Turkey thread: now stuffed with more authoritarianism!

[Mike the Progressive]

Kerry says Turkey could be booted from NATO.

"A senior official from the embassy told the Daily Sabbah, "Secretary Kerry didn't say anything at all about Nato membership being in jeopardy. There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense." "

I don't suppose any publication can refrain from sensationalist headlines anymore.

Yah I was going to say. Even Kerry couldn't be that stupid. Oh wait, it's John Kerry!

But booting them from NATO? For what? Failing at a coup? Because Erdogan is reacting the way any person would following a failed one?

[Cymrea]

It seems Erdogan also demands the extradition of a former friend, now bitter rival and exile living in Pennsylvania, who he claims orchestrated the coup attempt. Somehow.

[Imperializt Russia]

The statement is a clear warning: hold up on the reigns, because NATO has a commitment to democracy.

The wording of that embassy official is very clearly a downplay.
"There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense"
That's weasel wording. "He didn't actually say it in those words as were recorded".

Saying "John Kerry Says X" when he hasn't actually said X, is a lie. It is factually incorrect. The Independent would be perfectly correct to say "John Kerry Implies X", because he certainly did, but they did not do so because it is not nearly so attention grabbing.

That's not "weasel wording", that's accurate and responsible reporting.

If it was a lie the embassy official would have given a categorical denial, not wormed his way around the exact, explicit wording.

[Camicon]

Saying "John Kerry Says X" when he hasn't actually said X, is a lie. It is factually incorrect. The Independent would be perfectly correct to say "John Kerry Implies X", because he certainly did, but they did not do so because it is not nearly so attention grabbing.

That's not "weasel wording", that's accurate and responsible reporting.

If it was a lie the embassy official would have given a categorical denial, not wormed his way around the exact, explicit wording.

"There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense."

Seems pretty explicit.

[Mike the Progressive]

It seems Erdogan also demands the extradition of a former friend, now bitter rival and exile living in Pennsylvania, who he claims orchestrated the coup attempt. Somehow.

Wouldn't be the first time somebody abroad helped orchestrate a coup.

[Imperializt Russia]

"A senior official from the embassy told the Daily Sabbah, "Secretary Kerry didn't say anything at all about Nato membership being in jeopardy. There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense." "

I don't suppose any publication can refrain from sensationalist headlines anymore.

Yah I was going to say. Even Kerry couldn't be that stupid. Oh wait, it's John Kerry!

But booting them from NATO? For what? Failing at a coup? Because Erdogan is reacting the way any person would following a failed one?

He's suspended about 12,000 law enforcement, judges and other officials for no explicit reason and is considering reinstating the death penalty for the coup plotters and indeed rank and file servicemen.

[Imperializt Russia]

If it was a lie the embassy official would have given a categorical denial, not wormed his way around the exact, explicit wording.

"There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense."

Seems pretty explicit.

"...that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense".

That's not a categorical denial. That's denial of a contrived mess of legalese.

[Mike the Progressive]

Yah I was going to say. Even Kerry couldn't be that stupid. Oh wait, it's John Kerry!

But booting them from NATO? For what? Failing at a coup? Because Erdogan is reacting the way any person would following a failed one?

He's suspended about 12,000 law enforcement, judges and other officials for no explicit reason and is considering reinstating the death penalty for the coup plotters and indeed rank and file servicemen.

Considering the nature of coups as being fairly treasonous acts, I wouldn't blame him. As for the suspension, again not surprising considering what just occurred under his nose. If he didn't react harshly, it would only worsen things for him.

[Frank Zipper]

It seems Erdogan also demands the extradition of a former friend, now bitter rival and exile living in Pennsylvania, who he claims orchestrated the coup attempt. Somehow.

Wouldn't be the first time somebody abroad helped orchestrate a coup.

Though usually they are based in Langley.

[Imperializt Russia]

Making the death penalty suddenly legal again, after having removed thousands of judges, is a suspension of the justice system. Rather plain and simple.

[Cymrea]

He's suspended about 12,000 law enforcement, judges and other officials for no explicit reason and is considering reinstating the death penalty for the coup plotters and indeed rank and file servicemen.

Considering the nature of coups as being fairly treasonous acts, I wouldn't blame him. As for the suspension, again not surprising considering what just occurred under his nose. If he didn't react harshly, it would only worsen things for him.

Assuming the whole thing isn't a false flag operation, for which Erdogan has a history.

[Calimera II]

Making the death penalty suddenly legal again, after having removed thousands of judges, is a suspension of the justice system. Rather plain and simple.

Bye bye European Union.

[Mike the Progressive]

Wouldn't be the first time somebody abroad helped orchestrate a coup.

Though usually they are based in Langley.

I wouldn't say usually.

[Senkaku]

He's suspended about 12,000 law enforcement, judges and other officials for no explicit reason and is considering reinstating the death penalty for the coup plotters and indeed rank and file servicemen.

Considering the nature of coups as being fairly treasonous acts, I wouldn't blame him. As for the suspension, again not surprising considering what just occurred under his nose. If he didn't react harshly, it would only worsen things for him.

...you understand Erdogan's authoritarian streak was already rather problematic before all this shit, right? Using the coup as a thinly veiled excuse to hunt down and annihilate all your political enemies and people who aren't absolutely loyal to you within the government is not okay.

[Mike the Progressive]

Considering the nature of coups as being fairly treasonous acts, I wouldn't blame him. As for the suspension, again not surprising considering what just occurred under his nose. If he didn't react harshly, it would only worsen things for him.

Assuming the whole thing isn't a false flag operation, for which Erdogan has a history.

Sounds like paranoia.

[Camicon]

"There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense."

Seems pretty explicit.

"...that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense".

That's not a categorical denial. That's denial of a contrived mess of legalese.

What, do you want it reworded?

"... that indicates the US believes Turkey will be ejected from NATO".

Means exactly the same thing, but it, what? Feels stronger? Some other subjective nonsense? Look at what the words mean, not what you feel they mean, and "There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense" is a perfectly clear and categorical denial that John Kerry said Turkey's NATO membership is in jeopardy.

[Mike the Progressive]

Considering the nature of coups as being fairly treasonous acts, I wouldn't blame him. As for the suspension, again not surprising considering what just occurred under his nose. If he didn't react harshly, it would only worsen things for him.

...you understand Erdogan's authoritarian streak was already rather problematic before all this shit, right? Using the coup as a thinly veiled excuse to hunt down and annihilate all your political enemies and people who aren't absolutely loyal to you within the government is not okay.

I do understand that, I also understand you can thank the military's failed coup for what's happening right now. In addition to giving him the excuse, it most likely put him on edge. I also understand that's why coups are generally a bad thing, especially when they fail.

[Cymrea]

Assuming the whole thing isn't a false flag operation, for which Erdogan has a history.

Sounds like paranoia.

If you ignore the previous crises Erdogan has generated and dismiss distinct possibilities extrapolated from an established pattern of behaviour out of hand, sure.

[Mike the Progressive]

Sounds like paranoia.

If you ignore the previous crises Erdogan has generated and dismiss distinct possibilities extrapolated from an established pattern of behaviour out of hand, sure.

Except there is nothing to indicate what happened is as you said. Except Erdogan is bad, therefore everything he does is bad, and the only reason why a coup would fail is because he staged it. Otherwise everybody would be behind it minus the fact the majority of the country has voted him and his party in. Repeatedly.

[Imperializt Russia]

"...that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense".

That's not a categorical denial. That's denial of a contrived mess of legalese.

What, do you want it reworded?

"... that indicates the US believes Turkey will be ejected from NATO".

Means exactly the same thing, but it, what? Feels stronger? Some other subjective nonsense? Look at what the words mean, not what you feel they mean, and "There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense" is a perfectly clear and categorical denial that John Kerry said Turkey's NATO membership is in jeopardy.

Why does it need to be so heavily qualified if it means the same thing? Wording matters. Kerry's wording mattered enough that it had to be defended with an incredibly carefully-worded, heavily-qualified rebuttal.

Why is that?

A categorical denial would have been "no, Kerry did not say that at all. The US is not suggesting Turkey will, or could be, ejected from NATO".
It is categorical, because it is clear, and leaves no alternate avenue.

I called his actual statement weasel wording, because he used phrases like "actual content" and "nothing to indicate" rather than, as I provided "no" and "not".

[Cymrea]

If you ignore the previous crises Erdogan has generated and dismiss distinct possibilities extrapolated from an established pattern of behaviour out of hand, sure.

Except there is nothing to indicate what happened is as you said. Except Erdogan is bad, therefore everything he does is bad, and the only reason why a coup would fail is because he staged it. Otherwise everybody would be behind it minus the fact the majority of the country has voted him and his party in. Repeatedly.

I'm not asserting it as a fact, only as a possibility based on previous actions. Finding suspicion in thousands within a matter of a couple of days and suspending the justice system while working towards reinstating the death penalty. I'm sure that's all on the up and up.

Meanwhile, keep your words out of my mouth, please and thank you.

[Camicon]

What, do you want it reworded?

"... that indicates the US believes Turkey will be ejected from NATO".

Means exactly the same thing, but it, what? Feels stronger? Some other subjective nonsense? Look at what the words mean, not what you feel they mean, and "There is nothing in his actual statement that indicates the US believes Turkey is in a danger in this sense" is a perfectly clear and categorical denial that John Kerry said Turkey's NATO membership is in jeopardy.

Why does it need to be so heavily qualified if it means the same thing? Wording matters. Kerry's wording mattered enough that it had to be defended with an incredibly carefully-worded, heavily-qualified rebuttal.

Why is that?

A categorical denial would have been "no, Kerry did not say that at all. The US is not suggesting Turkey will, or could be, ejected from NATO".
It is categorical, because it is clear, and leaves no alternate avenue.

I called his actual statement weasel wording, because he used phrases like "actual content" and "nothing to indicate" rather than, as I provided "no" and "not".

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a statement taken from a US official.

Said unnamed US official didn't say "the US is not suggesting Turkey will, or could be, ejected from NATO" because: a) the subject was John Kerry's statement, not the position of the government et al, and, b) John Kerry implied that Turkey's membership is in question, or will be in question if Erdogan drags them much farther down the path he has been.

He said "John Kerry didn't say Turkey's NATO membership is in jeopardy" because it was the truth, and because saying that Turkey's membership is in jeopardy would likely find him stepping on the toes of people who can get him fired or blacklisted. No doubt the unnamed man has a job and career which he would like to keep.

Seems to me that you just find carefully considered responses and the use of three-syllable words to be "weaselly".

[Imperializt Russia]

Why does it need to be so heavily qualified if it means the same thing? Wording matters. Kerry's wording mattered enough that it had to be defended with an incredibly carefully-worded, heavily-qualified rebuttal.

Why is that?

A categorical denial would have been "no, Kerry did not say that at all. The US is not suggesting Turkey will, or could be, ejected from NATO".
It is categorical, because it is clear, and leaves no alternate avenue.

I called his actual statement weasel wording, because he used phrases like "actual content" and "nothing to indicate" rather than, as I provided "no" and "not".

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a statement taken from a US official.

Said unnamed US official didn't say "the US is not suggesting Turkey will, or could be, ejected from NATO" because: a) the subject was John Kerry's statement, not the position of the government et al, and, b) John Kerry implied that Turkey's membership is in question, or will be in question if Erdogan drags them much farther down the path he has been.

He said "John Kerry didn't say Turkey's NATO membership is in jeopardy" because it was the truth, and because saying that Turkey's membership is in jeopardy would likely find him stepping on the toes of people who can get him fired or blacklisted. No doubt the unnamed man has a job and career which he would like to keep.

Seems to me that you just find carefully considered responses and the use of three-syllable words to be "weaselly".

There's usually a reason why a response has to be considered that carefully. It's usually a reason one wouldn't like.

[Camicon]

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a statement taken from a US official.

Said unnamed US official didn't say "the US is not suggesting Turkey will, or could be, ejected from NATO" because: a) the subject was John Kerry's statement, not the position of the government et al, and, b) John Kerry implied that Turkey's membership is in question, or will be in question if Erdogan drags them much farther down the path he has been.

He said "John Kerry didn't say Turkey's NATO membership is in jeopardy" because it was the truth, and because saying that Turkey's membership is in jeopardy would likely find him stepping on the toes of people who can get him fired or blacklisted. No doubt the unnamed man has a job and career which he would like to keep.

Seems to me that you just find carefully considered responses and the use of three-syllable words to be "weaselly".

There's usually a reason why a response has to be considered that carefully. It's usually a reason one wouldn't like.

Thinking before one speaks is not desirable? You'd rather have people running their mouths without any thought to what they are saying?

[Imperializt Russia]

There's usually a reason why a response has to be considered that carefully. It's usually a reason one wouldn't like.

Thinking before one speaks is not desirable? You'd rather have people running their mouths without any thought to what they are saying?

I think you well know that's not the same thing.