19-07-2016, 02:05 PM
I certainly appreciate Alexander Dugin's acknowledgement of why the false flag theory is reasonable. What I do not agree with is that post-"coup" events constitute proof of pre-"coup" involvement, the same way that the Warren Commission Report did not "prove" the lone nut theory. There are too many opportunistic motives and opportunities to advance a particular agenda, after an event, to declare that those events constitute proof of sponsorship before the event. I believe that the writer of that article concedes the point.
Public statements (cited by the writer) condemning the US for housing Gulen strike me as precisely on point: Gulen was housed here before. Erdogan condemned the US for that before. Now, Gulen is housed here, and Erdogan (and/or his ministers) condemns the US. What changed? Nothing. Now, if Gulen had suddenly appeared in Turkey during the coup, that would be convincing evidence of US involvement.
The isolation of the US base by Erdogan is not proof of US involvement in the coup. Perhaps the writer is correct, that this event signals a wider change in Erdogan's foreign policies; but, if true, then that suggests to me that Erdogan simply had more in mind than purging his military when the "coup" began. In fact, declaring the "coup" is a casis belli for a dramatic change in policy could be more evidence that Erdogan stage managed the whole thing (with the careful proviso that comparing "pre-" and "post-" statements and actions is fraught with the danger of inaccuracy - see my first paragraph).
Last I note that the writer of that article is listed as "Andrew Korybko" not Alexander Dugin, but I don't know enough about either to compare pen names.
Public statements (cited by the writer) condemning the US for housing Gulen strike me as precisely on point: Gulen was housed here before. Erdogan condemned the US for that before. Now, Gulen is housed here, and Erdogan (and/or his ministers) condemns the US. What changed? Nothing. Now, if Gulen had suddenly appeared in Turkey during the coup, that would be convincing evidence of US involvement.
The isolation of the US base by Erdogan is not proof of US involvement in the coup. Perhaps the writer is correct, that this event signals a wider change in Erdogan's foreign policies; but, if true, then that suggests to me that Erdogan simply had more in mind than purging his military when the "coup" began. In fact, declaring the "coup" is a casis belli for a dramatic change in policy could be more evidence that Erdogan stage managed the whole thing (with the careful proviso that comparing "pre-" and "post-" statements and actions is fraught with the danger of inaccuracy - see my first paragraph).
Last I note that the writer of that article is listed as "Andrew Korybko" not Alexander Dugin, but I don't know enough about either to compare pen names.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."