“Rogue state” is such an interesting term. Saudi Arabia is not a rogue state, but Tuareg rebels are not a state at all. Iran is a rogue state, but Pakistan is not.
“Autocratic” is interesting too. Turkey before Turgut Özal had military as its supreme power, as that military had constitutional right to just disband any government they didn’t like. So it was a legal junta rule allowing some democratic appearance.
In terms of being fascist and genocidal Turkey under Erdogan hasn’t changed one bit to the worse. I’d argue it’s possibly became better, not worse in that regard. Even despite their participation in Artsakh.
It has become more corrupt, maybe. But they had a period of terrific growth of both economy and population (which has abruptly slowed down), that tends to make corruption more visible.
“200 years” is funny too. I take it the Red Sultan or the Young Turks or Kemal himself were less “rogue” or less “autocratic” than Erdogan?
Typical Western ignorance, when they praise Kemal who is basically a Turkish version of Heidrich, only more successful. EDIT: for example
Yeah why would someone go and change the subject? This is a sweet picture of a cat in a community about cats therefore we’re trying to insult this guy’s nationality and talk about genocide.
Yes, you saying Erdo has moved Turkey 200 years ago and thus saying that his Turkey is worse than anything in that timespan is a pretty clear case.
It’s pretty usual for Turkey. It’s never been a real democracy before Özal, and all the time till Erdo technically military still could depose the government. What Erdo changed is that apparently now this can’t happen. He made it technically more democratic if anything.
I mean, OK, if we compare this to Russia which only had one kinda democratic president (who was also president of RSFSR, so basically no single fully normal power transfer in modern Russian history), then yeah, they had a few normal presidents and Erdo broke that chain.
But then why is it 200 years, the Ottoman empire had Tanzimat, you know. Eh, until the good sultan died and the maniac took his place, abolished all those laws and started killings.
Wow. That’s the first time anyone has managed to explain whataboutism in a way that makes sense.
For years it’s been all “fallacious logic” this and “counter-argument” that. “Reductio”, “partial tu quoque”, “changing the subject”, and a myriad of other things that say lots while describing little.
Well, he is Turkish. It stands to reason he has a cat.
Removed by mod
I am not Turkish. Please don’t assume. I was just celebrating the fact Turkish people love cats. Why do you have to be so negative about every one?
“Rogue state” is such an interesting term. Saudi Arabia is not a rogue state, but Tuareg rebels are not a state at all. Iran is a rogue state, but Pakistan is not.
“Autocratic” is interesting too. Turkey before Turgut Özal had military as its supreme power, as that military had constitutional right to just disband any government they didn’t like. So it was a legal junta rule allowing some democratic appearance.
In terms of being fascist and genocidal Turkey under Erdogan hasn’t changed one bit to the worse. I’d argue it’s possibly became better, not worse in that regard. Even despite their participation in Artsakh.
It has become more corrupt, maybe. But they had a period of terrific growth of both economy and population (which has abruptly slowed down), that tends to make corruption more visible.
“200 years” is funny too. I take it the Red Sultan or the Young Turks or Kemal himself were less “rogue” or less “autocratic” than Erdogan?
Typical Western ignorance, when they praise Kemal who is basically a Turkish version of Heidrich, only more successful. EDIT: for example
Three words for you, son:
What about ism
Comparing Turkey to itself is sure as hell not that. That’s an F, sit down.
“You say A is bad, but what about B?!”
Pretty clear case.
Just take the L for trying to shoehorn nationalism and xenophobia into the thread.
“Take the L”, wow, that’s original! Did you hear that on Reddit?
Nah “take the L” has been around since like 2000, I guess this is your admission you get all your references from reddit though.
Yeah why would someone go and change the subject? This is a sweet picture of a cat in a community about cats therefore we’re trying to insult this guy’s nationality and talk about genocide.
Yes, you saying Erdo has moved Turkey 200 years ago and thus saying that his Turkey is worse than anything in that timespan is a pretty clear case.
It’s pretty usual for Turkey. It’s never been a real democracy before Özal, and all the time till Erdo technically military still could depose the government. What Erdo changed is that apparently now this can’t happen. He made it technically more democratic if anything.
I mean, OK, if we compare this to Russia which only had one kinda democratic president (who was also president of RSFSR, so basically no single fully normal power transfer in modern Russian history), then yeah, they had a few normal presidents and Erdo broke that chain.
But then why is it 200 years, the Ottoman empire had Tanzimat, you know. Eh, until the good sultan died and the maniac took his place, abolished all those laws and started killings.
Point out where I said “it’s worse than anything in that timespan?”
I didn’t. Your inherent tendency to become too emotional in a discussion seems to be clouding your judgement. Unsurprising.
Next you’ll probably show me the 🤘
I’m arguing in the opposite fucking direction and I’m Armenian.
Wow. That’s the first time anyone has managed to explain whataboutism in a way that makes sense.
For years it’s been all “fallacious logic” this and “counter-argument” that. “Reductio”, “partial tu quoque”, “changing the subject”, and a myriad of other things that say lots while describing little.
Thank You.
It’s literally called “what about” ism… That’s on you my man