The Lizard of Oz said:
H1N1 said:
Could just as easily be encouraged by Erdogan in an effort to grab more power. The Erdogans are clearly heavily involved in the financing and recruiting mechanisms of ISIS, and must by extension have an open line to the leadership. Personally I think any ISIS attack in Turkey is more likely to be for show, perhaps with Erdogan's blessing, to allow him to increase his Islamist grip on the country in the name of public safety. He can't help but to have seen how effective terrorist incidents have been for his NATO allies in consolidating power and extending the surveillance operations of the state.
That's extremely implausible. Setting aside the usual contortions required to believe almost all "false flag" scenarios, this attack targeted foreigners at the heart of Istanbul's tourist district. The tourism industry is vital to Turkey's economy, and it is likely that this attack alone will cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from canceled flights and reservations (that is a
very conservative estimate for a $30 billion a year tourist industry, one of the largest in the world). This is the absolute last thing Erdogan and the Turkish government needs.
What's far more likely is that under heavy western pressure, Erdogan and the Turkish government has finally begun making things a bit harder for ISIS, and this is a foretaste of the retaliation they can expect. Sustained terrorism of this kind can bring the Turkish tourist industry to its knees and with it much of the economy, and ISIS are making sure that Erdogan understands this.
I don't disagree, 'just as likely' was a poor choice of phrasing.
People have very short memories, and oil at the rate Erdogan is getting it can plug some pretty big holes in an economy. Sustained terrorism is a problem. Isolated incidents that allow a consolidation of power, and which are then contained, could allow for a significant power grab, and a relatively swift return to normalcy.
Here is an interesting, but far from conclusive, document on the macroeconomic effects of terrorism, conflict, and natural disaster:
Impact of 9/11 on 2002 Macroeconomic Outcomes
30 Forecasts for macroeconomic outcomes in 2002 began to be collected in January 2001. Figure
4 above gives the evolution of the forecast for real GDP growth in 2002, and figure 5 for the
unemployment rate in 2002. The real GDP growth forecast fell from 3.5% to 2.7% over the first nine months of 2001. The 9/11 attack produced an immediate dramatic revision in this forecast from 2.7% to 1.2%, and the forecast was further revised downward in November by –0.75%. This pessimistic outlook was sustained through January 2002, but the forecast was then revised upward so that by May 2002, it had regained its level prior to the 9/11 attack. The actual value for 2002 of 2.4% is remarkably close to the forecasted value of 2.7% immediately prior to the 9/11 attack. It is tempting to ascribe the recovery in the forecast to mitigation responses of the private and public sectors that were not fully anticipated in the immediate aftermath of the attack. However, it may also be true that forecasts in late 2001 were subject to significant error, and/or that forecasters were anticipating negative shocks such as subsequent attacks that did not materialize.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_wp_impacts_911.pdf
I appreciate Turkey and the US are hardly comparable, however, it is worth noting that it is not always the case that terrorism, and the threat of further terrorism (who would dispute that the general feeling was that the US would be at risk of subsequent attack after 9/11) have long lasting impacts on individual behaviour.
I'm not much into false flag theories, or anything of the like - however, there is a difference between a deliberate false flag and the cynically selective deployment of intelligence capabilities. Erdogan is pushing hard for an Islamic dictatorship, that's not much in dispute. Internal conflict and minor terrorism helps his long term cause, and assuming he can bring order to chaos by grabbing significant, intrusive power, I don't believe the long term impact on tourism will be particularly great - especially given Turkey's historical riches. Erdogan has the capacity to talk directly to the head of the beast, and almost undoubtedly could ensure that 'ISIS' did not attack Turkey (the Kurds are obviously a different matter).
It's idle speculation really, these things need to be judged on a longer time-frame to real be seen for their actual significance. Placing too much credibility on one line of speculation or another in the immediate aftermath of such an event would be an intelligence cycle faux pas.
