSM option of aerial Syrian gas attack; he doesn't even consider the option of Syrian rockets hitting buried sarin. On the other hand, the UN backed up his earlier claims about Eastern Ghouta.)

That said, there's other contra-indications to "Assad did it."

Some people note the alleged difficulty of producing or storing sarin. I counter with Aum Shinrikyo and the Toyko subway attack. And, no, contra the "Assad did it" crowd, sarin, if in a relatively crude state, is not that hard to produce. (This ignores the possibility of government-produced sarin stolen by one group of rebels or another.)

Some talk about the claims of the White Helmets about what they've allegedly seen Assad done, and how they're apolitical. First, most White Helmets claims have not been verified. Second, they're not apolitical.

Next: torture and extra-judicial murder have all been documented by most players in the war. Use of chemical weapons has been alleged of most. Don't let neocons or liberal warhawks claim any of this is unique to Assad. Don't let them claim that pointing this out makes you an Assad defender.

Finally, if they truly believe in regime change, ask them what they think the reasonable price is in "boots on the ground" — not reasonable for US public support first and foremost, but reasonable for getting the job done, not just to replace Assad, but replace him with someone better.

The strawmanning from the mix of neocons and liberal hawks has gotten bad enough that I created a new blog post about it.

Make to the main thread.

If Parry et al are right on 2013, given Erdogan's own lurch toward authoritarianism having increased over the last four years, this makes Syria dangerous indeed. Yes, Erdogan has cuddled up more to Vladimir Putin's Russia in the past four years. At the same time, while not a full-blown Islamic fundamentalist, he has certainly exploited Islamic fundamentalism for his own political ends, and his personal inclinations surely tilt that way to some degree. In other words, Putin is feathering his bed with an asp.

That said, in Erdogan's case, cui bono? I don't have an immediate answer, and any potential angle may be at least as tangled as Syrian ethnic and religious political issues. In general, though, if he can limit the flow of refugees to his country, he can shake down the EU for more financial support, keep Syria destabilized enough to be weak, shake down the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf for money to do that, and cozy up with Putin enough by offering him help against more extremist Islamicist movements inside Russia.

And, that is 11-dimensional chess indeed.

(That said, this all sets aside who was behind the production of the chemicals that Assad's air force bombed in the recent issue. It also sets aside whether or not Assad, or Russia, or other players knew these rebels, whomever their backers are, knew that they had sarin, etc. That, in turn, makes Syria even more dangerous.)

For more on this issue, not only on how Erdogan stands to benefit, but on how Bashar al-Assad and Syria 2017 are similar to Saddam Hussein and Iraq in 2013, pre-Bush invasion, read below the fold.

July 01, 2008

Turkey tottering toward coup?

So it would seem, with the arrest of 24 people with alleged coup connections. The Turkish army has, of course, intervened in Ankara government in the past when it worried Turkey’s leaders were abandoning its secularist tradition.

This time, it looks like the arrests are a pre-emptive strike.

The sweep comes on the very day prosecutors presented an indictment to the Turkish Constitutional Court to close down Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party.
“It seems the government is throwing down the gauntlet to the key players in the secular camp,” said Erik Zurcher, a professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands and author of “Turkey: A Modern History.” “Perhaps it feels it has nothing left to lose because the party's closure will come anyway.”

Bloomberg notes the court ruled against Erdogan in a related case in June, striking down a law allowing women to wear Islamic-style headscarves at universities. Turkish law prohibits explicitly religious political activities, hence the case calling to disband Erdogan’s party.

Meanwhile, the turmoil has majorly roiled the Turkish stock and bond markets. I’m sure it doesn’t help the rocky path to EU membership, either.