Was The Attempted Turkish Coup A False Flag Or Otherwise Allowed To Happen? Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Thia is indeed a new and interesting angle on the Turkish Situation.

In Europe people are only looking at this in terms of ‘What would Merkel think?’, a Putin willing and trying to reinstate Byzantium is not something being heard in the mainstream media.

A very interesting take on this whole mess. I would say you’ve accurately framed the situation with Russia and Turkey concerning the interests, and as things stand now with volatility, those interests are more important than ever.

You are correct, the war with Russia began years ago, if truth be told, since the fall of the Berlin wall, I cant remember who said this but “No longer can we lay the blame at Moscow’s door”.

Ergodan has watched 10 years of building opposition to his literal dictatorship, he towers over Turkish politics, and now, we see the night of the long knives. We know the play here, because western media is regurgitating Turkish reports as fact without challenge, so the way I see this is the perceived conflict of sorts with the US are completely fabricated, I think there are those in the US intelligence that know this purge was coming, and assisted, NATO wants Erdogan in power, they prefer strong me, ones that are in line with their goals.

While there was no doubt secret meetings and voices of discontent, I think at best a possible coup attempt was being monitored for a year or two, and they gave them a little push. The real leaders were no doubt Erdogan people, and the rest patsies.

As for Russia, they are backed into a corner. NATO absorbed the Baltic states and now Ukraine (who will have nukes no doubt) if not already.
Yes Putin is no saint and he sure has interests but none of them are anything to do with history religion or ideology, it’s geopolitical power and positioning, the word does not realise it is a giant chessboard, and the stakes are high, as is Putin’s king is pinned in and has limited moves, and as such those moves must be taken. Soon enough a trade of pieces will have to take place, and that is where it will get very interesting. The ramdom factor is China, as things stand, we just don’t know how they fit into this, they are busy with Africa and challenging and losing to US homogeneity there, but are still resource stripping. They face off in the south China sea too, and it is a shoving match the US cant win as US has no economic hold over china, sanctions on China would be suicide for the US .

The Syrian war and Ukraine coup are not isolated events, both planned years before, the Ukrainian coup was timed just right to give NATO 2 years of a free hand in Syria.

Consider:

“Just as Hitler needed an excuse to purge his nation of any elements that might be friendly to Russia, so too is Erdogan in search of a straw man. The reason he needs to strengthen his rule is because of the war that is going on. The war with Russia. It has already begun”

“…the real Super Bowl, the one that comes when Vlad & Company come to the rescue of the spectators (Europe) when the Islamic hordes decide to widen the playing field. That time is getting closer. And the Europeans know it. At least, they hope for it.”

So, all we need to know about the coup attempt comes down to this:

A NATO country (Turkey) with which the U.S. and many other European NATO countries have very substantial economic & military entanglements/major military depot facilities that service that hemisphere is in a subtle war with Russia (a non-NATO country) for control of Turkey itself. Meanwhile, the rest of NATO is not only standing idly by, but neighboring Europe (NATO countries) are actually hoping FOR terrorist attacks on themselves so they can be saved by that same non-NATO country (Russia). And, in that volatile situation the controversial Turkish leader who by his nature is divisive & somewhat internally destabilizing his own country decides that intentionally further destabilizing his country from the inside with a coup attempt will enhance his position against Russia.

Golly.

There’s not many places one can find such insights, which is part of the charm of this site.

Thanks to Ianto Watt for bringing up Mr. Putin’s starkly, shall we say, “undiplomatic” comments on Turkey. And twisted conspiracies (not merely ‘conspiracy theories’), are very familiar to both Russians and Turks. After all, it was the Turks who invented the words, “deep state” (derin devlet).

Some apropos posts from retired Naval Intelligence officer J.E. Dyer. Yes, she’s retired, with no classified access any more, and yes, it’s her opinion. Not sure she sees it Ianto Watt’s way. But she’s … worried. Putting it mildly.

BIG WARNING: horrible pop-up ads infest this site. Turning off JavaScript (if you can) and turning on an Ad-blocker before visiting the site solves most of the problems.

But just look at the titles….

“Turkey goes off the rez; looks like NATO’s going down”
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/07/17/turkey-goes-off-rez-looks-like-natos-going/

“Coup in Turkey goes nuclear (and why it’s bigger than it looks)”
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/07/18/coup-turkey-goes-nuclear-bigger-looks/

“It’s official: U.S. to be Putin’s butt-boy in Syria military ops”
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/07/19/official-u-s-putins-butt-boy-syria-military-ops/

Matt,

Strange commentary out of your usual area of expertise.

1. Erdogan’s goal is to recreate the Ottoman Empire?

2. Fight to the death with Islam?

3. Russia is the only one successful in “opposing Islamic militants?”

Your guest writer should get out more often, and broaden his sources of information. He’s got on shaded blinders.

Turkey and Russia historically clash where their borders meet. That’s a geo-political issue, not a religious issue. As the European colonials pushed into those border areas, the situation got even more complicated. It was called “The Great Game,” in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This is nothing new.

Your guest pretends that the elephant in the room is invisible. Well, it’s not. In 1946, the UN, the UK and the USA forced the creation of Israel. The Middle East has been in turmoil since. Prior to carving out a Jewish homeland from Arab soil, there was no such thing as “Islamic terrorism.” Zionist terrorism was well-established, and deadly.

Russia has subjugated territories that are Muslim-majority–Dagestan and Chechnya, for example. These regions want to be free and independent. So they fight Russia. Little to do with religion. Ukrainian nationalists fight Russia too. They’re Orthodox Christian. Religious war?

1. Turkey’s internal politics, since the collapse of the Empire, focused on building a more modern state, and regaining stature in the world. “Rebuilding the Empire?” Might want to start by counting the number of Turkish military bases outside Turkey. The Gulen movement, Turk-centric to its core, sees Islam as just a minor aspect of Turkish culture. Gulen’s cult is massive, global, rich, and powerful. There is some sort of strange connection between Gulen and the US government. Gulen enjoys the tacit approval of the US government–which allows him to suck up billions of dollars of American tax dollars, and operate unmolested in Pennsylvania. Gulen had many reasons to support an overthrow of Erdogan.

2. Who’s in a fight to the death with Islam? Not the USA. Muslim terrorists announce their reasons for each attack on the US. And it’s the same each time–they want the USA out of their internal civil wars (Syria, Libya, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc.). They want the US to stop droning, bombing and killing their people. And they want the US to stop arming and funding Israel. Russia? Putin wants a strong Russia and NATO to stop instigating trouble. He’ll take care of his internal insurgencies (Chechnya, Dagestan, etc), but that’s not a war on Islam. The only possible party who wants, or will benefit from a fight to the death with Islam is Israel–there’s that elephant again. Russia’s “fight to the death with Islam” includes integrating Chechen Muslims into the Spetznatzt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAhB7QNRRCA

3. Guess that depends on how you define “success.” The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Spain, and others have had great success in opposing Islamic militants in their countries. The USA has droned, assassinated, wiped out leaders of multiple Islamic militant groups.

That was one weird post. I have no idea what to say about it beyond that.

JMJ

A fairly horrid and controversial turmoil unfolds from Watt’s vision of this undoubtedly foggy and dark scenery. Its is not clear to me who is waving the false flag. Also not whether that flag is faked only once, twice or more, why?
Controversies e.g. in the Reichstag analogy are also apparent in the facts that the commie straw men were moved not by Hitler but Stalin. There seem to me controversies regarding the faith aspects of this analysis, too. For one Putin is a cold and clear headed player, who will surely not act on instinct and due belief. I would rather bet on the geopolitical side of the moves. Being between China and the US allies can not be the most cheerful position he wishes. So he must be cold and considerate, which is not that bad.
For at least of us those Europeans who surely will not wish any more of the the Muslim terror than the hairy hand of a helping Russian Empire, not existent as yet.

Regarding the Turkey maze and this manifold false flag problem, I would rather revert to the old wisdom: Cui prodest?

Kent Clizbe

July 21, 2016 at 11:23 am

You seem to have it backwards the US has destroyed all the bogeymen the US created.

The CIA funded Islamic extremist organisations all over the ME, and placed the current regime in Libya and are fostering the head chopping heart eating sharia extremists in Syria, since at least 2011, this happens when you refuse a pipe line.

Afghanistan, same, CIA via Pakistan intelligence, funded and armed several groups of pre taliban Afghans groups to draw Russia into a conflict that would kickstart the end of the soviet union, it was a war the Russians could ill afford.
One of Obama’s mentors Brezinsky was knee deep in that.
The taliban amalgamated and a new leadership formed, where they forced out the remaining communist Afghans and destroyed the opium harvesting.

There was much consternation over this destruction of the opium harvests in the elite drug trade, the elites have always ran hte drug trade, governments did it openly as near back as early 1900s. like Britain. They never released control over global narcotic supplies, which is why they hit the competition in Soth America wit their drug war, China was the place for trafficing, but after twice being forced by Britain to 1 have it legal, and 2 allow trade, after an epidemic of addiction, China eventually managed to illegalise it and stop trading. Things flip flopped for a while, a few decades then in the 80s the Afghan crops (pre organised taliban) were on the rise, by 1999, there was internal struggle and outright winners in Afghanistan, and they destroyed all of the harvests, but more importantly they refused a US demand for a pipeline to pass through Afghanistan to which the US delegation replied “you can have a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs”
Syria also refused this pipeline, the network to cut Russia from European supply markets, which is what this is all about. Saving the dollar, it needs increasing amonts of oil to keep the fiat alive, this is literally a matter of national security for the US now so worthless is the dollar.

Bottom line, Saddam started to trade in Euros for oil, dead, Muammar Gaddafi also wanted the Dinar, not just gold backed but made of gold, he had to die, Nicolas Sarkozy called Gaddafi the biggest threat to the financial security of the world. If Libya stopped trading in US dollars it would have absolutely kicked off inflation in the US, the Dollar needs to increase international trade in oil to survive, a consistent level is not enough such is the rot. The US exports worthless paper and gets goods and services in return, should this stop you could expect to pay several 100 bucks for a tank of gas, the country would crash.

Assad refused a pipeline.

As for ideology, Israel has admitted they have been working with the Saudis for a decade. The prime movers are Israel Saudis US UK France Germany with lackeys the rest of the British colonies.

Turkey is pawn, a useful idiot for NATO.

Erdogan is a dictator, call it what you will, democracy is nothing but a vessel to be filled with something other than actual freedom. A dictatorship is not easily hijacked, which is why NATO and allies have to use war o those places, in other places they use a softer touch.

The vast majority of terrorism in this world is state sponsored, Britain funded many a plot, especially in Libya, and BP provided the funding. Glencore played a part in Sudan’s splitting up too, check who owns Glencore shares.

Drummond mining in South America is also murdering people, paying police and thugs to kill opposition to their operations.

Did no one notice Brazil’s political coup?

In Uganda 20000 people have been beaten and forced off their land for a British Foresty company, murders aplenty.

In short this all seems insane, because it’s not politicians calling the shots, we know that to be true, when you examine events, and look at who it suits you begin to see the picture, in other words, the global network of powerful people who are driving towards the ultimate goal, a single economic and political model for earth, a control set that would be nearly impossible to break, because any uprising would be overwhelmed by such a monstrous system.

My advice is never believe anything written by a state paid academic, state history is almost nearly all false, your default stance would when politicians and the media speak is “it’s a scam”.

We are headed towards more war, not less, never mind perpetual, millions will die, this is where we are cetainly headed, the end game demands it, Russia and China are the only things preventing global unaccountable government.

Single seats of power are extreme risks and utterly corrupting, look at Obama, wields executive power like a king’s sword. He’s made Potus a kingship

Examining the theories of the origins of Daesh

In the early 1960s, when the U.S.-supported leadership of Iraq was becoming just a bit too big for its britches — at least in the United States’ view — in wanting to challenge Israel as a major player in the Middle East, the U.S. decided that its leader, Abdel Karim Kassem, had to go. Selecting a virulent anti-communist party to throw its support to, the U.S. worked closely with a young man named Saddam Hussein. We all know how well that ultimately worked out. The source of much, but not all, of the unrest in the Middle East today can be traced back to that U.S. decision.

Other theories on the formation of Daesh are also worth considering. Yasmina Haifi, a senior employee of the Dutch Justice Ministry’s National Cyber Security Center, asserted that Daesh was created by Zionists seeking to give Islam a bad reputation. “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It’s part of a plan by Zionists who are deliberately trying to blacken Islam’s name,” she wrote on Twitter in August 2014.

And finally, it has been more than suggested that Daesh “is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region,” as Garikai Chengu, a research scholar at Harvard University, put it in September 2014.

Yet if the United States’ role wasn’t that blatant, it certainly existed, according to Seumas Milne, a columnist and associate editor at The Guardian. He argued in a June opinion piece:

“[T]he U.S. and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of ‘Islamic state’ – despite the ‘grave danger’ to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.”

No matter how one looks at it, there are many possible causes that spawned Daesh. As we look at its funding sources, it may all become clearer.

Funding and materiel, courtesy of Uncle Sam and his friends

In Daesh’s role as opposing Syria (just one of its many roles) the terrorist outfit is believed to have received funding from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as part of their opposition to the Assad regime.

But it also generates its own income, having taken control of local businesses, taxing others, and selling oil. Among its customers, incredibly, is Syria. Since Daesh controls much of the oil-production infrastructure in the country, Syria has little choice but to purchase oil from the very group that seeks to overthrow its government.

Reports also indicate that Israel is a main buyer of Daesh oil. The sale is not direct; oil is smuggled by Kurdish and Turkish smugglers, and then Turkish and Israeli negotiators determine the price. As a result of these oil sales, Daesh has annual revenues estimated at $500 million, according to data compiled by the U.S. Treasury.

In November of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that Daesh is being financed by at least 40 countries — including G20 members. With such widespread financing, it will be difficult to defeat Deash.

The U.S., in its misguided and destructive foreign policy toward the Middle East (its misguided and destructive foreign policies toward the rest of the world are topics for a separate discussion), also provided Daesh with a vast arsenal.

Last year, the Department of Defense, bragging about advances against this new “enemy” in Iraq, issued a press release: “The three strikes destroyed three ISIL armed vehicles, and ISIL vehicle-mounted anti-aircraft artillery gun, an ISIL checkpoint and an IED emplacement.” Commenting on that statement in Alternet, Alex Kane wrote:

“What went unmentioned by the Pentagon is that those armed vehicles and artillery guns they bombed were likely paid for with American tax dollars. The arms ISIS possesses are another grim form of blowback from the American invasion of the country (Iraq) in 2003. It’s similar to how U.S. intervention in Libya, which overthrew the dictator Muammar Gaddafi but also destabilized the country, let to a flood of arms to militants in Mali, where France and the U.S. waged war in 2013.”

The U.S. left untold amounts of weaponry in Iraq, and as that country descended into civil war following the United States’ odd salvation of it, that weaponry was free for the taking.

So even if, as suggested above, the U.S. didn’t give birth to Daesh, it has certainly nourished it.

A merry-go-round that never stops spinning

It is interesting to note that U.S. taxpayers are spending $615,482 every hour to fight a “war” in which the “enemy” is being well-financed by countries with whom the U.S. has full diplomatic relations. Does this not make it appear that “victory” over this enemy is not the goal? With many countries financing and supplying Daesh, might the world’s largest supplier of weaponry, the U.S., not be too interested in losing such a lucrative market? It’s worth noting that the United States’ “foreign military sales rose to a record high of $46.6 billion for fiscal 2015.” With such a healthy cash cow, would the country’s power-brokers really want to end war? Why kill the goose that is laying such pretty golden eggs?

As the U.S. and its hapless allies continue this “war on terror,” an ill-defined and nebulous “enemy” if ever there was one, Syria and Yemen seem to be bearing the brunt of the violence. As in every modern war at least since World War I, innocent men, women and children are the most frequent victims, suffering unspeakably and dying horrible deaths. And, somehow, the world’s most powerful military machine, owned and operated by the U.S., is unable to defeat Daesh. It must, therefore, continue to arm its allies, which are arming Daesh. So the U.S. provides funding to countries to fight Deash; some of those countries transfer money and armaments to Daesh, who the U.S. is bombing. And it seems that this deadly merry-go-round will continue its endless spinning.

And why shouldn’t it? The U.S. can, with ever-decreasing credibility, pretend to stand as a beacon of freedom and liberty, arming revolutionaries and destabilizing governments that displease it, while arming allies of the country in revolution, which in turn assist that country. So this “war on terror” never ends, and neither do the abundant profits from war-making. And when possession of the moral high ground is just an illusion, when rhetoric spewed from the mouths of hypocritical politicians to get the citizenry to wrap themselves in the flag and shed a tear for apple pie, motherhood and Old Glory, and when the almighty dollar is always the bottom line, nothing is going to change.

Some history not written by state paid academics, always different from the narrow scope of public discourse we are allowed.

Also you were lied to, Iraq never had an army after 2003 invasion, they only had militias, the media lied and said they had an army, that is entirely untrue.

Iraq was prepped for what we see today and that is the only reason for the withdrawal of US troops, who are back in.

Who do you think blew up the Kuwaiti oil wells in the 90s that needed US companies to solve it? You guessed it, US special forces.

Also Saddam consulted the US before invading Kuwait and got a green light, you dont read that yet it is a matter of official record.
You dont read that the testimony that led to the invasion was daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and was trained by an acting company, an American one, and she testified at the UN. This led to support for the war, all lies.

It is also true as above, Extremists Zionists were around long before extremists Islamist, and they were all over the world turning populations against Jews, for a specific reason, Israel, run to Israel (then palestine), but most never did..

Of course in the Lavon affair, Zionists terrorists were caught in Egypt attacking civilians, US and British businesses, one was caught as his incendiary device exploded before he had the change to throw it into a packed cinema. All because Britain agreed to move their base out of Egypt.

Zionists also assassinated the UN official who bargained the release of Jews from Germany late in the war and planned to fly a plane from France and drop bombs on British parliament.

Zionists have been shaping US public discourse since the early 1900s, and have written and sponsored thousands of publications and academic work, much of which made it’s way into schools and colleges.

They now own all major US media, hollywood, banks, run the Federal Reserve and US foreign policy. (do I have to qualify this as not being against Jews in general? I hope not) Factual History knows no bigotry

Marty, take a breath.

Interesting article though there’s a good bit of speculation. It’s like WWI all over again.

I am not sure what Marty’s all about. No offense.

Say, isn’t that Melania Trump really something?

G’donyer, Marty,
If you were going to make a speech that was only an introduction to this (must not be considered) topic you’d need lungs that could fill an airship.

A purposely anti-Christian oligarchy/plutocracy has been disordering the world’s cultural, political and economic affairs for centuries.

“. . . the faux distinction between ‘moderate’ Islam and ‘radical’ Islam. Only idiots . . . make this mistake of believing there are two types of Islam.”

I opened this blog this morning, only to be slapped in the face with this astonishing statement. Throughout the day I checked and checked again, and the words remained there, glaring defiantly at anyone brave enough, or stupid enough, to read them. I just checked yet again, and the words are still there! How can this be?

Clearly the author is independently wealthy or under very deep cover, fearing neither loss of life or livelihood. But beyond that, what gives the author the right to put such things in writing? Yes, there is the claim of truth, but how is that possibly relevant?

We must not speak of such things, much less write them down!

There are other ways to communicate regarding such deeply offensive ideas. For example, in a punchline to a joke, or in a cartoon with anthropomorphized animals. We are not stupid; we will properly divine the meaning, and this ugliness can be avoided.

I shudder to imagine what horrifically offensive words I might read here tomorrow. Maybe that Mohammed, based on his life and teachings, was arguably an agent of (redacted)?

Cardinal Burke can be insensitive, too:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/cardinal-burke-its-reasonable-to-be-afraid-of-islams-desire-to-govern-the-world/

Say, isn’t that Melania Trump really something?

Indeed. If I were a billionaire, I’d get me one, too.

Interesting essay for sure. I agree the Kremlin sees itself as the cultural inheritor of the Christian Byzantine Empire. The rest is a bit speculative.

I have one nit pick. Vlad is short for Vladislav. The nickname for a Vladimir would be Vova.