Category: Turkey

STOP BLATANT RACISM AGAINST THE TURKS

POCKET GUIDE TO TRUTH

Sources of information on alleged Armenian claims of Genocide

against The Turks.

In order to establish truth and to confront racist bias against Turks, read below the works and commentaries of scholars and researchers,

Find out what former Armenian Premier Senin Ovanes Katchaznouni said during the 1923 Dashnak Party Conference in Bucharest-Romania, about the mistakes and misguided activities –treachery- of Armenian extremists and activists. Available from iletisim@kaynakyayinlari.com ISBN 975-343-438-3

You may peruse www.tallarmeniantale.com, by author Holdwater & The “Armenian Research” Foundation or peruse

Read on internet www.tallarmeniantale.com/c-f-dixon-BOOK.htm, written by a British officer in 1916 – the portrayal of Anatolian Armenians,

Examine Guenter Lewy’s “The Armenian Massacres in Turkey, A Disputed Genocide” ISBN-13:978-0-87480-849-0 available on Amazon.com (Jewish author from USA)

Read Sukru Server’s ‘GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’ freely available on Armenians-1915.blogspot.com or direct from ssaya@superonline.com ISBN 9789756516249

An incredible account of one man’s quest for truth against Armenian fabrications and distortions of history!

Prof. Salahi Sonyel’s “The Turco-Armenian Imbroglio” ISBN-0-9504886-6-6, available at Cyprus Turkish Association 0207 437 4940 kibristc@btconnect.com (Cypriot Turk author)

films to watch are:

“The Armenian Revolt 1894-1920” documentary DVD by Third Coast Films, P.O. Box 664, Clarion, PA 16214, USA, info@thirdcoastfilms.com (by an American Director) This is a MUST !!

&
“Sari Gelin’ documentary DVD through www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com info@sarigelinbelgeseli.com (maybe available on eBay) (by a Turkish Director)

Read Prof. Turkkaya Ataov’s WHAT HAPPENED TO OTTOMAN ARMENIANS?

ISBN 1=4243=1004-0 (obtainable from ssaya@superonline.com), (Turkish author) also read Sukru S Aya’s (ssaya@superonline.com) book ‘Genocide of Truth’ (İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi–2008) ISBN 9789756516249 or have a look at www.armenians-1915.blogspot.com by Turkish Armenians (including free downloadable books and automatic translation of site text into several languages),
“MYTH OF TERROR’ by late Erich Feigl (1986)Zeitgeschichte/Bucherdienst Austria (Austrian Author) which contains the signatures of 63 foreign Academics refuting the Armenian claims

for Armenian terrorism against Turks.. why Armenians are not talking about their terrorists?

an interesting read (in 3 languages) of memoirs of a Russian Officer on Armenians at (click on the book for downloading) or access it and others at (from Turkish Military archives reputed to be richest on this issue)

There are also several powerful books on this subject by the American author Justin McCarthy

The TURKS ARE WILLING AND READY TO FACE THE ARMENIANS AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY AND DEBATE, FOR THE SAKE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUTH. But are the Armenians are ready to do so? Have you asked them ..?

The Turkish Government supports the establishment of an independent International commission to research the background of the Turco-Armenian relations during the 1^st World War (see OSCE resolution) but the Armenians are refusing to participate!. Do ask them why..! If truth scares them, then let it be. Simply put, they are afraid of the truth surfacing and damaging the bond holding together their people.

————————————————————–

Comments by neutral Scholars

and

Outcomes of Trials

“The Ottoman archives remain largely unconsulted. When so much is missing from the fundamental source material, no historical narrative can be called complete and no conclusions can be called balanced.”

Prof. Jeremy Salt

Armenian application of Genocide related claim and consequences thereof is

“UNJUST” and “BEREFT OF ANY FOUNDATION”

European Union, Luxembourg Council of Justice – case heard on the 17^th December 2003 and an outcome of appeal of the 16^th January, 2004

The Middle East Journal 61.2 (Spring 2007): p348(2).

The Armenian Rebellion at Van, by Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Takiran, and Omer Turan. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2006. vii + 266 pages. 11 Maps. Notes. Appends. to p. 285. Bibl. to p. 291. Index to p. 296. $25.

Reviewed by Edward J. Erickson

This timely book follows and complements recent work by Donald Bloxham [The Great Game of Genocide, reviewed in The Middle East Journal (MEJ), Vol. 60, No. 1 (Winter 2006)] and Guenter Lewy [The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, reviewed in MEJ, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring 2006)]. Both Bloxham and Lewy contend that there was an actual Armenian rebellion in 1915, which was encouraged and aided by the Allies, and aimed at the establishment of an Armenian state. Moreover, Bloxham asserts that ill-timed active collaboration with the Allies by Armenian nationalist leaders led their people into a disastrous confrontation with the Ottomans. The Armenian Rebellion at Van supports these contentions by showcasing them with a fascinating case study of the well-known uprising in Van, the eastern Anatolian city and province, in the spring of 1915.

The authors begin with three chapters detailing the geographic, economic, and demographic setting of Van province, with attention to the origins and politics of the Armenian committees, especially those of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (the ARF or Dashnaks). Chapter four examines the rebellion of 1896. Chapter five, titled the “Development of the Revolution, 1897-1908,” outlines the growth of an armed Armenian movement by examining its leadership, tactics, arms smuggling, and Russian connections. Chapter six, on the period 1908-1912, briefly covers the deteriorating relations between the Young Turks and the ARF, while chapter seven covers the events preceding the outbreak of war.

The heart of the book, chapter eight, is a detailed examination, at the tactical level, of what happened at Van in late March and April 1915. Using previously unavailable documents from the Ottoman military archives in Ankara, the authors offer a picture of a carefully planned and executed rebellion that was sponsored by and closely coordinated with the Russians, who launched an offensive aimed at seizing the city. The concluding two chapters explain the destruction of both the Armenian and Muslim communities in the province and present an analysis of why the Ottomans failed to suppress the rebels.

So why read another book about the Armenians’? This book represents a massive revision of what is known in the West about the Van uprising. Of particular importance is a well-developed exposition of Armenian leadership, organizational architecture, professionalism in military training, innovative tactics, and weaponry that is integrated into an explanation of how the battles were fought. The authors assert that the rebels were not simply city residents reacting in self-defense but were instead well led, tightly organized, and dangerous. They present a convincing argument based on new archival information. The maps are unusually clear and include (for the first time) small-scale municipal maps of the city of Van as it existed in 1915. The book is a gold mine of new and detailed information.

This reviewer found the overall tone of the book to be unusual in its fair treatment of the Armenians by Turkish scholars. Professor McCarthy and his Turkish co-authors present the Armenians as able practitioners of the art of insurgency and note that the Armenian leader “Aram Manukian must be counted as one of the geniuses of guerrilla warfare” (p. 258). Moreover, they conclude that the Armenian insurrections were instrumental in crippling the Ottoman strategic position in Anatolia, and they also reinforce Bloxham’s assertion that the Armenians were badly let down by their Russian allies. Unfortunately, there are minor factual errors in the text. For example, Ottoman casualties at Sankaml are overstated by 100% (p. 179) while the cited Turkish source (Turk Harbi) actually gives much lower numbers. The authors erroneously give the date of a critical order from Enver Pasha on security precautions as September 25, 1914 (p. 190), when the correct date is February 25, 1915. Incorrect information is given on the composition of the First Expeditionary Force (p. 210) that includes flawed British estimates of non-existent bis divisions. There is also a lack of clarity and completeness in citing the Turkish archives; the authors rarely detail what the document is. Instead, they choose to list only its archival call number. However, these are small issues in what is otherwise a very valuable contribution to the field.

Specialists and interested readers alike will understand and appreciate this book. It is clearly written, and establishes an important corrective to the extant Western historiography. While it will certainly irritate the global Armenian lobby, this reviewer would encourage those seeking a balanced and informed understanding of these events to read The Armenian Rebellion at Van. It is well worth the price and highly recommended.

Lt. Col. Edward J. Erickson, USA (Retired), International Research Associates, LLC

——————————————————————————————————————-

The following are excerpts from a review essay by Masaki Kakiszaki, University of Utah, on a newly released book by Guenter Lewy, titled “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide” University of Florida Press, 2005. The full review is published in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 2007.

Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide?

by Masaki Kakiszaki, University of Utah,

The full review is published in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 2007.

Guenter Lewy’s The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide has unleashed debate in the United States as well as in different countries such as Canada, France, Germany, and Turkey. In the United States, Lewy’s articles expressing skepticism about historiographies constructed by both Armenian and Turkish historians about the Armenian genocide appeared in Middle East Quarterly and Commentary; in subsequent issues, these journals published several letters to the editors from readers, mostly Armenians, who objected to Lewy’s thesis. (…) It is important to examine Lewy’s argument in order to understand the reasons for Armenian scholastic anger against the book. The attacks on the book demonstrate how an inquiry into the tragic events of the First World War can be removed from historical context and elevated to mythological level, a process that, in turn, prevents any rational exchange between the two sides.

(…) Lewy’s purpose is to evaluate the consistency and validity of the ongoing debate over the evidence for the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey. The literature that pertains to the fate of the Armenian population during the First World War involves two narratives. On the one hand, Armenian scholars present this tragedy as the first genocidal event of the twentieth century. They argue that the Armenian massacre was a product of the Ottoman government’s special intent to deport and exterminate the entire Armenian population in the empire. On the other hand, Turks contend that this event was an outcome of Armenian collaboration with the Russians, inter-communal warfare in eastern Turkey, and the harsh economic and social conditions of war (such as food shortages and the spread of diseases).

(…) This book tackles the question not of the scale of Armenian suffering but of ‘the premeditation thesis.’ Although there are wide discrepancies with regard to the total number of victims, at least both camps acknowledge that hundreds and thousands of Armenians lost their lives during the deportation. Thus, Lewy focuses on the dispute over the cause of Armenian massacres by inspecting the way in which Armenians and Turks have offered contradictory or competing accounts (…) He concludes that an Ottoman intent to organize the annihilation of Armenians cannot be determined with the evidence that so far has become available to scholars. Thus, he rejects the term ‘genocide’ to describe the mass killing of Armenians, while admitting the indirect responsibility of the Ottoman local government officials for the loss of life of a large number of Armenians.

(…) He criticizes the manner in which Armenian authors rely on the consequences of the Armenian deportation to prove that the Young Turk leaders had prior plans for total destruction of the Armenian population. He argues that ‘objective results are not the same as subjective intent’. Furthermore, Lewy claims that the Armenian side ignores the multiplicity of cases in the tragedy by playing down the roles of starvation and disease, which afflicted not only the Armenian deportees but also Muslim Turks. Lewy also finds problems in the Turkish version of the stories

(…) As Lewy points out, ‘Both Turks and Armenians have accused each other of horrible crimes while at the same time denying or minimizing the misdeeds committed by their own forces’. The Turkish side tends to dodge the responsibility of atrocities against Armenians by shifting the blame from the Ottoman government to ‘the civil war cause.’ On the other hand, Armenian authors ignore the Armenian revolutionary movements’ relationship with Russia and the threat this relationship posed to the Ottoman government.

(…) Lewy’s book aims to clarify the gap in our knowledge of the Armenian suffering. Lewy ‘reconstructs’ a history of this tragedy by strictly distinguishing the confirmed facts from the mere assertions of historians who fail to support their claims with substantive evidence. In this process he attempts to determine how the government decided on the deportation plan, how it was implemented in different regions and cities, who were responsible for the massacres, and how many people died. The chapters in this section reveal the diversity in the levels of Armenian suffering and the variation of the degree of implementing the deportation. This picture seems to imply that the deportation of the Armenian population was not carried out in a systematic or well-organized manner, which would be necessary for the purpose of total destruction of the Armenian community.

(…) In terms of the number of victims, different authors have generated different estimations. It is also difficult to determine the precise death toll because we have neither an exact figure for the prewar Armenian population nor an accurate count for the number of survivors. It also is impossible to distinguish the number killed by Turks and Kurds and those who perished due to starvation and disease. After a critical examination of the Armenian and Turkish historiographies, Lewy proposes an alternative explanation. He argues that ‘it was possible for the country to suffer an incredibly high death toll without a premeditated plan of annihilation’ for several reasons. First, the Ottoman government, despite its willingness, failed to arrange an orderly process of relocation of Armenians because of its institutional ineptness. The systematic and organized relocation of tens of thousands of Armenians proved beyond the ability of the Ottoman government. Food shortages and epidemic diseases which the authorities could not prevent or control exacerbated the environment for Armenians during the course of the deportation. Additionally, the government could not provide adequate protective measures for the Armenian deportees from hostile Kurds, Circassians and others. According to Lewy, these severe conditions and the inability of the Ottoman government to provide protection resulted in the high death toll of the Armenians. Thus, while he concedes that the government bears responsibility to a certain extent for the outcome, he emphasizes that it is the government’s ineptness rather than a premeditated plan to exterminate the Armenians that caused the Armenian tragedy.

One of the contributions of Lewy’s work is that he clarifies what we have learned as confirmed facts from both the Armenian and Turkish historians. Without leaning to either side, he accepts evidence and arguments that are substantiated by other sources. His neutrality becomes obvious in Part IV, which discusses the politicization of the controversy over the Armenian massacres. He argues that the Armenian side’s argument of the premeditation thesis lacks authentic documentary evidence and suffers from a logical fallacy. But he also criticizes the Turkish side for distorting the historical fact by translating the Armenian massacres into mere ‘excesses’ or ‘intercommunal warfare’.

(…) The personal memories of individual Turks and Armenians are not separable from the collective social memory of their communities because people can be confident about the accuracy of their remembrances only when their own memory is confirmed by others’ remembrances. The politicization of the Armenian massacres, then, facilitates the transmission of collective memories from generation to generation; Armenian campaigns for the recognition of the genocide and the airing of the Turkish government’s argument have functioned as mechanisms by which both Armenians and Turks are reminded of the past and their distinctive identities. The current rigid adherence of both sides to their historiographies thus is likely to lead to the deepening of the gap between them, not pave a way to closing this gap. For this reason, Lewy suggests that historians ought to keep the door of research open for further exploration of the Armenian massacres. Political confirmation of the Armenian massacres as historically established genocide, he argues, will deprive future historians of opportunities to start collaborative research for the advancement of common understanding grounded in historical facts rather than propaganda.

(…) Lewy knows that an attempt to put all the aspects of the Armenian massacres into a single picture as a whole ignores the variation of stories. In this tragedy, there is a diversity of experiences lived by each group of people. Therefore, Lewy adopts a method with which he constructs his own historiography by aggregating different local incidents and experiences. The Armenian and Turkish historians take the opposite approach. They look into the events from the pictures that they want to see. In this process, evidence and incidents that may disconfirm their theses are likely to be ignored in their analytic frameworks.

There is one point that I find unsatisfactory in Lewy’s book: he refrains from making his definition of genocide explicit while claiming that ‘the attempt to decide whether the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey fit . . . definitions [of genocide] strikes me as of limited utility’ (…) However, this debate still is of substantive importance because parliaments in several countries have proclaimed this tragedy to be an instance of genocide. For example, in the fall of 2006 the French parliament adopted a bill that criminalizes the denial of the Armenian genocide. What is relevant to Lewy’s argument is that the politicians who vote on these resolutions are influenced exclusively by their ethnic Armenian constituents, and they rely only on an Armenian version of the history of 1915. The politicians are not without their own prejudices, and their determinations never can substitute for actual history. In the French parliament, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin argued that it is ‘not a good thing to legislate on issues of history and of memory,’ but his caution was ignored. These resolutions spotlight politics, not the truth, and are therefore debatable.

(…) The attack against Lewy’s book and the controversy created by Peter Balakian and others who share his views indicate the problem of academic freedom of speech with respect to events associated with the Turkish-Armenian conflicts. There are coordinated efforts by Armenian NGOs and scholars to silence and suppress different interpretations about the events of 1915. Simultaneously, free speech about the Armenian massacres also is denied in Turkey.

(…) In the final analysis, Lewy’s book indeed has become like dynamite to both sides by pointing out the shortcomings of both Turkish and Armenian scholarship and revealing the difficulty of objective debate on the Armenian tragedy. It is very unproductive for diaspora Armenians to turn the Armenian genocide thesis into a source of identity. The shift prevents contextualization of the events and turns them into mythological facts outside of any rational inquiry. Lewy tried to de-sacralize the Armenian thesis by subjecting it to rational inquiry. Lastly, it is also important to mention that Lewy’s book has been relatively favored in Turkey despite his criticism of Turkish historiography on the Armenian massacres and the failure of Turkish historians to challenge the official view endorsed by the state. Since its publication, the Turkish media has presented Lewy’s book as a new scholarly work that supports the Turkish explanation of the Armenian killings, but the media also has ignored Lewy’s disapproval of the Turkish historiography. It seems that the Turkish side is satisfied with Lewy’s conclusion that the Armenian killing cannot be confirmed as a genocide ‘as of now,’ even though he criticizes Turkish historiography. In other words, Lewy’ book once again has illuminated that both sides simply are concerned whether the Armenian massacre in 1915 was or was not a genocide, an issue which Lewy has problematized in his work.

———————————————————————————————————

BRITISH GOVERNMENT position vis-à-vis Armenian claims

“that the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as Genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on genocide”

Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London – dated the 22^nd February, 2006

——————————————————————————————————————-

To date, there exists NO legally binding United Nations resolution or International Court judgement to support the Armenian claims. In year 2000, The United Nations stated that they do not recognise -alleged- Armenian genocide. Farhan Haq, 05.10.2000, Spokesman for The UN Secretary General

There exist recognition claims, which are NOT tried and tested at any International Court of Law. So far, the The Armenians have refused invitation for a legal trial of their claim!

As stated, neither The UNITED NATIONS nor The INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE/HR accept Armenian claims. If the Armenians are right, why are they not pursuing their claim vigorously in a Court of Law?

In addition to Swedish and Israeli Parliaments refuting the Armenian claims (whilst some other Parliaments accepting it on political grounds)

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe ‘OSCE’ accepts (2^nd of July 2008) the Turkish thesis, re: the so called Armenian ‘Genocide’

The motion says that “The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly encourages the formation of joint history commissions by historians and experts from the third countries in case of a research into political and military archives to scientifically and unbiasedly enlighten a disputed period in history in an effort to serve transparency and common understanding among the member states” But the Armenians are refusing to be part of such a commission..!! ask what are they afraid of? .. OSCE has 320 members from 56 countries around the world, so are they all wrong? read more at:

Are you aware? that an attempt by the Armenians to manipulate the European Union resolution C-190 of 16^th of June 1987 has been dismissed by The Court of First Instance of the European Communities {Luxemburg Council of Justice}

ie. Original hearing – Case T-346/03, Krikorian et al. v. European

Paliamente et al., Order of the Court of First

Instance, 17 December 2003,

Court found the claims for compensation manifestly unfounded and brought a verdict that the application was “unjust” and “bereft of any foundation”.

Appeal – Case C-18/04 P, Krikorian et al. v. European

Parliament et al., European Court of Justice,

Lodged 16^th January, 2004 , heard 29 October 2004. See also Case C-18/04, P(R), Krikorian et al. v. European Parliament et al., European Court of Justice,

13 September 2004

Original decision was later reconfirmed upon appeal to the European Court of Justice on 29 October 2004’

Furthermore, it stated that the decision of the European Council was “completely political”, consequently it had not a sanction force, and that it could be changed at any moment. This was the justification that the decision of 1987 (and indeed the same for 2004) was not valid from a juridical point of view. Therefore, one can safely assume that the resolutions of 1987 and 2004 were designed to put unfair (racist) pressure on Turkey, they were unjust and bordering on blatant unfairness.. Subsequently, this will also have a conviction value for other similar cases in the future… but nasty and inhumane racism must stop now!

read further opinion and references on:

This is a proof that the Armenians failed and shall fail in the future in proving their case in an Independent International Court of Law.. This is so because the truth is different than what Armenians would like us all to believe and onus is on them to prove it otherwise; Henceforth, the politically and historically misplaced European resolution C-190 of 1987 (2004) is now ineffective, akin to being null and void. In the 21st century, the EU, on whatsoever ground, can not take sides in a conflict between a Muslim and a Christian country when the Muslim Turkey is doing its best and that the EU itself claims not to be a “Christian club” {quote AxisGlobe}

THEREFORE,

THE ATTEMPTED ARMENIAN LED GENOCIDE OF TRUTH AGAINST THE TURKS

MUST STOP AND ARMENIANS MUST BE FORCED TO PROVE THEIR CASE,

OR FACE CLAIMS OF BEING A PART OF BLATANT RACISM AGAINST TURKS

——————————————————————————————————————-

Armenian claims of Genocide was then and is now

‘UNJUST AND BEREFT OF ANY FOUNDATION’

Outcome of the British Malta Military trials

of Armenian claims and subsequent acquittal of the 144 Ottoman Officers on alleged Armenian Genocide claims

Quoting from British Ambassador, Sir A Geddes in Washington to Lord Curzon in London.. upon searching for evidence against captive Ottoman officers in American Governmental and private archives – 13^th July 1921

” I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday, the 12th instant, in regard to the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta with a view to a trial… He was permitted to see a selection of reports from United States Consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed in Armenia during the recent war, the reports judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purposes of His Majesty’s Government being chosen from among several hundreds. I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The report seems.. made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question… and in these cases were confined to personal opinions of those officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence. I have the honour to add that officials of the Department of State expressed the wish, in the course of conversation, that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in the court of law. Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of His Majesty’s Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter.”

Nor did the British archives offer any tangible evidence, thus the acquittal of the wrongly accused.

2007 – Armenian claims still stand unproven at any International Court or at the United Nations, but machinations leading to unfair propaganda, racist denigration of Turks and backdoor recognition attempts are still alive. Furthermore, these unproven Armenian claims are currently used as a convenient leverage against Turkey by whomever and whenever opportune!

STOP BLATANT RACISM

AGAINST THE TURKS

And remember the 524,000 innocent Turks murdered by the Armenian terror gangs and soldiers!

These are Armenian soldiers not Turkish!!??!

200,000 Armenians were armed rather well by the Russians (fact attested to by Armenian Nubar Pasha at Paris Peace Conference in 1919) to murder 524,000 innocent Turkish lives

Note: the date of this photo is October 1914 !! furthermore, Armenians started their treachery and commenced murdering innocent Turks in 1890s.

Infact, they’ve been preparing the groundwork for treachery

since the Turko-Russian wars of 1870s !! do also remind yourselves what the “charge of the light brigade’ in Crimea was all about !!

Show us a country where grand treachery is not a capital crime! If it was a war of liberation, then they fought it against their own liberated countrymen and lost it badly and now call it ‘genocide’ as a misguided convenience ..

(read Armenian Premier Senin Ovanes Katchaznouni’s memoirs)

Of course, there is ample proof elsewhere that the treacherous Armenians, who were Ottoman citizens, armed themselves deliberately to commit grand treason against their own Government and called the unfortunate result “genocide’.

Therefore, should they then not be responsible for their own actions and cruelty? What would have any Government done in the face of such treachery? If the native Indians of North America committed such acts against the American people during WW2, what do you think would have happened? What if British, French, German, Italian or any other nation was attached in such a cowardly way?

And these are for further thought

and a public debate with Armenians

The Armenian problem started in 1878 not 1915 – Indeed Armenians had treacherous designs on Ottoman Turks since 1821 not 1915 .. history does not lie; but the Armenians seem to cherry pick dates with apparent impunity! They must face an Independent Council of World Historians to prove their case, or shut up !

STOP BLATANT RACISM NOW

Peruse and for further insight and hear direct from the Author of ‘GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’ S.Aya on ssaya@superonline.com

Contrary to their claims, 200,000 Armenian traitors of circa 1915 were well armed by outside powers and that’s how Armenians rebelled and murdered 524,000 innocent Turks circa 1915 .. ask them why, but if you feel they are rather economical with truth, let us tell you how!

The Azeri Jewish leaders cited research saying that some 3,000 Mountain Jews, along with tens of thousands of Azeris, were murdered in 1918 by the Armenian bandits and nationalists in the region of Guba .. how long is that soul destroying Armenian nationalist hatred against anything ‘Turk’ is going to last?

What would you have said if 200,000 traitors armed by Nazis in the middle of WW2 rebelled, committed high treason, razed British cities and towns and murdered 524,000 innocent British men, women and children in cold blood? How would The British Government may have reacted to beginnings of an intended British Genocide?

JEWISH HOLOCAUST — By the way, there were the Armenian Nazi Brigade/s –Armenische Legion- from 1935 onwards (i.e. Armenian 812^th Battalion of Wehrmacht of some 20,000 men, commanded by Drastamat Kanaian –aka Dro-), The Armenian National Council of 15^th December 1942 sanctioned by Alfred Rosenberg –The German Minister of Occupied areas- ) even publishing their own magazine called MITTEILUNGSBLATT DER DEUTSCH-ARMENISCHEN GESSELSCHAFT (Berlin 1938 to end 1944) what do you think they did to the innocent Jews; for example Bucharest 1935, fifth column work?

Find out what British thought of Armenians pre-WW2, on Foreign Office Document F.O 371/30031/R5337 …. ‘The Armenians (in Turkey) are extremely fruitful ground for German activities ……’ so who are these opportunistic people then ?

“Wholly opportunistic, the Armenians have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet – whichever was expedient.” [3] Sources: [1] Turkkaya Ataov: Armenian Extermination of the Jews and Muslims, 1984, p. 91. [2] C.J. Walker: _Armenia_ London, 1980, pp. 356-8. [3] John Roy Carlson (Arthur Derounian), _Cairo to Damascus_ Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1951, p. 438.

——————————————————————————————————————-

THE INFAMOUS BLUE BOOK by Toynbee….

COMMENTS , REALITIES & THE TRUTH..

Subject: Re:

Ara Baliozian was right when he asserted that Toynbee became a Turcophile, during the 1920’s.

“What he left out was why the Turks distrusted and disliked Armenian and other Christian minorities so much. Later, Toynbee came to feel that this lopsidedness was a betrayal of historical truth. His sympathies, in fact, reversed themselves, partly, at least, because he felt he had been unjust to the Turks, and needed to make atonement. At the time, however, though the human depravity he described was deeply repugnant to him, his conscience was clear. Emphatic denunciation of Turkish barbarity seemed fully justified, based as it was on carefully evaluated evidence.”

William H. McNeil, Arnold Toynbee. A Life, New York-London-Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 74.

“Yet at the very time when the agreement was being made, I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government to compile all available documents on the recent treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish Government in a ‘Blue Book’which was duly published and distributed as war-propaganda. […] THIS IS THE INFAMOUS BLUE BOOK!!

In attempting to express and explain the Turkish point of view, I am not seeking to suggest that it is right, or to deny the charges brought against the Turkish nation and Government for their treatment of subject peoples during the past century. Their crimes are undoubtedly exaggerated in the popular Western denunciations, and the similar crimes committed by Near Eastern Christians <Armenians and Greeks> in parallel situations are almost always passed over in silence. At the same time, the facts substantiated against the Turks (as well as against their neighbours) by authoritative investigation are so appalling that it is almost a matter of indifference, from the point of view of establishing a case, whether the embroideries of the propagandists are counterfeit or genuine. The point which I wish to make is that, if our aim is not simply to condemn but to cure, we can only modify the conduct of the Turks by altering their frame of mind, and that our only means of doing that is to change our own attitude towards them. So long as we mete out one measure to them, another to the Greeks <and Armenians>, and yet a third to ourselves, we shall have no moral influence over them.”

Arnold J. Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, London, Constable and Co, 1922, pp. 50 et 227.

“Robert F. Zeidner. He graduated from the American Military Academy in 1945, and while on duty in Ankara in 1957 he attended a kind of service program at Beirut American University. Dr. Zeidner was a communication officer during that time.
The university administration gives a cocktail party honoring Prof. Toynbee and some others. During this get-together. Officer Zeidner approaches Prof. Arnold Toynbee and mentions that he came from Ankara. In response A. Toynbee says, ‘Oh really? Turks are very nice people. I have Turkish friends.’ [He says this in 1957].

Officer Zeidner follows up in surprise, ‘Isn’t it controversial that you wrote those books <BLUE BOOKs> during World War I which said that Turks mercilessly killed the Armenians?’ Prof. Toynbee blushed, stood motionless for an instant, and then said ‘I was employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I obeyed orders. It was war propaganda material.’ ”

In 1959, Toynbee met Stanford J. Shaw in Harvard University. S. J. Shaw asked the same question than R. F. Zeidner, and Toynbee responded the same thing (Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic. The Turkish War of National Liberation, Ankara, TTK, 2000, tome I, p. 62, n. 21).

Toynbee was an enthusiastic supporter of Kemalism, from 1922 to his death. The only article available online about this question, to my knowledge, is in French, unfortunately:

In fact, Toynbee, after 1921, considered that the CUP government had criminal intentions, but that: 1) the Turkish people were not responsible: 2) the Armenian and Greek gangs were not less criminal. This position is very close to Ahmet Emin Yalman’s thesis (Turkey and The World War, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1930; Turkey in my Time, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1956). Yalman was a Toynbee’s friend.

From …. a friend of TRUTH ….. (a private correspondence ref: S S Aya Esq.)

SO, HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT REALLY LIES BEHIND THE ALLEGED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS?

An Essay by Ara Baliozian – Armenian view

Speaking of Toynbee: it is widely known that he at no time denied the reality of the Armenian genocide, and this even after he acquired Turkish friends, heard their side of the story, became a Turcophile, and learned the Turkish language. The difference between Toynbee and our nationalist historians is that Toynbee exposed not only the criminal conduct of the Turks but also the blunders of our own leadership, something our historians have at no time dared to do; which may suggest they have not dared to say everything that needed to be said; in other words, their version of the past is only partly true (which is also how propaganda is defined). I feel therefore justified in suggesting that under the guise of supporting our cause, our nationalist historians and Turcocentric ghazetajis have succeeded only in damaging our credibility in the eyes of the world and thus reducing the issue to the status of political football.

and a READER’S COMMENTARY to Ara Baliozian – Turkish view

In reference to the above article of Ara Baliozian, for whom I have a great respect for his “straightness, frankness and depth of knowledge” and other than expressing my usual appreciation, agreement for nearly all of his comments and applauding his remark about “Pirates”, I would like to comment on the above sentence as regards Arnold J. Toynbee’s becoming a Turcophile! If Ara bey knows something realiable that I don’t know who led him to such a conclusion, I will be pleased to learn from him (like many other things I learned from him)! However, in view of the various references on Toynbee in my book GENOCIDE OF TRUTH (more than twenty times / sources) I would like to make the following comments, leaving judgment to the reader..

A. There is no doubt that young Toynbee’s first mission at “Wellington House” under Lord Bryce, was to prepare “documentary evidence to blame Turkey and convince USA to join WW1 for “humane reasons”. Between 1915-1922 Toynbee produced nearly twenty books, all heavily blaming the ENEMIES, the Germans and Turks. It is also a known fact that he worked for the British Intelligence Dept.

B- His masterpiece “The Blue Book” where he blamed Turks for all types of genocidal crimes, was a great success. However, I have noticed below serious flaws in the dependability of this book:

1- The book was composed of the reports of US missionaries and/or other Armenian sources, sent in diplomatic bags by Ambassador Morgenthau, and they were all biased. Moreover, Morgenthau bears his signature on the Relief Report No.192 of April 1922, which contradicts his own book and the reports sent to form “The Blue Book”.

2- On page 313 of my book there is a letter by Toynbee, to Prof. Margouliuth dated June 23, 1916 which is self explanatory regarding the UNRELIABILITY of his sources versus his mission!

3- Toynbee was in the British delegation sent to Paris in 1919. His book and “all the references he had provided” were found UNSUITABLE TO MAKE A LEGAL COURT against the 144 Turkish detainees held in Malta, waiting to be put on trial for two years, and who were all returned to Turkey without any indictment.

4- On page 316, there is a letter by Toynbee to Mrs. Ekmejian written in 1966, in which he confessed that “The Blue Book was written for popaganda purposes”.

5- On page 317, there is a letter dated May 1, 1916 by US Foreign Office to him, confessing that the blanks cannot be filled and the documents used for reference are NOT ACCESSIBLE!

Hence Baliozian’s statement that Toynbee “at no time denied Armenian genocide” is paradoxical to above references and it is the first time that I hear that “Toynbee later became so friendly with Turks, that he became a Turcophile”! I will appreciate to learn who were the “Turks that could make Toynbee change his idea just for favor”! Ara bey certainly knows better than all of us that “as years pass by, what you learn either proves that you were RIGHT in your first assessment or WRONG! I cannot object to the sentiments and observations of Ara bey, which are always “well intended” (like all of us working in this team). As Ara bey (and myself) notice that too many historians and fanatic writers, bragging on patriotism are damaging the “unearthing of simple truths, human failures” and final compassion which must prevail for future generations. “The Armenians in Istanbul are doing fine” but they are greatly disturbed by the parasitic commentaries coming from abroad “to save them“. A century ago, it was the Armenians from Russia who were so much depressed by the Tzarist regime, who set up Hunchaks and Dashnaks (1880-90s!!) outside of Turkey to save the “Armenians of Turkey” thus bringing nothing but disaster to all their folks. The great heroes “Andranik, Kanajan, Pastermadjian” all escaped to Britain and USA, instead of sharing the disasters they brought on to their own people! There are modern fiery patriots continuously blowing animosities to keep them in business and indispensable, getting rich on the continuous donations for the ‘holy cause’! So, my sincere mission is to save my local Armenian friends from overseas Armenian saviours!

(Note: Last week I went to Surp Pirgıc Armenian hospital at Yedikule-Istanbul for some check-up and an MR appointment ten days later. Too bad that the outsider trouble-mongers were not next to me, to see how the Turkish patients-doctors communicate with Armenian doctors, staff etc. as has been the case in this institution for about 150 years! .. I therefore say “stop the outside crap and looking from a distance and seeing only what you want to see”! Tell me “which country or nation is perfect and in full justice”! Watch “Sicko” by Michael Moore to learn how things work in USA, the heaven of human rights and democracy!) Speaking of “criminality” I have thousands of photos and writings about “Armenian crimes” which Ara avoids to admit. All humans are alike, and in this episode there are “no clean hands for any party or outside dooms-day pushers”! And how many clean hands do you see today in wars and man-made disasters? Best regards for all times and don’t believe everything you read (not even me) unless if you have “an indisputable proof”.

Sukru S. Aya

“This study may be interpreted as a token for humane values, common to all, such as decency, not lying – cheating – swindling – stealing – slandering etc. and promotes the need for trust, compassion, respect for other humans, disregarding their ethnicity, nationality or faiths, beyond their control or personal preferences!” Sukru S. Aya, author of ‘Genocide of Truth’ …

The ‘Armenian Question’ 1878-1918: a Counter-Narrative
Venue – London School of Economics, New Theatre East Building 30th January, 2008

‘Somewhere between three and four million Ottoman civilians are thought to have died during the First World War. The causes of death of both Muslims and Christians – massacre, malnutrition, exposure and disease – were the same for all but while the suffering of Christians, and especially the Armenians, has been firmly embedded in the western historical, political and cultural mainstream, the fate of the Muslims, nearly a century later, remains invisible and unexamined. The need is long overdue for deconstruction and recontextualisation of the ‘Armenian question’. Prof. J Salt

STOP BLATANT RACISM

AGAINST THE TURKS

AND HELP WORLD COMMUNITY ESTABLISH TRUTH

FOR THE NEXT GENERATION’S SAKE

February 11, 2009

VIDEO: President’s first prime time press conference

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:38:22 -0500

From: info@barackobama.com

Last night, President Obama gave his first-ever prime time press conference to call for immediate action on his economic recovery plan.

Today, the Senate voted to pass the President’s plan. But there’s another round of voting in both houses of Congress before the president can sign it into law.

Make sure that your voice is heard in this process.

Watch the video and share your economic crisis story. If you’ve already shared your story, talk to a friend, neighbor, or family member and record their story.

Thank you,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

February 11, 2009

Fethullah Gülen’s Grand Ambition

Turkey’s Islamist Danger
by Rachel Sharon-Krespin
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2009, pp. 55-66

As Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) begins its seventh year in leadership, Turkey is no longer the secular and democratic country that it was when the party took over. The AKP has conquered the bureaucracy and changed Turkey’s fundamental identity. Prior to the AKP’s rise, Ankara oriented itself toward the United States and Europe. Today, despite the rhetoric of European Union accession, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has turned Turkey away from Europe and toward Russia and Iran and reoriented Turkish policy in the Middle East away from sympathy toward Israel and much more toward friendship with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria. Anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sentiments have increased. Behind Turkey’s transformation has been not only the impressive AKP political machine but also a shadowy Islamist sect led by the mysterious hocaefendi (master lord) Fethullah Gülen; the sect often bills itself as a proponent of tolerance and dialogue but works toward purposes quite the opposite. Today, Gülen and his backers (Fethullahcılar, Fethullahists) not only seek to influence government but also to become the government.

In 1998, Fethullah Gülen left Turkey for the United States, reportedly to receive medical treatment for diabetes. Since his voluntary exile, Gülen has resided on a large, rural estate in eastern Pennsylvania, together with about 100 followers, who guard him and tend to his needs. It is from his U.S. base that Gülen has built his fame and his transnational empire.

Today, Turkey has over 85,000 active mosques, one for every 350 citizens-compared to one hospital for every 60,000 citizens-the highest number per capita in the world and, with 90,000 imams, more imams than doctors or teachers. It has thousands of madrasa-like Imam-Hatip schools and about four thousand more official state-run Qur’an courses, not counting the unofficial Qur’an schools, which may expand the total number tenfold. Spending by the governmental Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet Işleri Başkanlığı) has grown five fold, from 553 trillion Turkish lira in 2002 (approximately US$325 million) to 2.7 quadrillion lira during the first four-and-a-half years of the AKP government; it has a larger budget than eight other ministries combined.[1] The Friday prayer attendance rate in Turkey’s mosques exceeds that of Iran’s, and religion classes teaching Sunni Islam are compulsory in public schools despite rulings against the practice by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Turkish high court (Danıştay).[2] Both Prime Minister Erdoğan and the Diyanet head Ali Bardakoğlu criticized the rulings for failing to consult Islamic scholars.

Gülen now helps set the political agenda in Turkey using his followers in the AKP as well as the movement’s vast media empire, financial institutions and banks, business organizations, an international network of thousands of schools, universities, student residences (ışıkevis), and many associations and foundations. He is a financial heavyweight, controlling an unregulated and opaque budget estimated at $25 billion.[3] It is not clear whether the Fethullahist cemaat (community) supports the AKP or is the ruling force behind AKP. Either way, however, the effect is the same.

Gülen’s Background

Born in Erzurum, Turkey, in 1942, Fethullah Gülen is an imam who considers himself a prophet.[4] An enigmatic figure, many in the West applaud him as a reformist and advocate for tolerance,[5] a catalyst of “moderate Islam” for Turkey and beyond. He is praised in the West, especially in the United States, as an intellectual, scholar, and educator[6] even though his formal education is limited to five years of elementary school. After receiving an imam-preacher certificate, he served as an imam, first in Erdirne and later in Izmir. In 1971, the Turkish security service arrested him for clandestine religious activities, such as running illegal summer camps to indoctrinate youths, and was, from that time on, occasionally harassed by the staunchly secular military.[7] In 1981, he formally retired from his post as a local preacher.

To build an image as a proponent of interfaith dialogue, Gülen met Pope John Paul II, other Christian clergy, and Jewish rabbis[8] and emphasizes the commonalities unifying Abrahamic religions. He presents himself and his movement as the modern-day version of tolerant, liberal Anatolian Sufism and has used the literature of great Sufi thinkers such as Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Yunus Emre, pretending to share their moderate teachings.[9] Quotes from their teachings adorn Fethullah’s Gülen’s propaganda material. The movement, its proxy organizations, and universities-including Georgetown, to which it donates money-hold conferences in the United States and Europe to discuss Gülen. In October 2007, the British House of Lords feted Gülen with a conference in his honor.
Gülen was a student and follower of Sheikh Sa’id-i Kurdi (1878-1960), also known as Sa’id-i Nursi, the founder of the Islamist Nur (light) movement.[10] After Turkey’s war of independence, Kurdi demanded, in an address to the new parliament, that the new republic be based on Islamic principles. He turned against Atatürk and his reforms and against the new modern, secular, Western republic.

In 1998, Gülen departed for the United States, reportedly to receive medical treatment for diabetes. However, his absence also enabled Gülen to escape questioning on his indictment in 2000 for allegedly promoting insurrection in Turkey in a series of secretly-recorded sermons. Since his voluntary exile, Gülen has resided on a large, rural estate in eastern Pennsylvania, together with about 100 followers, who guard him and tend to his needs. These servants are educated men who wear suits and ties and do not look like traditional Islamists in cloaks and turbans. They follow their hocaefendi’s orders and even refrain from marrying until age fifty per his instructions. When they do marry, their spouses are expected to dress in the Islamic manner, as dictated by Gülen himself.[11] It is from his U.S. base that Gülen has built his fame and his transnational empire.

Gülen’s Education Network

The core of Gülen’s network is his educational institutions. His school network is impressive. Nurettin Veren, Gülen’s right-hand man for thirty-five years, estimated that some 75 percent of Turkey’s two million preparatory school students are enrolled in Gülen institutions.[12] He controls thousands of top-tier secondary schools, colleges, and student dormitories throughout Turkey, as well as private universities, the largest being Fatih University in Istanbul. Outside Turkey, his movement runs hundreds of secondary schools and dozens of universities in 110 countries worldwide. Gülen’s aim is not altruistic: His followers target youth in the eighth through twelfth grades, mentor and indoctrinate them in the ışıkevi, educate them in the Fethullah schools, and prepare them for future careers in legal, political, and educational professions in order to create the ruling classes of the future Islamist, Turkish state. Taking their orders from Fethullah Gülen, wealthy followers continue to open schools and ışıkevi in what Sabah columnist Emre Aköz called “the education jihad.”[13]

The overt network of schools is only one part of a larger strategy. In a 2006 interview, Veren said, “These schools are like shop windows. Recruitment and Islamization activities are carried out through night classes … Children whom we educated in Turkey are now in the highest positions. There are governors, judges, military officers. There are ministers in the government. They consult Gülen before doing anything.”[14]

The AKP’s controversial education policies, coupled with the Islamist indoctrination in Fethullahist schools, have accelerated the Islamization of Turkish society. During AKP’s first term in government, the Erdoğan government has changed textbooks, emphasized religion courses, and transferred thousands of certified imams from their positions in the Directorate of Religious Affairs to positions as teachers and administrators in Turkey’s public schools.[15] Abdullah Gül, Turkey’s first Islamist president and a Gülen sympathizer, appointed a Gülen-affiliated professor, Yusuf Ziya Özcan, to head Turkey’s Council of Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kurulu, YÖK). He has also used his presidential prerogative to appoint Gülen sympathizers to university presidencies.

Beyond Turkey, the Fethullahist schools also serve as fertile recruiting grounds. In his Institut d’Etudes Politiques doctoral thesis on Gülen schools in Central Asia, Bayram Balcı, a French scholar of Turkish origin, wrote, “Fethullah’s aim is the Islamization of Turkish nationality and the Turcification of Islam in foreign countries. Dozens of Fethullah’s ‘Turkish schools’ abroad-most of which are for boys-are used to covertly ‘convert,’ not so much ‘in school,’ but through direct proselytism ‘outside school.’” Balcı explained, “He wants to revive the link between state, religion, and society.”[16] The schools of Gülen’s Nur movement in Central Asia have worked to reestablish Islam in a region largely secularized by decades of Soviet control. Balcı explained, “The aim of the cemaat is to educate and influence future national elites, who will speak English and Turkish and who will one day prove their good intentions towards Fethullahists and towards Turkey.” Several countries in the region have taken steps against Gülen’s educational institutions because of such suspicions. Uzbekistan has banned the schools for encouraging Islamic law,[17] and the Russian government, weary of the movement’s activities in majority Muslim regions of the federation, has banned not only the Gülen schools but all activities of the entire Nur sect in the country.[18]

Neither Uzbekistan nor Russia are known for their pluralism, but suspicion about Gülen indoctrination has spread even to more permissive societies such as that of the Netherlands. In 2008, members of the Netherland’s Christian Democrat, Labor, and Conservative parties agreed to cut several million euros in government funding for organizations affiliated with “the Turkish imam Fethullah Gülen” and to thoroughly investigate the activities of the Gülen group after Erik Jan Zürcher, director of the Amsterdam-based International Institute for Social History, and five former Gülen followers who had worked in Gülen’s ışıkevi told Dutch television that the Gülen community was moving step-by-step to topple the secular order.[19] While the organizations in question denied any ties to the Gülen movement, Zürcher said that taqiya, religiously-sanctioned dissimulation, was typical in the movement’s interactions with the West. An unnamed former Gülen follower who also once worked in Gülen schools and ışıkevi reported that Fethullahists called the Dutch “filthy, blasphemous infidels” and that they said “the best Dutchman is one who has converted to Islam. All the Dutch must be made Muslims.”[20] Indeed, of the thousands of Fethullahist schools in more than one hundred countries that allegedly teach moderation, none are located in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran that exist under domineering strains of official Islam, and most appear instead geared to radicalize students in secular Muslim and non-Muslim societies.

Eviscerating Checks and Balances

Fethullahists have also made inroads into Turkey’s 200,000-strong police force. Their infiltration has had a compounding effect, as Fethullahist officials have purged officials more loyal to the republic than the hocaefendi. According to Veren, “There are imam security directors; imams wearing police uniforms. Many police commissioners get their orders from imams.”[21] Adil Serdar Saçan, former director of the organized crimes unit within the Istanbul Directorate of Security, confirmed these statements in reports he prepared on the Fethullahist organization within the security apparatus. In a 2006 interview, he said,
Fethullahists began organizing inside the security apparatus in the 1970s. In police academies, students were being taken to ışıkevi by class commissioners. One of those commissioners is now the director of intelligence at the Turkish Directorate of Security. During my time at the [police] academy, those in the directorate who did not have ties to the [Gülen] organization were all pensioned off or fired in 2002 when the AKP came to power. … I was at the top of my class when I graduated from the police academy, and throughout the twenty-four years of my career, I maintained and was honored for my stellar record. After 2002, the AKP blocked my promotions. They promoted only those officers whose files were tainted with allegations that they were engaged in reactionary Islamist activities. … Belonging to a certain cemaat has become a prerequisite for advancement in the force. At present, over 80 percent of the officers at supervisory level in the general security organization are members of the [Gülen] cemaat.[22]
Such statements, however, may have consequences.[23] In October 2008, Turkish police arrested Saçan on suspicion of involvement in the so-called Ergenekon plot to overthrow the Turkish state.[24] Most Turkish analysts believe that the Ergenekon conspiracy, short of any evidence of unconstitutional activities, is more a mechanism by which the Turkish government can harass critics.[25]
Writer and journalist Merdan Yanardağ provided statistics to illuminate the Islamist penetration of the Ankara Directorate of Security. He explained,
Prior to Ramadan, personnel at the Directorate of Security in Ankara were asked whether they would be fasting during Ramadan, in order to establish the number of meals that would be needed during that period. Of the 4,200 employees, only seventeen indicated that they would not be fasting. Considering that some of the seventeen might have been sick or taking medications, the numbers speak for themselves. [26]

Wiretapping scandals in spring 2008 also highlighted Gülenist penetration of the security service’s most important units. After the Turkish Security Directorate obtained a blanket court permit in April 2007 to monitor and record all the communications in Turkey including mobile and land-line telephones, SMS text messaging, e-mail, fax, and Internet communications,[27] Turks have grown uneasy about having telephone conversations fearing intrusion into their privacy. Recent leaks to pro-AKP media of recordings of military personnel meetings, lectures, top secret military documents, strategic antiterrorism plans, private medical files of commanders, and contents of personal conversations between state prosecutors have shocked the nation as has the appearance on the Internet video site YouTube of some of those recordings.

The alleged network of Fethullah followers in the security system has an impact on domestic affairs as they use restricted technology or privileged information to further their political agenda. In February 2008, for example, several websites posted the voice recording of a secret speech delivered by Brig. Gen. Münir Erten announcing the timing of an upcoming Turkish military operation into Iraqi Kurdistan, details of a private discussion with the chief of the General Staff, and private information concerning Gen. Ergin Saygun’s health.[28] The following month, several websites including YouTube posted a secretly recorded conversation between prosecutor Salim Demirci and a colleague regarding Erdoğan and Efkan Ala, then governor of Diyarbakir and subsequently a counselor of Erdoğan’s office. Erdoğan responded by ordering a criminal investigation against Demirci.[29] In June 2008, the Islamist Vakit published Saygun’s entire medical file, disclosing information about his diabetes as well as the treatments and medications he had received in the Gülhane military hospital.[30] Others whose tapped conversations appeared on Islamist websites and in Gülen’s newspaper network included Erdoğan Teziç, the former head of Turkey’s Higher Education Council, and prominent members of the center-left opposition Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, CHP). Many Turkish journalists believe that Fethullahist-dominated police tap their communications, and according to reports, the head of the wiretapping unit, who was appointed by Erdoğan in August 2005, is a Fethullah follower.[31] Islamist newspapers including Vakit, Yeni Şafak, Zaman, and the pro-AKP Taraf published leaks from private conversations held inside government offices and military headquarters. The Islamist, pro-AKP media has reported alleged confidential evidence relating to the police investigation of the so-called Ergenekon plot that posits a secularist cabal of military officers, journalists, and professors sought to overthrow the AKP government.[32] The net effect of such leaks is to tar the reputations of or intimidate AKP’s political opponents and the Turkish military.
Islamization within police ranks also contributes to police brutality against anti-AKP demonstrators. On May 1, 2008, the police used gas bombs, pepper gas, water cannons, and clubs against workers who wanted to celebrate May Day peacefully in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, the traditional site of demonstrations in Turkey’s largest city; scores were injured.[33] Labor unions and opposition parties condemned the police brutality and accused Erdoğan of using police to silence opposition voices.[34] Police also suppressed labor protests in Tuzla (Istanbul) shipyards.[35] Similarly, police have harassed individual citizens after they criticized Erdoğan’s policies. Erdoğan’s own security guards abducted a 46-year-old man from Antalya for speaking out in public against his social security policies, taking the man to a deserted location where the guards beat and threatened him. The victim alleged that his attackers said they could easily plant guns or drugs on him and kill him.[36]

While Turkey’s military is guarantor of the constitution, Veren alleged that Fethullahists had also entrenched themselves within the military, police, and other professions:
The Fethullahist military officers were once our students, who we financially supported, educated, and assisted. When these grateful children graduated and reached influential positions, they put themselves and their positions at the service of Fethullah Gülen … [Gülen] directs and instructs, and, through them, maintains power within the state … When Gülen’s students graduate from the police or military academies-as do the new doctors and lawyers-they present their first salaries to Fethullah Gülen as a gesture of their gratitude. Newly graduated officers even bring him the swords that they receive during the graduation ceremony.[37]

According to Veren, Gülen has argued that the military expels no more than one in forty Islamist officers; the rest remain in undercover cells. While such allegations may seem the stuff of conspiracy theory, recent leaks to pro-AKP media suggest a number of Islamist sources within the military ranks, creating speculation that followers of Gülen now populate the senior infrastructure of the Turkish General Staff. Such speculation gained additional credence after the August 2008 Supreme Military Council (Yüksek Askeri Şura, YAŞ), which, for the first time, declined to expel suspected Islamists from military ranks.

The AKP government has also aided the Gülen movement with its reorientation of the judiciary. Over the first five years of his rule, Erdoğan replaced thousands of judges and prosecutors with AKP appointees. Now that the president is Islamist, it is unlikely that he would veto the appointment of Islamists to the bench, as did his predecessor Ahmet Necdet Sezer. Indeed, it now appears that the government intends to appoint thousands more to judicial positions.[38] The AKP has also enacted a law that would require applicants for judgeships to first interview with AKP bureaucrats in order better to gauge and adjudicate applicants’ adherence to Islam. The results of the AKP’s targeting of the judicial system are already apparent as anti-secular, pro-AKP officials have been at the forefront of some controversial trials, such as the case against Van University president Yücel Aşkın,[39] the Şemdinli investigation in which the prosecutor tried to implicate Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt before he became chief of the General Staff, and, most recently, the Ergenekon probe.

Indeed, it is such overtly political and vindictive prosecutions that have led some former Gülen sympathizers, such as University of Utah political scientist Hakan Yavuz, to a change of heart. In one interview, Yavuz told odatv.com that four important legal cases had changed his thinking: the case against Aşkın; the Semdinli case; the Atabeyler operation, uncovered in 2005, involving an organized crime group with alleged plans to assassinate Prime Minister Erdoğan;[40] and the Ergenekon probe. Yavuz explained, “The cemaat has attempted to steer all four cases. Look at the slanderous reports in archives of the cemaat’s newspapers, how they defamed Yucel Aşkın. And now it’s Ergenekon. Keeping [prominent] personalities in jail for over a year without indictment is inexplicable.” Yavuz also suggested Gülen’s cemaat spoke differently to its members than to outsiders and that it was pursuing a political agenda that conflicted with the founding philosophy of the modern Turkish republic. He accused Fethullahists of “co-optation” and said that they were recruiting people and paying them money-without any formal receipts or records-to write and speak favorably about the movement while criticizing the secular Turkish state.[41]

The Fifth Estate

If the police, military, and courts might normally protect rule-of-law from within official Turkish government structures, there might still be an external check to abuse of power in the Turkish media. The Turkish media has traditionally been relentless in its reporting of abuses of power and corruption. Soon after assuming office, however, Erdoğan proved intolerant of the concept of a free press. The AKP government has systematically sought to create a media monopoly to speak with one voice and on behalf of the government. Erdoğan lashes out at media organs that he does not control. In his first term, Erdoğan brought more than a hundred lawsuits against sixty-three journalists in sixteen publications, against many writers, as well as the leaders and members of parliament of all opposition parties. The number of lawsuits may be far greater. In 2008, Erdoğan declined to answer a parliamentary inquiry by a Democratic Left Party deputy demanding information on how many lawsuits Erdoğan had initiated against journalists-claiming that such information was in the realm of his private life.”[42] Most of Erdoğan’s lawsuits against journalists involve criticism that any other democracy would consider legitimate. In 2005, for example, he sued Cumhuriyet cartoonist Musa Kart for depicting him as a cat entangled in a ball of string. Last year, he sued the LeMan weekly humor magazine for ridiculing him in its January 30, 2008 cover.[43]

Erdoğan lost some of his lawsuits, and courts threw out others, but the effect has nonetheless been chilling. Journalists know that not only does the prime minister seek to make them financially liable for any criticism, but that the AKP might even seek to assume control of their publications. During AKP’s 6-year rule, the government has seized control of several media outlets and subsequently sold them to pro-AKP holdings affiliated with the Gülen community. In April 2007, for example, the governmental Saving Deposit Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu, TMSF) seized Sabah-ATV, Turkey’s second largest media group in a predawn raid. The TMSF, staffed by Erdoğan appointees, then sold the group to Çalık Holding, the CEO of which is Erdoğan’s son-in-law. Çalık financed the purchase with public funds taken as loans from two state-owned banks and by partnering with a newly-founded, Qatar-based media company that bought 25 percent of Sabah shares. It was Abdullah Gül who introduced Ahmet Çalık to Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa during his January 2008 visit in Syria; Çalık also accompanied Gül in February and Erdoğan in April when they visited Qatar. Media reports indicated that other consortiums that had initially shown interest in purchasing Sabah-ATV with their own money pulled out of the tender shortly before the bid after Erdoğan contacted them, leaving Çalik the sole bidder.[44] Sabah has since become a strong advocate of the AKP government. In September 2008, Erdoğan demanded all party members and aides boycott newspapers owned by the Doğan Media Group after it reported on laundering of money to Islamist charities.[45]

Excluding the Islamist television and radio stations, newspapers such as Zaman, Sabah, Yeni Şafak, Türkiye, Star, Bugün, Vakit, and Taraf all have AKP and/or Gülen-affiliated ownership. By circulation, such papers represent at least 40 percent of all newspaper sales in Turkey.[46]

What Are Gülen’s Intentions?

Conglomerates have long had a dominant position in Turkish society. Secular businessmen such as Aydın Doğan and Mehmet Emin Karamehmet have interests not only in industry but also in media, the banking sector, and even education. Never before, though, has a single individual started a movement that seeks to transform Turkish society so fundamentally. Gülen now wields a vocal partisan media; a vast network of loyal bureaucrats; partisan universities and academia; partisan prosecutors and judges; partisan security and intelligence agencies; partisan capitalists, business associations, NGOs, and labor unions; and partisan teachers, doctors, and hospitals. What makes Gülen so dangerous? Gülen’s own teaching and sermons provide the best answers.

In 1999, Turkish television aired footage of Gülen delivering sermons to a crowd of followers in which he revealed his aspirations for an Islamist Turkey ruled by Shari‘a (Islamic law) as well as the methods that should be used to attain that goal. In the sermons, he said:
You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early-like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all-in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here-[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here.

He continued,
When everything was closed and all doors were locked, our houses of isik [light] assumed a mission greater than that of older times. In the past, some of the duties of these houses were carried out by madrasas [Islamic schools], some by schools, some by tekkes [Islamist lodges] … These isik homes had to be the schools, had to be madrasas, [had to be] tekkes all at the same time. The permission did not come from the state, or the state’s laws, or the people who govern us. The permission was given by God … who wanted His name learned and talked about, studied, and discussed in those houses, as it used to be in the mosques.[47]

In another sermon, Gülen said,
Now it is a painful spring that we live in. A nation is being born again. A nation of millions [is] being born-one that will live for long centuries, God willing … It is being born with its own culture, its own civilization. If giving birth to one person is so painful, the birth of millions cannot be pain-free. Naturally we will suffer pain. It won’t be easy for a nation that has accepted atheism, has accepted materialism, a nation accustomed to running away from itself, to come back riding on its horse. It will not be easy, but it is worth all our suffering and the sacrifices.[48]
And, in yet another sermon, he declared,
The philosophy of our service is that we open a house somewhere and, with the patience of a spider, we lay our web to wait for people to get caught in the web; and we teach those who do. We don’t lay the web to eat or consume them but to show them the way to their resurrection, to blow life into their dead bodies and souls, to give them a life.[49]
Many Gülen supporters and members of the Islamist media affiliated with the cemaat suggested the sermons were somehow forged[50] but the denials are unconvincing given the video footage and reports by Gülen movement defectors.

U.S. Government Support for Gülen?

Many Turkish analysts believe that, prior to Erdoğan’s election, Gülen and his supporters in the U.S. government helped obtain an invitation to the White House for him at a time when Erdoğan was banned from politics in Turkey due to his Islamist activities-an event viewed as a U.S. endorsement ahead of the 2002 Turkish elections. That the U.S. government and, specifically, the Central Intelligence Agency support the Gülen movement is conventional wisdom among Turkey’s secular elite even though no hard evidence exists to support such allegations.

When Turkish secularists are asked to defend the view that Gülen enjoys U.S. support, they often point to his almost 20-year residence in eastern Pennsylvania. After the Supreme Court of Appeals in Turkey (Yargıtay) confirmed on June 24, 2008, a lower court’s ruling to acquit Gülen on charges that he organized an illegal terrorist organization to overthrow the secular government in Turkey, Gülen won another legal battle, this time in the United States. A federal court reversed U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service decisions that would have denied Gülen’s application for permanent residency in the United States on the basis that Gülen did not fit the criteria as someone with “extraordinary ability in the field of education.” The Department of Homeland Security characterized Gülen as neither an expert in the field of education nor an educator but rather as “the leader of a large and influential religious and political movement with immense commercial holdings.”[51]
While the court ruling that allowed Gülen to remain in the United States may provide fodder for Turkish analysts who suggest U.S. support for Gülen, the process is actually more revealing. Indeed, the U.S. government noted that much of the acclaim Gülen touts is sponsored or financed by his own movement. Gülen attached twenty-nine letters of reference to his June 18, 2008 motion, mostly from theologians or Turkish political figures close to or affiliated with his organization. John Esposito, founding director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, who, after receiving donations from the Gülen movement sponsored a conference in his honor, also supplied a reference. Two former CIA officials, George Fidas and Graham Fuller, and former U.S. ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz also supplied references.

The letters may have worked. On July 16, 2008, U.S. district judge Stewart Dalzell issued a memorandum and order granting Gülen’s motion for partial summary judgment and ordering the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to approve his petition for alien worker status as an alien of extraordinary ability by August 1, 2008. The court found that the immigration examiner improperly concluded that the field of education was the only statutory category in which Gülen’s accomplishments could fit and that Gülen’s accomplishments in such fields as theology, political science, and Islamic studies should also be considered. The court further determined that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Administrative Appeals Office erred in concluding that Gülen’s work was not “scholarly” by applying an unduly narrow definition of the term. Finally, with regard to the statutory requirement that the applicant show that his or her entry into the United States would substantially benefit the United States, the court found that Gülen had met the requirement.[52]

Regardless of the legal rationale behind his current stay, the U.S. decision to grant Gülen residency will enable his movement to continue to imply Washington’s endorsement as the AKP and its Fethullahist supporters seek to push Turkey further away from the secularism upon which it was built.

Conclusions

Gülen enjoys the support of many friends, ideological fellow-travelers, and co-opted journalists and academics. Too often, concern over Gülen’s activities is dismissed in the Turkish, U.S., and European media as mere paranoia. When Turkey’s chief prosecutor indicted the AKP for attempting to undermine the secular constitution, the pro-Islamist media in Turkey along with Western diplomats and journalists dismissed the case as an “undemocratic judicial coup.”[53] Yet at the same time, many of the same outlets and officials have hailed the Ergenekon indictment, assuming a dichotomy between Islamism and democracy on one hand, and secularism and fascism on the other.[54] The repeated branding in Islamist outlets of Turkey’s Islamists as “reformist democrats” and of modern, secular Turks as “fundamentalists” has to be one of the most offensive but sadly effective lies in modern politics.
Indeed, Turkey has never seen a single incident of attacks on pious Muslims for fasting during Ramadan, whereas in recent years there have been many incidents of attacks on less-observant Turks for drinking alcohol or not fasting.[55] While women who cover their heads in the Islamic manner can move freely in any area of the country, uncovered women are increasingly unwelcome in certain regions and are often attacked.[56]

Contrary to the impression prevalent in the West-that the conflict is between religious Muslims and “anti-religion, secular Kemalists”-the fact remains that the majority of Turks, secular included, are traditional and observant Muslims many of whom define themselves primarily as “Muslims first.”[57] While the Turkish constitution recognizes all Turkish citizens as “Turks,” the dominant sentiment in the country has always been that in order to be considered a Turk, one must be Muslim. The complete absence of any non-Muslim governor, ambassador, or military or police officer attests to the prevalence of Islam’s dominance in the Turkish establishment. Therefore, it appears Gülen is not fighting for more individual freedoms but to free Islam from the confines of the mosque and the private domain of individuals and to bring it to the public arena, to govern every aspect of life in the country.[58] AKP leaders, including Gül and Erdoğan, have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the “imprisonment of Islam in the mosque,” demanding that it be present everywhere as a lifestyle. Most Turks vividly remember statements by AKP leaders not long ago rejecting the definition of secularism as “separation of mosque and state.” Gül has slammed “secularism” on many occasions, including during a November 27, 1995 interview with The Guardian. What Turkey’s Islamists really want is to remove the founding principles of the Turkish Republic. So long as U.S. and Western officials fail to recognize that Gülen’s rhetoric of tolerance is only skin-deep, they may be setting the stage for a dialogue, albeit not of religious tolerance, but rather to find an answer to the question, “Who lost Turkey?”

Rachel Sharon-Krespin is the director of the Turkish Media Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Washington D.C.

[1] Can Dündar, Milliyet (Istanbul), June 21, 2007; Reha Muhtar, Vatan (Istanbul), June 22, 2007.
[2] Milliyet, Mar. 10, 2008; Hürriyet (Istanbul), Mar. 10, 2008.
[3] Helen Rose Ebaugh and Dogan Koc, “Funding Gülen-Inspired Good Works: Demonstrating and Generating Commitment to the Movement,” fgulen.com, Oct. 27, 2007.
[4] Merdan Yanardağ, Fethullah Gülen Hareketinin Perde Arkasi, Turkiye Nasil Kusatildi? (Istanbul: yah Beyaz Yayın, 2006), based on interviews with Nurettin Veren on Kanaltürk television, June 26, July 3, 2006.
[5] “Fethullah Gülen Is an Islamic Scholar and Peace Activist,” International Conference on Fethullah Gülen, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Nov. 2007; J. J. Rogers, “Giants of Light: Fethullah Gülen and Meister Eckhart in Dialogue,” The University of Texas, San Antonio, Tex., Nov. 3, 2007.
[6] See for example, Rogers, “Giants of Light”; USA Today, July 18, 2008.
[7] Bülent Aras, “Turkish Islam’s Moderate Face,” Middle East Quarterly, Sept. 1998, pp. 23-9.
[8] Anadolu Ajansı (Ankara), Feb. 10, 1998.
[9] Booklets on Anatolian Sufism with citations from Mevlana Celleddin Rumi distributed at the “Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gulen Movement” conference, London, Oct. 25 – 27, 2007.
[10] Aland Mizell, “Clash of Civilizations versus Interfaith Dialogue: The Theories of Huntington and Gulen,” KurdishMedia.com, Dec. 31, 2007; idem, “Are Islam and Kemalism Compatible? How Two Systems Have Impacted the Kurdish Question?” Iraq Updates, Nov. 28, 2007.
[11] Interview with Nurettin Veren, Kanaltürk television, June 26, 2006.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Sabah (Istanbul), Dec. 30, 2004.
[14] Veren interview, Kanaltürk, June 26, 2006.
[15] Cumhuriyet (Istanbul), Dec. 23, 2007.
[16] Bayram Balcı, “Central Asia: Fethullah Gulen’s Missionary Schools,” Oct. 2001.
[17] Interview with Merdan Yanardağ, Gerçek Gündem (Istanbul), Nov. 20, 2006.
[18] Hürriyet, Apr. 11, 2008.
[19] Erik-Jan Zürcher, “Kamermeerderheid Eist Onderzoek Naar Turkse Beweging,” NOVA documentary, July 4, 2008.
[20] Cumhuriyet, July 9, 2008; Netherlands Information Services, July 11, 2008.
[21] Yanardağ, Fethullah Gülen Hareketinin Perde Arkasi, Turkiye Nasil Kusatildi?
[22] Adil Serdar Saçan, interview, Kanaltürk, July 3, 2006.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Samanyolu television, Oct. 13, 2008.
[25] See, for example, Michael Rubin, “Erdogan, Ergenekon, and the Struggle for Turkey,” Mideast Monitor, Aug. 2008.
[26] Yanardağ interview, Gerçek Gündem, Nov. 20, 2006.
[27] Vatan, June 2, 2008; Hürriyet, June 2, 2008.
[28] “SOK! Tuggeneral Munir Erten den SOK aciklamalar!” accessed Oct. 27, 2008.
[29] “Sok Video! Cumhuriyet Savcisi Salim Demirci,” accessed Oct. 27, 2008.
[30] Vakit (Istanbul), June 14, 2008.
[31] Vatan, June 2, 2008; Hürriyet, June 2, 2008.
[32] BBC News, Feb. 4, 2008; Frank Hyland, “Investigation of Turkey’s ‘Deep State’ Ergenekon Plot Spreads to Military,” Global Terrorism Analysis, Jamestown Foundation, July 16, 2008.
[33] Reuters, May 1, 2008; Sendika.org, Labornet Turkey, May 1, 2008; Vatan, May 1, 2, 2008; Milliyet, May 1, 2, 2008; Hürriyet, May 1, 2, 2008
[34] Vatan, May 2, 2008; Milliyet, May 2, 2008; Hürriyet, May 2, 8, 2008.
[35] Hürriyet, Feb. 28, 2008.
[36] Milliyet, May 14, 2008.
[37] Yanardağ, Fethullah Gülen Hareketinin Perde Arkasi, Turkiye Nasil Kusatildi?
[38] “Turkish Judiciary at War with AKP Government to Defend Its Independence,” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1520, Mar. 27, 2007.
[39] “The AKP Government’s Attempt to Move Turkey from Secularism to Islamism (Part I): The Clash with Turkey’s Universities,” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1014, Nov. 1, 2005; “Professor from Van University in Turkey Commits Suicide after Five Months in Jail without Trial,” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1025, Nov. 18, 2005.
[40] Zaman (Istanbul), Apr. 18, 2008.
[41] Odatv.com, May 30, 2008; Hürriyet, June 13, 2008; Akşam (Istanbul), June 16, 2008.
[42] Radikal (Istanbul), Apr. 7, 2008.
[43] Hürriyet, Oct. 21, 2008.
[44] Hürriyet, May 14, 2008.
[45] Hürriyet, Sept. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 2008.
[46] Milliyet, July 14, 2008; Cumhuriyet, July 15, 2008
[47] Turkish channel ATV, June 18, 1999.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid.; “The Upcoming Elections in Turkey (2): The AKP’s Political Power Base,” MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 375, July 19, 2007.
[50] Sabah, Jan. 2, 3, 2005.
[51] “Fethullah Gulen v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, et al,” Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Turkish Daily News (Ankara), Mar. 16, 2008; Vakit, June 7, 9, 2008; Yeni Şafak (Istanbul), June 9, 2008.
[54] Mustafa Akyol, “The Threat Is Secular Fundamentalism,” International Herald Tribune, May 4, 2007; “Islam Will Modernize-If Secular Fundamentalists Allow,” Turkish Daily News, May 15, 2007; “Mr. Logoglu Is Wrong, Considerably Wrong about Turkey,” Turkish Daily News, May 24, 2007.
[55] Vatan, Aug. 21, 2008; Turkish Daily News, Sept. 23, 2008.
[56] Hürriyet, Feb. 14, 2008; Milliyet, Feb. 14, 2008; Vatan, Feb. 14, 2008, Cumhuriyet, Feb. 14, 2008.
[57] Yeni Şafak, July 7, 2006.
[58] “Turkish PM Erdogan in Speech during Term as Istanbul Mayor Attacks Turkey’s Constitution, Describing It as ‘A Huge Lie’: ‘Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah’; ‘One Cannot Be a Muslim and Secular,’” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1596, May 23, 2007.

February 11, 2009
Gilad Atzmon: Israel needs Turkey

The world famous Israeli- born musician Gilad Atzmon said to TIMETUR:“Turkey’s friendship is very important for Israel and Israel needs Turkey.”

Hasan: Dear Gilad, How do you evaluate the Israeli carnage in Gaza?

Gilad: Dear Hasan, I don’t really think that it is a matter of evaluation. We are all aware of the level of destruction brought upon innocent civilians by the Jewish state. Gaza looks as if it was nuked. Yet, as we know, the devastation is not the outcome of a single atomic bomb. It was actually a merciless and lengthy campaign conducted by a national and popular army that employed a chain of heavy bombardment using conventional and unconventional shells. Gaza’s carnage is the outcome of a sinister, continuous, intense air raid against civilians in the most populated spot on this planet. Hence, rather than evaluating the carnage itself, I am very interested in the evaluation of the people who are capable of bringing such destruction about. In other words, I am interested in the Israeli and the Jewish collective identity. I wonder how is it possible that the Israelis, the people who were ‘raised from the ashes’, have matured collectively into the embodiment of modern evil. How is it that Diaspora Jews happen to institutionally support Israel and its crimes against humanity?

Hasan: Why does Israel always break the international laws and does not obey the agreements?

Gilad: I assume that the Israeli is imbued with feelings of superiority that have something to do with the secular interpretation of the notion of Jewish Chosenness. At the end of the day, Israel is the Jewish state. Though Israel is largely a secular society, it manages to maintain the Judaic heritage of racial supremacy. It is actually the secular nationalist interpretation of Judaic tradition that had evolved into a collective murderous inclination. It is important to note that while within the Judaic context, chosenness is interpreted as a moral burden in which Jews are demanded to stand as an exemplification of ethical behaviour, in the Jewish state, chosenness is interpreted as an entitlement to dominate and kill. Since the Israelis regard themselves as the chosen people, they clearly feel free of any ethical or moral concerns. Moreover, they are not concerned at all with other peoples’ or nations’ judgment or thought. This arrogant philosophy was defined by Israeli PM David Ben Gurion in the 1950’s when he said, “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim (Gentiles) say, the only thing that matters is what the Jews do.”

Hasan: What is the importance of PM Erdogan’s reaction in Davos?

Gilad: For me it is clear that PM Erdogan was rather courageous in confronting the Israeli lie on an international stage. Moreover, he really hit the nail on the head by exposing the ultimate symbol of this very lie. I am referring here to war criminal President Shimon Peres, who in spite of his devastating past (Kefar Kana, Nuclear reactor Dimona etc.) has managed to grab a Nobel Prize for peace. Considering his contribution to the Dimona WMD project, a Nobel Prize in nuclear physics would be more appropriate.

Hasan: How does / can the Jewish lobby work against PM Erdogan and the Jews with conscience?

Gilad: This is a very good question, I am not an expert on Jewish lobbying tactics. However I am fully aware of their influence. As long as British Labour finance is run by rabid Zionists such as Lord cash Machine Levy and as long as White House chief of staff is a rabid Zionist, we should expect Zionist interests to shape our reality and this means a lot of conflicts, carnage and blood of innocent civilians.

However, we have to bear in mind that the tide is turning. What we see and hear in Gaza brings about a mass indignation against Israel and its lobbies around the world.

It is hard for me to predict what the measures taken by Jewish lobbies against PM Erdogan will be. He can probably expect himself to be presented as their new anti-Semite protagonist. As we know it doesn’t take a lot to become one. While in the old days, anti-Semites were those who didn’t like Jews, nowadays, anti-Semites are those the Jews Hate.

Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that Turkey’s friendship is very important for Israel. Turkey had been Israel’s only friend in the region. Lately, it had been a negotiator with Syria. In short, Israel needs Turkey.

Hasan: How can the Israeli-Turkish relations be effected after the Erdogan-Peres clash in Davos?

Gilad: I really prefer not to answer this question, I am not exactly an expert on the subject…

Hasan: What kind of days are waiting for Israel and Turkey in the global political arena?

Gilad: Again, international affairs isn’t exactly a topic I specialise in.

Hasan: Do you have a final message for the world and the Turkish people?

Gilad: I do not like to come with final messages for three reasons:

1.      I do not like final statements, I insist upon reserving the option of regretting and want to be able to revise my views on every possible topic.

2.      I believe that people who come with ‘final messages’ must be very important and clever. I am more of an artist. I look into myself, and I share what I see with my listeners and readers.

3.       Unlike politicians who know what is right and wrong for other people, I hardly know what is right for myself.

However, my politics, so to say, are very simple. I am looking for an ethical voice. It means that in any given circumstance, I would try to find out myself what is right and what is wrong. I do not believe in dogmatism. I insist that the ethical search is a dynamic process of shaping and reshaping.

A week ago or so, a friend of mine, the legendary musician Robert Wyatt, helped me put it into words in the most eloquent and simple way. “My politics”, he said, “is very simple, I am just an anti-racist”. This is really what it is all about, being an ‘anti-racist’.

I am totally against any form of racist politics and this is why I despise any form of Jewish politics left, right and centre. I am tired of all these ‘Jew only’ settings. Whether it is the ‘Jews only state’ or ‘Jews for peace’. I am against it because; it is there to promote Jewish tribal interests rather than humanity and brotherhood. The Jewish political experience is somehow always racially orientated and chauvinist to the bone.

Though I believe that people are entitled to fight for their rights e.g., the Palestinian national struggle, I also believe that people should know how to reinstate peace and harmony. As far as Israel and Jewish politics is concerned, this is exactly what we lack. All we see is vengeance and anger that lead to more and more violence. It is rather apparent that Israelis are not familiar with the notion of mercy and compassion. Jesus’ spiritually harmonious suggestion known as ‘turning the other cheek’ sounds to the Israeli as an amusing ludicrous concept. Apparently, for them, ‘shock and awe’, sounds far more appealing. They democratically vote for carnage, destruction and genocide. At the end of the day, they are entitled to vote. They are the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’, at least this is what they claim to be.

Source: , 07 February 2009

February 10, 2009
Talking Turkey About Israel

Philip Giraldi *

The Israeli invasion of Gaza and the slaughter of civilians was such an egregious error in judgment that the usual suspects are working overtime to make it all look like a heroic defense of democratic values. The expected beneficiary of the “defensive action,” the ruling Kadima Party, so miscalculated that it is now likely to lose today’s election, with the Israeli electorate convinced that an even more extreme right-wing government is the only solution to the moderate right-wing bungling.

Israel will likely choose hard-right nationalism by electing Bibi Netanyahu as the next prime minister. Netanyahu has never let any values, democratic or otherwise, stand in his way in his quest for a Greater (Arab-free) Israel encompassing all of the West Bank and running from the Litani River in Lebanon in the north to the Suez Canal in the south. He has already promised that if elected he will not turn any occupied land over to the Palestinians.

There have been numerous signs that the world is no longer buying into the Israeli creation myth, even in the United States, where the suffering of the Gazans, neatly concealed by most of the mainstream media, nevertheless produced an outpouring of sympathy. The beleaguered little state of Israel founded as a homeland and refuge for the victims of persecution in Europe has become a regional military superpower ruled by a corrupt political class, with a socialist economy kept afloat by the U.S. taxpayer. Israel continues and even expands its occupation of the lands of its neighbors and engages in the brutal suppression of those who resist. Far from seeking a political solution that would create two states side by side, it has deliberately aborted every genuine peace initiative and now seeks absolute regional hegemony, pressing forward with racist policies that marginalize its own citizens of Arab descent. Most of the world has finally realized that claiming perpetual victimhood as a shield against criticism does not work very well when you can muster Merkava tanks, helicopter gunships, and white phosphorus against a civilian population.

The sharp exchange between Israeli President Shimon Peres and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Davos on Jan. 29 exemplifies Israel’s public relations problem and also casts light upon what steps the Israeli government and its friends in the United States are taking to counteract the negative press. Media reports suggest that Israel preceded its attack on Gaza by alerting a network of supporters to post comments on blogs, saturating the Web with the Israeli government’s justification for its action. This was evident on a number of blogs, including Huffington Post and the Washington Note. Many of the posters were Israelis, and it is believed that a number of them were active-duty military personnel selected for their fluency in English and other European languages as well as their familiarity with the Internet.

The coverage of the Erdogan-Peres exchange was carefully managed in the U.S. media, but less restrained in Europe and the Middle East. In a one-hour discussion of Gaza moderated by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, an odd choice for such an important discussion, Peres was allowed 25 minutes to speak in defense of the Israeli attack. Erdogan and two other critics on the panel were given 12 minutes each. The YouTube recording of the debate shows Peres pointed accusingly at Erdogan and raised his voice. When Erdogan sought time to respond, Ignatius granted him a minute and then cut him off claiming it was time to go to dinner. Erdogan complained about the treatment and left Davos, vowing never to return. Back in Turkey, he received a hero’s welcome.

Four days later the Washington Post featured an op-ed entitled “Turkey’s Turn From the West” by Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish-born, American-educated academic who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). WINEP was founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Cagaptay is also on the board of the American Turkish Friendship Council, one of several Turkish lobbying groups that are supportive of the Israel-Turkey relationship. A review of Cagaptay’s writings reveals that he is AIPAC’s go-to guy for any argument that Turkey is becoming more anti-Western and religious.

That Cagaptay is a genuine expert on the country of his birth is clear, but his view on developments there is very much shaped by who pays him. He finds anti-Semitism lurking everywhere in Turkey and being “spread by the political leadership.” He is astonished by Erdogan’s assertion at Davos that Israel is “killing people.” He finds inexplicable the prime minister’s belief that there was “Jewish culpability for the conflict in Gaza” and that the “Jewish-controlled media outlets were misrepresenting the facts.” For good measure, Cagaptay believes it “doubtful whether Turkey would side with the United States in dealing with the issue of nuclear Iran,” and he sees a regrettable Turkish “solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes.”

AIPAC’s Turkey expert might be surprised to learn that most of the world, which saw the images of dying Palestinian children on nightly television, would probably agree with Erdogan. Israel planned its invasion of Gaza six months in advance, timed the assault for maximum political benefit for the ruling party and to engage the incoming U.S. president in its policies, committed war crimes against a largely defenseless civilian population, and then kept journalists out of the combat zone so it could lie about everything that it was doing. The U.S. media in particular chose to ignore the carnage and present the Israeli point of view. Though it would be unfair to claim that the media is controlled by any ethnic or religious group, it is certainly true that Jewish organizations mobilized to make sure that pro-Israel commentary far exceeded any reporting of Palestinian suffering.

Cagaptay likewise fails to see what the rest of the world sees regarding Iran. No one admires Iran’s government, but America’s European allies, not just Turkey, will not support yet another war in the Middle East, even if Tehran does move closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon. Turkey’s development of closer ties with the Islamic world, which Cagaptay tellingly insists on calling “Islamist,” is also an understandable response to being repeatedly snubbed in its bids to join the European Union, something that even WINEP’s reliable scholarly claque surely knows to be true.

Efforts to control and spin the narrative, to turn black into white, have been unrelenting since the Israelis decided to attack Gaza. Cagaptay is only a part of that effort, but his smearing of Turkey and its elected leaders is unfortunate, particularly as his newspaper audience probably knows little about Turkey and will assume that the analysis is credible. Anyone who knows Turks well knows that they are an exceedingly stubborn and honorable people who will invariably say what they think to be true. Prime Minister Erdogan spoke the truth in Davos and has been speaking the truth about the invasion of Gaza. Attempts to label him anti-Semitic and to denigrate the Turks in general will certainly have some impact, most certainly on the U.S. Congress, which will rapidly fall into line and comply with AIPAC’s instructions on an appropriate punishment. But Israel’s attempt to portray itself as always the victim of a global anti-Semitic, anti-Western conspiracy just will not stand any more, no matter how many Soner Cagaptays are paid by AIPAC to write for the Washington Post.

Source: www.antiwar.com, 10.02.2009

* Philip Giraldi is a former officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency who became famous for claiming in 2005 that the USA was preparing plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in response to a terrorist action against the US, independently of whether or not Iran was involved in the action. He is presently a partner in an international security consultancy, Cannistraro Associates.

February 10, 2009
Man in the News: Pope Benedict XVI

By Guy Dinmore

Published: February 6 2009 19:17 | Last updated: February 6 2009 19:17

As the head of the world’s oldest organisation, holding a global market share of 17.5 per cent and with defined values and established decision-making procedures, Joseph Ratzinger should be the envy of any corporate chief executive.

Yet in the space of two weeks Pope Benedict XVI has stumbled into the worst crisis of his four-year-old papacy, dealing in the process the most serious blow to relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish faith in half a century. Cardinals and bishops are starting to mobilise in revolt. For the moment their disquiet is aimed at a handful of figures surrounding the 81-year-old pontiff who they fear is becoming a timid recluse, buried in his reading and writing, vulnerable to manipulation.

That is the charitable explanation of why last month Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of four ultra-traditionalist clerics, including British bishop Richard Williamson, who has questioned the extent of the Holocaust and denied the existence of gas chambers in Nazi death camps.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Editorial Comment: A Pope’s fallibility – Feb-05

Merkel raps Pope over Holocaust row cleric – Feb-04

Pope opens YouTube channel – Jan-23

But for progressive theologians this latest attempt by Benedict to heal a decades-old schism confirms his barely disguised sympathies for the doctrinal views of the ultra-conservatives and calls into question the reforms of the historic Second Vatican Council of 1965. The harm done to interfaith dialogue is considerable, says Miroslav Volf, an Episcopalian and professor of theology at Yale University. “This is not the first time that this pope has caused such interfaith damage. He is an equal opportunity interfaith offender,” Prof Volf tells the FT, recalling the angry response of Muslims to the Pope’s 2006 Regensburg speech interpreted as equating Islam with violence.

“Only some of it can be attributed to the Vatican bureaucracy. He is over-zealous in protecting the truth of the faith and unity of the church, the hallmarks of his pontificate … His mistakes and blunders all lean in one direction, appealing to the traditionalists. He is not a Holocaust denier. But why this blunder?”

The reactions from political and religious leaders – including Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel – have focused on Mr Williamson’s blatant anti-Semitic (and sexist) views. That the decree was issued just days before International Holocaust Remembrance Day was seen as a public relations disaster. One close follower of the Vatican says Pope Benedict’s media image as “God’s rottweiler” is wrong. “In reality he is timid, shy, bordering on the recluse and could potentially be bullied.”

The pontiff is a popular teacher but appears cut-off, rarely giving access to cardinals and nuncios, unlike his predecessor. His isolation is a subject of considerable debate and mystery, as is how the decision was made to revoke the excommunication of the clerics, followers of the Pius X Fraternity established by Marcel Lefebvre, the schismatic French archbishop who died in 1991.

Sandro Magister, a prominent commentator, blames Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of state who is effectively the Vatican’s prime minister. The cardinal was “distinguished by his absence” in the affair, travelling in Mexico and Spain, indulging in endless rounds of conferences and celebrations. “Benedict XVI was left practically alone, and the curia (civil service) was abandoned to disorder,” Mr Magister writes on his blog.

Others suggest the Italian cardinal – appointed by the Pope in September 2006 – played a more deliberate role, keeping key cardinals out of the decision-making process. They note he helped the then Cardinal Ratzinger in trying to negotiate a solution with Lefebvre in 1988, shortly before Pope John Paul excommunicated the rebel archbishop and the four bishops he had illegally ordained.

In rare displays of public discord, prominent cardinals have expressed dismay at not being consulted. Cardinal Bertone was forced into damage control, issuing a statement that the Pope did not know of Mr Williamson’s views on the Holocaust. He also ordered the renegade bishop to recant his views if he wanted to serve as prelate in the Church.

Mr Williamson’s remarks on the gas chambers were made to a Swedish television station in November but only released on January 21. That was the day the Vatican decided to lift his excommunication although the decree was not made public until three days later. The timing has led to a conspiracy theory that someone in the curia tipped off the broadcaster. Even so, Mr Williamson had aired similar statements before. As Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, says: “All somebody had to do was Google him.”

Others must have known, despite their denials, critics contend. One was Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos who persuaded the Pope to reverse the excommunications. Cardinal Hoyos heads Ecclesia Dei, a group with ties to the ultra-traditionalists, sharing their adhesion to the traditional Latin mass whose return was permitted amid great controversy by the Pope in 2007. There are doubts Benedict will remove Cardinal Bertone, but a revolt by senior clerics could persuade him to resign.

For Benedict – the first German pope since Victor II in 1055 – the furore must be painful. While he has been unapologetic in his rejection of religious pluralism, moral relativisim, economic liberalism, contraception, divorce, women priests and same-sex civil unions, he has consistently spoken out against the Holocaust and persecution of Jews.

Born in 1927 in a Bavarian village not far from Hitler’s own birthplace, his childhood was spent in the shadow of the Third Reich. As a 14-year-old seminary student, he was obliged to join the Hitler Youth. He saw prisoners from the Dachau camp and Hungarian Jews shipped to their death. He was later sent to the Austrian Legion where he was “bullied by fanatical ideologues” and in 1945 he deserted, to be taken prisoner by US soldiers.

Ordained in 1951, he became a professor of dogma and fundamental theology at age 30, starting a long life in academia. By 50 he was archbishop of Munich and soon a cardinal but with little pastoral experience. In 1978 Karol Wojtyla became Pope and in 1981 persuaded Cardinal Ratzinger to head the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s enforcer of orthodoxy tracing its roots to the Holy Inquisition. He disciplined at least a dozen high profile, liberal Catholics. Some were excommunicated.

Much is now at stake in how Benedict responds to this latest challenge to the Church. In an interview he gave when still a cardinal, he remarked however: “I am like the cellist Rostropovich. I never read the critics.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

February 9, 2009

Category: Turkey

STOP BLATANT RACISM AGAINST THE TURKS

Comments by neutral Scholars

and

Outcomes of Trials

———————————————————————————————————

BRITISH GOVERNMENT position vis-à-vis Armenian claims

VIDEO: President’s first prime time press conference

Fethullah Gülen’s Grand Ambition

Gülen’s Background

Gülen’s Education Network

Eviscerating Checks and Balances

The Fifth Estate

What Are Gülen’s Intentions?

U.S. Government Support for Gülen?

Conclusions

Gilad Atzmon: Israel needs Turkey

Talking Turkey About Israel

Man in the News: Pope Benedict XVI

By Guy Dinmore

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Editorial Comment: A Pope’s fallibility – Feb-05

Merkel raps Pope over Holocaust row cleric – Feb-04

Pope opens YouTube channel – Jan-23