Turkish Coup

[Stefan Thorne]

Call me crazy but i feel that this so called "coup" was a set up with the intent of securing more power to the state and to gain my PR with the people in Turkey. It may have worked for some of  the Turkish people, but in my eyes Erdogan is still a racist power-mongering idiot for what he is doing to his own people and especially to the Kurds and ethnic minorities. If Ataturk could see Turkey today he would weep for his sons and daughters. 

Also anyone find it ironic that Erdogan rallied people to go and confront the military forces participating in the coup attempt with Twitter?

[SoS]

The revolution will be be mainly on social media. Like us and follow us. Lol kek.

[LordRahl2]

Of course I can. I also know the common tactic of using the mentioning of something someone else said to discredit who you're talking to by proxy so I state it so there is no room for such things. 

 

We both know that like you've already done once already here even if it met those parameters you'd just move the goal posts again via minor details. There were first no false flags going by your first question, but now there are but to be a winner they have to involve significant military forces also even if the aftermath aligns excellently. If I were to bring up false flags as pretexts for war where a state attacked itself to get a result I'm sure you'd dismiss that as not relevant also I'm sure.

 

Complex? It's a pretty simple matter such things, it's a basic ploy.

 

??? The first thing I told you was that it was circumstantial. I am well aware that is no way could debate such a thing with you as the burden is on me and such evidence is not enough, and unlike yourself in the other thread I won't then pretend the burden is on the other party. However, that does not mean everyone should pack up shop and just go with the narrative out there. The Syrian rebels being democracy loving peaceful people was also a narrative, it was also a huge sham which many (myself included) called correctly. Assuming the "less complex" option is certainly a safer bet, however a safer bet does not equal correct and I do not believe the "safe bet" in this case is correct. 

 

Yeah, I know that it is hard to make coherent arguments but I am not trying to trick you with a "common tactic".  If I reply to a comment directly above me I am talking to them.  I will quote them in the future to ensure zero confusion.

 

I am not "moving goalposts" friend.  It is a pretty basic element for supporting your case.  We have about 5,000 years of recorded human history.  Can you not find a single military coup that is what you claim happen here?  And yes you did claim it as obvious:

Erdogan ranting thus far is concerning if he hasn't just gone loopy. If he has then nothing to worry about, if he he hasn't and then puts down the coup then this becomes an obvious false flag. God has apparently given him an opportunity to "cleanse" the military (of the infidels?).

 

I know you later backed that off a bit...to "circumstantial".  You clearly are wedded to the idea as "obvious" when it is anything but.

 

Yes it is complex.  "Coup yourself" would involve multiple moving pieces with a high degree of uncertainty.  You would have to organize the coup itself, the counter coup, and ensure that third parties would fall in line.  You would need to do all of this without it leaking that you were doing so.  Maybe you are unclear that organizing large group events, even completely compliant ones, is a highly complex endeavor.  So I will just tell you that it is.  So yes, highly complex.  A coup in general is not a basic "ploy" or thing.  Obviously, as the failure shows, it is hard to pull off requiring significant force and large numbers of forces for a State as large as Turkey.

 

I provided you a pretty solid body of evidence in the other debate.  You keep claiming that I do not but this is irrelivant.  Rather than continuously arguing against the argument how about you argue your point?  Oh, and avoid straw-men.  I never claimed the Syrian rebels were peace loving anything.  This is completely unrelated to the "safe bet" you follow up with.

 

I am not arguing "safe bet" I am arguing that the overwhelming body of available evidence supports a narrative that this was a failed coup not a "Coup Yourself" operation.  You cannot provide any solid counter argument and instead say that you have belief.  If it is just belief than phrase your argument that way.  So:

 

if he he hasn't and then puts down the coup then this becomes an what I believe, with circumstantial evidence only,  to be a false flag.

 

My position is not a "safe bet" it is a theory that is supported by the evidence.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Rahl, although I largely agree with you, here is something that baffles me:

 

1) Although Erdogan pissed his pants during the Gezi protests (and had a sudden visit to Northern African countries without asking first), he was very well-composed, and did not even try to run away this time, instead heading to Istanbul immediately.

 

2) Many people who were at odds with Erdogan, like Abdullah Gul (now a persona non grata) and Ahmet Davutoglu (literally sacked), were on Skype and backing Erdogan long time before the US/NATO/EU threw their support behind Erdogan. These people (along with Bulent Arinc who didn't show up to my knowledge) are those who would be the most likely successors if Erdogan was removed. So they bet on Erdogan winning immediately. Why?

 

3) Erdogan flew from Marmaris to Istanbul. His flight was not hidden. In fact, anyone could track his plane on the internet using FlightRadar. Here is Stratfor sharing the flight route during the hours of the coup attempt. So those who attempted the coup could definitely track Erdogans plane and intercept it. If Erdogan was unsure of the cooperation of the whole military, why would he fly to Istanbul instead of hiding somewhere in the wilderness, shut his plane's damn tracker, or leave the country temporarily?

 

4) The civilians who rushed to the central locations and the Ataturk airport were extremely numerous. It certainly was not a crowd you could gather at whim. It looked like it was prepared well in advance.

 

Now with these four points, I am *not* claiming it was a staged coup attempt. Rather, my theory is either of the following:

 

A) Erdogan knew of the coup attempt in advance, and secured the cooperation of a significant part of the army -- the part which would ensure his safe flight from Marmaris to Istanbul, and prevent a real danger to his regime. Then he let the coup happen.

 

Erdogan did not know of the coup attempt in advance, but thought it likely. He ensured the cooperation of a significant part of the army, and then forced the people who were planning the coup to act in haste by feeding them (false or otherwise) information on how he would purge them very soon.

 

What do you think?

[LordRahl2]

 

1) Although Erdogan pissed his pants during the Gezi protests (and had a sudden visit to Northern African countries without asking first), he was very well-composed, and did not even try to run away this time, instead heading to Istanbul immediately.

 

Interesting thoughts. 

 

1) He had no choice or felt he had no choice this time.  He had to show strength.  I know that you hate the man but he is not a stupid man and gauged that if he did not make a public appearence things might get away from him.  Now, that being said the timing of everything is something that is not yet completely clear nor publicly available.  But we were chatting on our forum while it was happening.  Remember this: http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,30985.msg781461.html#msg781461came 2 hours and 15minutes before  http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,30985.msg781530.html#msg781530.

So he did not exactly rush into town before the airport was secured by loyalists.  The coup seems to have tried to secure the airport and succeeded for a time before being pushed out either by security forces or others.

The coup air-force was only visible in the time immediately around the initiation of the coup.  Zero high performance air to air engagements were reported and it is confirmed that loyalist aircraft were available to escort E's plane.  This suggests that the AOC was controlled by loyalists who were able to dominate the airspace.  The coup aircraft may have been unable to take off again for other reasons - security forces at the airbase or something else?  For whatever reason they were neutralized before E's plane took off.  (Note that there is a difference between RW and FW aircraft for this discussion.)

 

 

 

2) Many people who were at odds with Erdogan, like Abdullah Gul (now a persona non grata) and Ahmet Davutoglu (literally sacked), were on Skype and backing Erdogan long time before the US/NATO/EU threw their support behind Erdogan. These people (along with Bulent Arinc who didn't show up to my knowledge) are those who would be the most likely successors if Erdogan was removed. So they bet on Erdogan winning immediately. Why?

 

 

2) My guess why these folks and others (notably the First Army Commander) had been compelled to support the regime.  The most common way to do this is to send your loyal security forces to stay with the individuals and their families to, ummmm, "ensure their safety during the chaos.  I do not know for certain that this happened but it would be a logical thing to do.  And a paranoid regime, or one paying attention, would have a plan to send those security forces to these assignments if a coup started up.  This behavior would certainly fit with the general description you have provided me of E's paranoia and tactics.  He is notorious for these clandestine roundups so his security forces have practice.

 

3) See #1.  BLUF, they had no air-force to do anything at that time.  If that didn't answer let me know.

 

 

 

4) The civilians who rushed to the central locations and the Ataturk airport were extremely numerous. It certainly was not a crowd you could gather at whim. It looked like it was prepared well in advance.

 

4) That is less clear to me.  I know call to prayer went off at 0200.  Every civilian must have been up trying to follow the news at that point - traffic volume seems to be what brought social media down vice the coup itself.  So the necessary numbers were awake.  The coup did nothing that I know of to bring together the secular population.  Do you know of any call to the streets for secularists?  I think the key fact here was imams on speed dial.

 

Overall, part coup incompetence and part regime efficiency.  I would lean more toward B )

He probably have had the plans for anti-coup actions drawn up or generally ready.  There was enough time to tweak the response to the actual events (for example he could have sent instructions to the imams about where to direct people.  "Tell the people to meet me at the airport and go to blah blah."  Pretty simple and would send folks in the general direction.

[Rozalia]

Yeah, I know that it is hard to make coherent arguments but I am not trying to trick you with a "common tactic".  If I reply to a comment directly above me I am talking to them.  I will quote them in the future to ensure zero confusion.

 

I am not "moving goalposts" friend.  It is a pretty basic element for supporting your case.  We have about 5,000 years of recorded human history.  Can you not find a single military coup that is what you claim happen here?  And yes you did claim it as obvious:

 

I know you later backed that off a bit...to "circumstantial".  You clearly are wedded to the idea as "obvious" when it is anything but.

 

Yes it is complex.  "Coup yourself" would involve multiple moving pieces with a high degree of uncertainty.  You would have to organize the coup itself, the counter coup, and ensure that third parties would fall in line.  You would need to do all of this without it leaking that you were doing so.  Maybe you are unclear that organizing large group events, even completely compliant ones, is a highly complex endeavor.  So I will just tell you that it is.  So yes, highly complex.  A coup in general is not a basic "ploy" or thing.  Obviously, as the failure shows, it is hard to pull off requiring significant force and large numbers of forces for a State as large as Turkey.

 

I provided you a pretty solid body of evidence in the other debate.  You keep claiming that I do not but this is irrelivant.  Rather than continuously arguing against the argument how about you argue your point?  Oh, and avoid straw-men.  I never claimed the Syrian rebels were peace loving anything.  This is completely unrelated to the "safe bet" you follow up with.

 

I am not arguing "safe bet" I am arguing that the overwhelming body of available evidence supports a narrative that this was a failed coup not a "Coup Yourself" operation.  You cannot provide any solid counter argument and instead say that you have belief.  If it is just belief than phrase your argument that way.  So:

 

 

My position is not a "safe bet" it is a theory that is supported by the evidence.

 

You should throw that insult in somewhere else, my talk of preempting any attempt to make use of someone's else comment is not the place for it. 

 

Not moving the goalposts? You asked for something talking as if it was an impossibility that has never happened. When proven wrong you then narrowed it down and requested very specific parameters which I know full well you'd only narrow down more if need be. Dishonesty on your end is what it is. 

 

Backed off? Thats a unique way to look at it considering I was very quick to state it was which lead to your puzzlement. I'm well aware of it's weakness so have not pushed it as being a definite. You keep trying to push me into taking a position I have refused to.  

 

With the "basic ploy" you're putting your own meaning on it and then attacking me based off it. For Syria you're taking an example I posted to state that circumstantial "conspiracy theories" aren't always wrong nor something that is crazy to assume, and pretending I assigned it yourself so you can then attack me off it. For the rest you're ignoring your case of putting the burden on me when it was on you to then state that your case was "solid" when you were the one ignoring the evidence to post circumstantial arguments.  A lot of dishonesty in short. 

 

As for the "safe bet" response here, it's an anemic effort from yourself. I have told you, I think more than once now, that the evidence is circumstantial and I would not be able argue it as a definite as a result. I unlike yourself who in the other thread denied evidence and provided your own opinion as somehow being more credible can see that easily enough. Anyway, due to previous events and it looking shifty enough I am willing to take the position. You keep putting it down as if I have said it is 100% solid when I haven't, to argue for the sake of it I'd say.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

1) If he had no choice but to show strength, then he would do so. However, despite my hatred for the guy, his previous actions always showed that he took the less risky option when such events had unfolded. The question is, did he really have no other option? He always had the option to fly to another country, but he didn't pick that option. Now, you might say that he thought the losses he would face if he ran away during the coup outweighed the risks. Correct, but this could have two reasons: (1) he had a change of character, and became more fearless (he didn't even show any signs of fear, unlike the other events), or (2) he *knew* the risk was not that great. I think (2) is more likely than (1) and supports either of the scenarios I presented.

 

I am less concerned about his decision to consider Istanbul more safe, than his decision to actually get on a plane and go around in Turkish airspace. That really implies he was assured that his plane would not be intercepted. But that was news to me. Now, to that your answer is that coup airforce did not have the numbers, and the loyalists were present to provide air cover. I think you are correct. However, we only know the coup airforce did not have the capability after the events have concluded. At that point in time, in Marmaris, how could Erdogan count on a safe airspace? That requires being assured of the loyalty of a significant portion of the airforce. But how could he know, on the spot, that the portion of the army which claimed to be loyal was indeed loyal?

 

One way he could be assured of their loyalty is to be aware of the coup (or at least a high likelihood of a coup) in advance, so that he had already confronted the generals and assured their loyalty. But I think this supports scenario (A) more than scenario (, because if you know when the enemy will strike, you have better likelihood of assuring the loyalty of the generals in advance.

 

2) I think you might be right about this one. Still, securing these people instantly would be more likely in scenario (A) than scenario (.

 

3) That is really news to me. It has been told that there were at least one tanker plane and 2 F16s in Istanbul airspace. Now, I haven't got a clue about aerial combat, but given the two escort F16s of Erdogan, I don't think it would be very hard to secure a hit on the ATA1 airplane by a coup F16, correct? It should be much easier to hit such an easy target compared to the escort F16s actually hitting the coup F16s. If you have information that I do not have regarding the situation in the air (that you can share), please do so.

 

Now, there is the chance that the IFF systems of the planes prevented them from shooting each other -- I have no clue about such technical details.

 

4) You know, it is of course possible, but it is very seldom for AKP supporters to protest or go on the streets without AKP's organization beforehand. One theory I have regarding this is that they sent some cops in civilian attire to pose as "civilians", or people from AKP's youth organizations. For this to happen, they must have an anti-coup plan well in advance. Now, that wouldn't be really surprising since I have been expecting a coup for nearly a decade now, but such preparations would be much easier if either scenarios were correct.

 

-------

 

To sum up, I think he was very well prepared against the coup, because plain serendipity would not have delivered him such a victory. This would be easier if he had warning in advance, or he tried to force the hands of officers likely to attempt a coup when he was well-prepared.

[LordRahl2]

 

 

1) If he had no choice but to show strength, then he would do so. However, despite my hatred for the guy, his previous actions always showed that he took the less risky option when such events had unfolded. The question is, did he really have no other option? He always had the option to fly to another country, but he didn't pick that option. Now, you might say that he thought the losses he would face if he ran away during the coup outweighed the risks. Correct, but this could have two reasons: (1) he had a change of character, and became more fearless (he didn't even show any signs of fear, unlike the other events), or (2) he *knew* the risk was not that great. I think (2) is more likely than (1) and supports either of the scenarios I presented.

 

I am less concerned about his decision to consider Istanbul more safe, than his decision to actually get on a plane and go around in Turkish airspace. That really implies he was assured that his plane would not be intercepted. But that was news to me. Now, to that your answer is that coup airforce did not have the numbers, and the loyalists were present to provide air cover. I think you are correct. However, we only know the coup airforce did not have the capability after the events have concluded. At that point in time, in Marmaris, how could Erdogan count on a safe airspace? That requires being assured of the loyalty of a significant portion of the airforce. But how could he know, on the spot, that the portion of the army which claimed to be loyal was indeed loyal?

 

One way he could be assured of their loyalty is to be aware of the coup (or at least a high likelihood of a coup) in advance, so that he had already confronted the generals and assured their loyalty. But I think this supports scenario (A) more than scenario ( , because if you know when the enemy will strike, you have better likelihood of assuring the loyalty of the generals in advance.

 

2) I think you might be right about this one. Still, securing these people instantly would be more likely in scenario (A) than scenario ( .

 

3) That is really news to me. It has been told that there were at least one tanker plane and 2 F16s in Istanbul airspace. Now, I haven't got a clue about aerial combat, but given the two escort F16s of Erdogan, I don't think it would be very hard to secure a hit on the ATA1 airplane by a coup F16, correct? It should be much easier to hit such an easy target compared to the escort F16s actually hitting the coup F16s. If you have information that I do not have regarding the situation in the air (that you can share), please do so.

 

Now, there is the chance that the IFF systems of the planes prevented them from shooting each other -- I have no clue about such technical details.

 

4) You know, it is of course possible, but it is very seldom for AKP supporters to protest or go on the streets without AKP's organization beforehand. One theory I have regarding this is that they sent some cops in civilian attire to pose as "civilians", or people from AKP's youth organizations. For this to happen, they must have an anti-coup plan well in advance. Now, that wouldn't be really surprising since I have been expecting a coup for nearly a decade now, but such preparations would be much easier if either scenarios were correct.

 

-------

 

To sum up, I think he was very well prepared against the coup, because plain serendipity would not have delivered him such a victory. This would be easier if he had warning in advance, or he tried to force the hands of officers likely to attempt a coup when he was well-prepared.

 

 

So I think he WAS aware that it was at least possible.  Why I am leaning toward your earlier "B" option.  I would hazard that Stalin and Mao put in certain contingency plans when they reduced their opposition.  He acted based on what I would define as a series of "decision points".  He waited for certain things to become clear or change.  So he did not leave where he was until the skys were clear (decision point #1 - begin movement).  He did not land until the airport was secured by loyalists (decision point #2 - land in capital).  Lets say that the conditions were not met for decision point #2.  Then he makes the other decision "fly to another country".  So he was probably assured that the immediate threat had died by the time he landed.  Remember that before he did we had decided the coup had probably failed even with our limited information.  As to more or less brave?  I donno - he seems smart enough to know when to be elsewhere and when his presence in important.  So maybe yes to 1 and 2?

 

As to airspace and its security I know that we did not know its status.  We do not have an Air-force command and control center or security forces on the coup airbase to ask.  He does =)-  . . . How did he know that it was loyal to him?  I am guessing he either gave people a reason to be loyal or he decided he had to trust someone.  Probably he had ways to check, internal spy types, to check on the veracity of their loyalty.  This would be hard to know baring a massive leak.  IFF is not a technical block to shooting at each other fwiw, it gives you an error that the pilot can override.

 

4) The call to prayer reports at 0200 local followed by call to action were reported pretty widely.  Are you saying that this was insufficient to get bodies in the streets.  Now maybe there were plainclothes security that helped get the people out of their houses and moving the right way.  The pictured crowds contained a good deal of folks who looked mostly like citizens.

 

/////

 

I would argue with what I have that my guess is that he was well prepared for a coup and that gave him the freedom to initiate another pogrom.  It leaked, the coup started, the fail-safe worked.  Maybe it will clear up as more details come out.

[LordRahl2]

snip

 

Your circular arguments and desire to argue about the argument are interesting enough but not that interesting.  I will get back to them when I am done chatting with Kemal.

[Rozalia]

Your circular arguments and desire to argue about the argument are interesting enough but not that interesting.  I will get back to them when I am done chatting with Kemal.

 

Circular argument? When I told you it's circumstantial and not strong enough evidence to prove something as definite? Alright. Throwing around talk of fallacies doesn't magically put you on the front foot especially if you ignore whenever you're called out on your own fallacies. I'll just ignore your mention of them in future if you're going to be doing so yourself. 

[LordRahl2]

Circular - not circumstantial.  You are leading a circular argument.  Its a fun enough game to play but I am having another debate at the moment.  I will get back to ours when I am done chatting with Kemal.

[Rozalia]

Circular - not circumstantial.  You are leading a circular argument.  Its a fun enough game to play but I am having another debate at the moment.  I will get back to ours when I am done chatting with Kemal.

 

I did not misunderstand Circular and Circumstantial, do not imply otherwise. Anyway I did no such thing, there is really no argument as I conceded from the beginning that it was weak but you keep going after me as if I had stated it's rock solid. 

[LordRahl2]

If only there was some way to recal what you said...

 

Well it seems it was a false flag, a shame but oh well.

 

[LordRahl2]

Oh and you said:

 

"If he he hasn't and then puts down the coup then this becomes an obvious false flag."

[LordRahl2]

If you are now saying that you are retracting the phrase "obvious false flag" then we can wrap this up.

Edited July 19, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Rozalia]

If you are now saying that you are retracting the phrase "obvious false flag" then we can wrap this up.

 

Did I not tell you it is circumstantial and thus it can be properly argued/proven to be definite? I believe there was some element of such nastiness involved, first the false flag element and then with new information possibly the case of leaked information provoking things. That was it. You've kept arguing as if I am trying to prove something when I haven't been.

[LordRahl2]

So yes? You retract? Cool.

[Rozalia]

So yes? You retract? Cool.

 

What is there to retract? It looked like something to me and I clarified I knew it was circumstantial and thus weak. There was nothing more to it then that. 

[LordRahl2]

Clarified, retracted, whatever helps you sleep.

[Rozalia]

Clarified, retracted, whatever helps you sleep.

 

Likewise.

[LordRahl2]

LOL

[Kemal Ergenekon]

So I think he WAS aware that it was at least possible.  Why I am leaning toward your earlier "B" option.  I would hazard that Stalin and Mao put in certain contingency plans when they reduced their opposition.  He acted based on what I would define as a series of "decision points".  He waited for certain things to become clear or change.  So he did not leave where he was until the skys were clear (decision point #1 - begin movement).  He did not land until the airport was secured by loyalists (decision point #2 - land in capital).  Lets say that the conditions were not met for decision point #2.  Then he makes the other decision "fly to another country".  So he was probably assured that the immediate threat had died by the time he landed.  Remember that before he did we had decided the coup had probably failed even with our limited information.  As to more or less brave?  I donno - he seems smart enough to know when to be elsewhere and when his presence in important.  So maybe yes to 1 and 2?

 

As to airspace and its security I know that we did not know its status.  We do not have an Air-force command and control center or security forces on the coup airbase to ask.  He does =)-  . . . How did he know that it was loyal to him?  I am guessing he either gave people a reason to be loyal or he decided he had to trust someone.  Probably he had ways to check, internal spy types, to check on the veracity of their loyalty.  This would be hard to know baring a massive leak.  IFF is not a technical block to shooting at each other fwiw, it gives you an error that the pilot can override.

 

4) The call to prayer reports at 0200 local followed by call to action were reported pretty widely.  Are you saying that this was insufficient to get bodies in the streets.  Now maybe there were plainclothes security that helped get the people out of their houses and moving the right way.  The pictured crowds contained a good deal of folks who looked mostly like citizens.

 

/////

 

I would argue with what I have that my guess is that he was well prepared for a coup and that gave him the freedom to initiate another pogrom.  It leaked, the coup started, the fail-safe worked.  Maybe it will clear up as more details come out.

 

 

The fact that he was able to trust some large portion of the armed forces is quite telling. You think this is easy for him to believe, but it really is not given the context. The armed forces contained both Gulenists and Kemalists, and Erdogan immensely feared both of them. This is because a coup or an assassination are the only ways he can go away (I believe the last elections to be rigged, but that's another story). If he could trust a large portion of the armed forces, it cannot be a spur of the moment thing. I think he had laid the groundwork in advance, and assured their loyalty in advance in some way. So we are probably saying the same thing, but I am just saying that it must have taken months of preparation.

 

Also, another bit of information is that all the electricity to all air force bases was shut down to prevent planes being launched. I know Incirlik AFB had its own generators, and could still operate, but maybe the idiots at Turkish-controlled AFBs did not take precautions? Or maybe Erdogan thought just cutting the electricity would be sufficient? I don't know. I know he can cut electricity by a phone call, though. They did it during elections when things didn't go the way they wanted (it was explained later as multiple cats entering multiple transformers simultaneously, xdxd).

 

I thought of the IFF systems because of a long-standing rumor that NATO planes cannot launch stuff against other NATO planes. Fact or fiction? I don't know. There were 4 Aselsan engineers who "committed suicide" within a very short frame of time, and there was a conspiracy theory regarding how it was associated to creating a "home-made" IFF software for F16s. It could be pure rubbish.

 

Yes, a plain call would be insufficient to gather the masses we observed in such a short time frame. The AKP supporters are not really the types who go on protests or rallies by themselves. During the election rallies, AKP arranged for buses from each neighborhood, and gave $40 or so to all attendants. But if there were AKP party members or the civilian police to guide them, that would make it possible.

[Beatrix]

The US was pretty quick to support Erdogan as well, were they also in on it? I think if the US knows the coup will fail within a few hours, the Turkish PM would also know way beforehand.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The US was pretty quick to support Erdogan as well, were they also in on it? I think if the US knows the coup will fail within a few hours, the Turkish PM would also know way beforehand.

 

No, they waited until they saw how the cards fell.

[Beatrix]

This isn't my point at all. The US knew the coup will fail long before anyone of us was certain of it or knew too much information. Keep in mind, these '7 hours' is the total time from the moment of the coup until the US actually announced something. 

 

Just stop and think for a moment what the US had to do in order to be confident enough to release such a statement in a few hours - the news have to reach the proper authorities, the intelligence agencies need to be informed, they need to research what's going on exactly, by whom, what size and what forces, they have to make conclusions that are certain and direct, they had to transfer this information onwards, the administration had to decide what to do with it, and eventually release a statement.

 

Of course, there's about a thousand more things you can insert in there. More than likely, the US knew that the coup was going to fail but waited a few hours to be certain of it before saying anything.

 

That, of course, leads me to the actual counterargument I presented. If the US was able to have this sort of intelligence way in advance, it makes complete sense the actual person being couped against, with direct connections to all the proper millitary personnel, will know/think he's going to win very early.

 

I mean, you're giving him a personality analysis as evidence he knew in advanced the coup was going to happen - even if he 'shit his pants' in other events, that doesn't mean not shitting his pants in this one means he knew it in advanced.