Turkish Forum English

Category: EU Members

European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 17 Dec. 2004

  • CYPRUS: Russia trip highlighted Anastasiades’ failings

    CYPRUS: Russia trip highlighted Anastasiades’ failings

    CYPRUS MAIL

    Anastasiades and Russian President Putin at their joint press conference

    ALL THE SHORTCOMINGS of President Anastasiades as a politician and head of state were displayed during his heralded official visit to Russia. His failure to exercise restraint when speaking publicly, his inclination to allow his emotions to rule his head, his poor judgement and inadequate diplomatic skills, his obsession with his domestic popularity ratings and his inability to see any difference between speaking at a Sunday memorial service in a Cyprus village and in front of an international audience were all evident on his Russia trip.

    The more he spoke – and he was given plenty of opportunities to do so – the more he showed himself up, oblivious to the harm he was causing himself and more importantly the country. Anastasiades went out of his way to cause offence to his EU partners whose policies towards Russia he openly criticised while absolving President Putin of any responsibility for the crisis in the Ukraine. Even if he believed that to be true there was no good reason for repeating it in public – worse still, on a visit to the country that has been behind the dispute – as it would not win him any friends in Brussels.

    Anastasiades appeared to be on a mission to antagonise the EU and the US during this badly-timed visit. He boasted that he was the first leader of an EU member-state to visit the Russian Federation during “this critical period”, informing journalists the two countries supported each other on all issues, but primarily, on the Cyprus problem, the economy and the Ukraine crisis. He did not openly say whether his government supported the invasion and annexation of Crimea as the matter was not raised, but he felt the EU was wrong to impose sanctions on Russia “on the suspicion Russia encouraged the separatists”.

    The Europeans had shown their double standards in this case he said because Russia had not invaded the eastern Ukraine whereas Turkey invaded Cyprus’ EEZ and the EU did not impose sanctions. This simplistic argument may have earned him applause back home – this is the audience he was targeting – but it was insensitive and foolish considering some 5,000 people have been killed and the separatists, using heavy weapons provided by Putin, have reduced eastern Ukraine to rubble forcing more than a million people to flee their homes.

    Believing Russian involvement in the Ukraine crisis was just a figment of the imagination of EU leaders, Anastasiades took a stand, with some other countries, against tough sanctions being imposed by the EU. If he had not, sanctions would have been tougher he claimed. “Cyprus is the most trustworthy voice for Russia within the EU,” he declared in a joint news conference with Putin. Again, it seems rather unwise to advertise such a dubious role, even if it sounds good to your hosts. In effect Anastasiades was warning his EU partners and Brussels not to trust him because he was promoting Russia’s interests in the Union.

    All these utterances went down very well in Cyprus where the anti-Western demagogues welcomed the supposed restoration of good relations with Moscow and hoped they would be strengthened. But apart from winning the plaudits of his fellow politicians in Cyprus, Anastasiades gained nothing meaningful or practical from his visit to Russia that would benefit Cyprus. Putin, despite his allegedly principled stand on international matters, did not even mention Turkey’s invasion of Cypriot EEZ, let alone issue a mild rebuke of the Turks; he would continue offering support on the Cyprus problem – it was reported – but this would be conditional on not upsetting Turkey.

    There was one big negative to the theatre staged in Russia by Putin and in which Anastasiades took a starring role. He will now be regarded a Putin pawn, with ample justification, that none of his fellow-leaders in the EU would trust or take seriously. He paid an official visit at a time when the EU was supposedly united against the Russian role in the Ukraine crisis, giving Putin the opportunity to embarrass Brussels, at least publicity-wise. And worse still, he openly sided with Russia against the EU over the Ukraine when there was no need to do so.

    All this, from a president, whose supposed foreign policy objective until a few months ago was to place Cyprus in the Western sphere of influence and try to join NATO. It is now clear that Anastasiades has no long-term goals and foreign policy is shaped by his whims and whatever he believes might improve his popularity rating.

     

     

     Küfi Seydali

     

  • Book Prospectus

    Book Prospectus

    (May 28, 2005)

    The Nazis’ Gifts to Turkish Higher Education and Inadvertently to Us All: Modernization of Turkish universities (1933-1945) and its impact on present science and culture.

     

    Arnold Reisman

    <reismana@cs.com>

    In 1933

    Untitled   

     

     
    Reichstag  burning!


    Untitled1

                                                                          In 1933

     

    Gates to Istanbul University

    Untitled2

    Some 15 years later

    This is a tale of individuals caught at the crossroads and in the cross-fires of history. Their native lands were in the throes of discarding them. Their lives were saved because an alien country was discarding a societal culture inherited from the Ottomans. Turkey recognized the need to modernize its society while Germany and Austria were literally throwing babies and much more, out with the bath water. The Nazis came to power.  Many of these intellectuals were Jewish.

    The book documents a bit of history that is dimly lit and largely unknown. In the 1930s the new republic of Turkey badly needed western intellectual know-how to create a modern system of higher education and to modernize practice in various professions. In the west Fascism was rising. Much of the intellectual capital in German speaking countries involved individuals unacceptable to the new ideology and those for whom the ideology was unacceptable. Most had no other emigration options. For those who did, professional employment was not guaranteed. Turkey extended invitations to these desperate souls.  For certain chits, the German Reich allowed the emigrations to take place.  Germany needed Turkey’s neutrality to keep the Bosporus and Dardanelles open to its navy and shipping at all times – including war times. Throughout WWII the pressure was high to have these expatriates returned to the Reich along with all Turkish Jews. Turkey never caved in.

     

    The system of higher education inherited by the Republic of Turkey in 1923, consisted of a few hundred Ottoman vintage (Islamic) madrasas, a fledgling university called the Dar-ül Fünun, and three military academies, one of which was expanded into a civil engineering school around 1909. With secularization enshrined in its constitution, the new government recognized a need for modernization/westernization throughout Turkish society and established a number of policies to bring this about. Indigenous personnel to do this were not to be had. Starting in 1933 and running through WWII, Turkey provided safe-haven for many intellectuals and professionals for whom the Nazis had other plans.

     

    This book discusses the impact of these émigré professors, on Turkey’s higher education in the sciences, professions, and humanities, and also on its public health, library, legal, engineering, and administrative practices. The multi-faceted legacy of this impact on present Turkish society with all its richness is documented if but in part. Some of the socio-economic reasons for Turkey’s not taking full advantage of the second and third generation progenies of its modern higher educational system, and the ensuing “brain drain,” are analyzed. Lastly, the book briefly addresses the impact on American science and higher education of the Turkish-saved professors, many of whom subsequently re-emigrated to the US.

    Acknowledgments:  The author is grateful to an old and dear friend Aysu Oral, for her knowledge of Turkish history, language, and culture, which greatly contributed to finding, abstracting, and translating  much text from Turkish language documents;  to graduate students, Ismail Capar and Emel Aktas who provided some of the Turkish material; the troika of  Eugen Merzbacher, distinguished physics Professor Emeritus, University of North Carolina, Matthias Neumark of Charlottesville, VA, and Andrew Schwartz of Acton Mass., both retired businessmen who provided many insights because they were there at the time, were not too young to understand events nor too old to recall and retell their stories; to Rita and Marek Glaser of Tel Aviv, Israel, also old and dear friends, for searching archival information and contacting Holocaust survivors for personal experiences that are relevant. Clearly, a number of scholars, archivists, and institutions have provided much of the information contained herein. Among these are Anthony Tedeschi and Becky Cape, Head of Reference and Public Services, The Lilly Library, Indiana University; Samira Teuteberg, AHRB Resource Officer, Centre for German-Jewish Studies; University of Sussex; Dr Norman H. Reid, Head of Special Collections, University of St Andrews Library, Scotland and to J. J. O’Connor and E. F. Robertson , Department of Mathematics and Statistics of the same university; Andrea B. Goldstein, Reference Archivist, Harvard; Viola Voss, Archivist, Leo Baeck Institute, New York; Ralph Jaeckel and staff of the von Grunebaum Center for Near East Studies, UCLA; Chris Petersen, the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers, Valley Library, Oregon State University; Stephen Feinstein, University of Minnesota; Rainer Marutzky, Braunschweig Institute for Wood Research; Dr. Klaus Kallmann, New York Natural History Museum (Ret); Prof. Dr. Johannes Horst Schröder, Institut fur Biologie, Munich (Ret); Meg Rich, Archivist and Daniel J. Linke, University Archivist and Curator of Public Policy Papers, Seeley G. Mudd, Manuscript Library, Princeton University; Marcia Tucker, Historical Studies-Social Science Library, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; Ken Rose, Assistant Director, Rockefeller Archive Center; Paul G. Anderson, Archivist, Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis; Julia Gardner, Reference/Instruction Librarian, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library; Virginia G. Saha, Director, Cleveland Health Sciences Library;  Nejat Akar MD, Professor of Pediatric Molecular Genetics, Ankara University, Faculty of Medicine; Professor Arin Namal, University Istanbul Medical Faculty Department of Medical Ethics and Medical History; Kyna Hamill, Tisch Library Archives, and  Amy E. Lavertu, Information Services Librarian, Hirsh Health Sciences Library at Tufts University; Historian Tuvia Friling of Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel, an expert on Jewish issues in the Balkans and Turkey during the relevant period; Daniel Rooney, Archivist, National [US] Archives and Records Administration; and especially to Ron Coleman, Reference Librarian, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, who went beyond the call of duty in providing references and did so in a most timely fashion.
    Key words: Turkey; History; History of science and technology; Development; Technology Transfer; Educational Policy; Government Policy; Higher education; Nazi persecution; Nazism; Holocaust; Shoah; Migration; Diaspora; Exile.

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR

     

    Arnold Reisman received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees in engineering from UCLA.  He is a registered Professional Engineer in California, Wisconsin, and Ohio and has published over 200 refereed papers and 14 books.  After 27 years as Professor of Operations Research at Case Western Reserve University, he chose early retirement in 1994.  During 1999-2003 he was Visiting Scholar in Turkey at both Sabanci University, and the Istanbul Technical University.  His current research interests are; technology transfer; epistemology of knowledge generation; meta research; and most recently, the history of German speaking exiled professors starting 1933 and their impact on science in general and Turkish universities in particular.  He is also actively pursuing his life long interest in sculpting.  He is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the World, American Men and Women of Science, and Two Thousand Notable Americans and is a Fellow of the American Association for Advancement of Science.

    Book Length

    Text length and number of visuals are negotiable. Manuscript delivered in nine (9) months or less of contract signing.

     

    TABLE OF CONTENTS (TENTATIVE)

    1. Introduction
    2. The Builders

             Architecture and City Planning

    1. The Preservators

    Archeology

    Library Science and librarianship

    Orientology

    Botany and zoology

    1. The Creators

    Performing arts

    Visual arts

    1. The Social Reformers

    Law

    Economics

    1. The Healers

    Medicine

    Dentistry

    1. The Scientists

    Astronomy

    Biology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry

    Mathematics and Engineering Science

    Philosophy and Science

    Physiology

     

     

    • University histories

     

    Ankara University

    Istanbul Technical University

    Istanbul  University

     

      1. Problems the emigres encountered

     

    • Correspondence and memoirs

     

    1. Legacy left behind

    Selected biographies of first-generation Turkish elite educated by the émigré professors.

    Selected biographies of second-generation Turkish elite educated by the émigré professors.

    Oral histories

    First generation: Turkish elite educated by the émigré professors.

    Surviving spouses

    1. Turkey’s post-war policies and practices: Effects limiting the legacy’s    

    impact potential.

    1. After their re-emigration, Turkey-saved professors’ impact on:

             American science and higher education

    German science and higher education

    Index

    References

    Appendix


    Sample chapters available on request.

  • Armenian “Settled History Syndrome”: An affliction that runs deep in the media

    Armenian “Settled History Syndrome”: An affliction that runs deep in the media

    By Ferruh Demirmen

    Anyone who tries to see or instill a measure of balance or open mindedness in the Western media on the question of Armenian “genocide” will soon discover he/she is out of luck. For the phenomenon, which I call the “Settled History Syndrome,” is not only palpable, but also widespread. It runs deep in the media across Europe and America. It is not new, but deserves special recognition under a name of its own – hence the term coined here. It is the product of year-in, year-out incessant propaganda perpetrated by the Armenian lobby on the so-called “Armenian genocide.”

    The syndrome explains how a group of certain historians or scholars, supposedly open minded, gather to discuss Armenian “genocide,” but colleagues who disagree are kept away as misguided renegades.

    It explains why anyone who challenges the Armenian version of history is labeled “Genocide denier,” often citing a self-appointed group called ”The International Association of Genocide Scholars“ as the infallible arbiter.

    It explains how minds are frozen, debate is stifled, and freedom of opinion is trampled upon – truth being the ultimate casualty.

    It explains how money and influence, fed by prejudice, create a cadre of ill-informed politicians and general public. The media, itself thrown into deep freeze, commonly plays the role of the facilitator.

    Turks who want to fight unfounded accusations from the Armenian side must first deal with this mindset affecting the media.

    Examples are myriad. I will first relay an anecdote, then continue with a recent example, both from America. No doubt, what goes on in America also goes on in Europe, with some mutations.

    The PBS Episode

    Time is early 2006. PBS, the national Public Broadcasting Service in America, is planning to air on April 17 a supposed TV documentary called “Armenian Genocide.” The film, directed by Andrew Goldberg and bankrolled by more than 30 largely Armenian foundations in America, will surely be an anti-Turkish diatribe based on distorted history. I and a small group of Turks and Turkish Americans contact the PBS headquarters in Alexandria , Virginia, to protest the screening of a one-sided story. (As it turned out, the film shamelessly started with a macabre scene of human skulls taken from a 1871 painting by a Russian artist. For a fuller account, see F. Demirmen, Turkish Daily News, April 24, 2006). We argued that, if PBS decides to go ahead with the screening, it should also show, as a balancing act, “The Armenian Revolt,” a newly released documentary directed by Marty Callaghan.

    The PBS headquarters did not change its mind. And the screening of “The Armenian Revolt” was out of consideration.

    I then took my case to the affiliate of PBS in Houston Texas, which was also planning to air “Armenian genocide.” Commenting on the film, the channel’s website carried the statement: “The International Association of Genocide Scholars affirms that the number of Armenian deaths at the hands of Ottoman Turks …” It was a reminder to the viewers that the “genocide” was a shut case.

    Nonetheless, I thought I should still try to educate the Houston channel, that what they would be airing was a prejudiced and distorted story. To that end, I contacted the programming director and sent him some archival material. After back-and-forth correspondence, I had my fingers crossed. At the end, the channel didn’t change its plans, but the programming director made an admission, which was revealing. He remarked that until I contacted him, they had assumed that “genocide” was a “settled history.”

    It was a Lilliputian victory. But it showed what the Turkish side is against: a mindset more or less frozen on its track.

    Pasadena Star Episode

    Fast forward 9 years. On January 15, 2015, the Pasadena Star in California published a news article titled: “Ground broken on Pasadena Armenian Genocide Memorial.” It was an announcement that the monument would be completed on April 18, ahead of the “100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide on April 24.” Pasadena happens to be next door to Los Angeles, a hotbed of Diaspora activism.

    As the Star put it, the monument would take “the form of a 16-foot-tall tripod … with water drops dripping … to represent each of the 1.5 million lives cut short by the Ottoman Turks in the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923.” The droplets would “fall every 21 seconds, so that 1.5 million drops will fall annually.” The tripod would represent “similarly shaped structures which Armenian leaders were hanged from during the Armenian Genocide.” Surrounding the tripod and stonework would be “12 pomegranate trees, representing each of the 12 lost provinces of Armenia.”

    Pictures of Armenian clerics solemnly praying at the ground breaking ceremony and an artist’s rendition of the tripod-shaped monument were included in the news.

    The description and symbolism were chilling; but infused in all was a prejudiced and distorted history. Particularly notable in the article was the absolutist tone in the language. “Genocide” was treated as a fact, with no hint as to its disputable character.

    Considering their mindset, I hesitated contacting the Star to express my disagreement that Armenian “genocide” is a fact. But the invitation at the end of the article, for readers to engage in “insightful conversations,“ was too good to resist. I also thought that, instead of sending a short blog, I should lay out my arguments in a full article so as to enlighten them. I informed the Star of my intention to submit a dissenting view, and proposed that they publish it as a stand-alone contribution by a guest writer. Their initial reaction was encouraging. They asked me to send in my article.

    In the article I took special care to acknowledge Armenian sufferings and losses, but also mentioned sufferings and losses on the Muslim side. I pointed to certain facts, and made corrections to some of the allegations in the article. I also tried to strike a conciliatory note, referring to the calls of Armenian religious leaders in Turkey, and pointed to the poisoning effect such a monument would have on the Armenian-Turkish relations in America. It was an appeal for “peace.” While I did not expect they would agree with my views, my expectations were high that the Star would publish my article – if for no reason than journalistic curiosity and respect for dissenting views.

    The response from the Star was an eye opener:

    “Yes. We don’t print op-eds by Holocaust deniers, nor articles denying the settled history of the Armenian genocide, recognized now by 23 countries and by the vast majority of scholars and historians not in the pay of the Turkish government.”

    So, I was a “Genocide denier,” and Armenian “genocide” was a settled history, the arbiter presumably being the all-knowing International Association of Genocide Scholars. Case shut. Opinions and facts brought forward by others will not change anything.

    The response was the embodiment of a frozen mind. Frozen in time, frozen in space. Here was another example of the “Settled History Syndrome.”

  • CYPRUS: Greek Cypriot Politicians need to leave their fantasy world

    CYPRUS: Greek Cypriot Politicians need to leave their fantasy world

    CYPRUS MAIL
    25.01.2015

    Our View: Our politicians need to leave their fantasy world

    DELUSIONS and myths have always been the currency of Cyprus political life, which took a divorce from reality from the day the Republic was established. Ever since, our politicians have been operating in a fantasy world of their own making, a world in which a tiny and powerless country (now also bankrupt) with the population of a mid-size town is a major political player, capable of imposing its own agenda on the world stage.

    This may sound like the script for a political satire or a comedy show but in Cyprus it is for real and despite the catastrophes it has brought upon the country over the decades the delusions of grandeur and lack of a sense of perspective still reigns supreme. The politicians, urged on by a media suffering from the same delusions, make all types of pronouncements that are based on a series of irrational assumptions the main one being that all states are equal irrespective of their military and economic power.

    No matter how many times this assumption has been as a fallacy by hard facts the politicians still adhere to it, as if the world had to operate in the way they imagine rather than in the way it does. Archbishop Makarios set the agenda when at the height of the Cold War he believed he could punish lack of US support for his brinkmanship, by strengthening relations with the Soviet Union and taking Cyprus into the Soviet-controlled Non-Aligned Movement, instead of NATO to which all guarantor countries belonged. Events of 1974 were the direct result of Makarios’ folly and his delusions of grandeur.

    But nothing was learned and Cypriot leaders continued to grossly overestimate their power and ability to influence events. For instance, there was the fiasco of the S300 missiles, which cost the taxpayer in excess of 200 million pounds, when then President Clerides thought he would redress the imbalance of power with Turkey by deploying ballistic missiles. They were never deployed because the Turks had threatened to take them out if they had been. The Papadopoulos presidency believed it could achieve with diplomatic means what Clerides had failed to with military means. After deceiving our EU partners over the Annan plan, he tried to use membership of the Union to put pressure on Turkey, but achieved nothing.

    There are countless examples of this folly and no matter how many times we were cut down to size, politicians still labour under the illusion that they can play international power games and impose their wishes on Turkey, the EU and rest of the international community. How many times in the last year have we heard Papadopoulos junior, Omirou and Lillikas calling for a new strategy in the national problem because the talks were futile? But would a new strategy make Cyprus a bigger and more powerful country that would be able to achieve the objectives of deluded politicians?

    Whatever strategy we adopt Turkey would continue to have overwhelming military, economic and diplomatic superiority which are what count. It would carry on violating our EEZ, because we have no practical way of stopping its ships, and continue its military occupation of the north because we have no practical way kicking her troops out. This is the harsh reality – however unjust and unfair – that we should accept.

    Nor will any third country help Cyprus defend its sovereign rights as the politicians have been claiming. In the last few months the above-mentioned party leaders have been arguing that we should strengthen relations with Russia as if this would make any difference to our extremely weak position. The latest folly is the proposal to offer Russia military facilities at a time when there is a major stand-off between Moscow and the West which included our EU partners. The idea that Russia would jeopardise its trade relations with Turkey, worth tens of billions of dollars per year and the potential of selling it vast quantities of natural gas, for the sake of helping Cyprus, is as unreal as the talk of the new strategy.

    Our politicians need to leave the fantasy world they have been residing and in before they cause even more harm to the country. The only way of avoiding future instability and cashing in on what hydrocarbon deposits we may have is by returning to the talks and reaching an agreement with the Turks. The settlement might not be as just and fair as we would like, because in the world of reality and hard facts we are in a very weak position, which we do not have the power to change either now or in the foreseeable future.

      Kufi Seydali

    Comment by John Mavro

    An excellent CM view which perfectly describes the absolutely tragic, depressing and catastrophic state of affairs we find ourselves in.

    With one major exception: the writer is being extremely charitable, almost naive, to refer to the protagonists of these disasters as “politicians”. Since this term implies some degree of intelligence and thinking ability.
    A better description for these corrupt idiots would that of a “curse”.
    Successive curses, not imposed upon us by anyone, but brought upon by our immaturity, moral bankruptcy and ultimately infinite stupidity.
    Since we never learn from our mistakes, from the 1950’s onward, and keep electing these stupid, anachronistic and narrow minded nationalistic peasants into power. Who then dutifully perpetuate the disasters of their predecessors as if this is our only way forward.
    And perhaps there maybe a hidden agenda in their muddled, delusional and non-visionary thinking. Lunacy in reality.
    Which is nothing more than to bring about a two state solution. To establish an ethnically cleansed, church approved “Hellenistic” nation which is totally isolated from our perceived perpetual enemies, the Turks- be it TCs or mainland Turks.
    And given their inherent dishonesty, cowardice and aversion to taking responsibility for their actions, they wish to “achieve” this final destruction not thrugh their direct actions but by having it imposed upon them by the international community. Thus achieving their goal without “political cost” to themselves.
    There cannot be any other explanation for their irrational, delusional and dishonest behavior.
    And most tragic of all is that they are very close to achieving their goal. De jure partition.
    Without any land adjustments, concessions from the other side or compensation. And to hell with the 200,000 or so refugees created by these same “politicians” and their cowardly actions.
    Some simple advice to our alleged “president”. Acknowledge reality, accept we are in an extremely weak position and unconditionally return to these “negotiations”. And negotiate a loose federation in exchange for land adjustments. We may then gain something.
    For if he does not, in 2018 little Nicholas, as the latest addition to this long list of curses will achieve his “vision”.
    When the international community recognizes two states- without any land adjustments or gains for our side.
    It is as obvious and clear as that to all thinking individuals with some common sense.
    Which given his “performance” so far, clearly excludes the idiot that passes as our “president” who much prefers to travel the world and stay away as much as he can from this dysfunctional, cursed banana republic to avoid confronting the numerous problems facing us.
    We do have the ” leaders” we deserve. Since we always put them into these positions where they have brought us untold destruction and even death.

     

    Comment by Ozay Mehmet

    Delighted to see this as Op-Ed article…summarizing comments and views of some of us in these pages, in exact words…Fantasy-world, myths….It shows that, at least the editors, are reading our comments.
    The important point, of course, is your call for Mr. A to return to the negotiating table, unconditionally, soonest and make the best deal possible with the Turks…About the only thing I disagree in the article is your implication that it will be a “bad” or “humiliating” deal because of the weakness of GC side.
    On the contrary I believe it will be honorable and fair deal because the Turks, especially Ankara, is driven by realism…not vengeance. Both sides, Turks and Greeks, have never before needed each other more….owing to regional and global conflicts…
    Lets hope your wise words will be heeded…without delay.

    The essence of a GC-TC deal, brokered thru Eide, must be Land-for-Peace….TCs to return 5%+ [ including Varosha/Maras] in return for 50-50 ownership of a brand new United Cuprus…or Agreed Loose Confederation, legitimizing the existing two-states, both within EU, with an agreed border adjustment.

  • PARIS IS SEETHING, TURKEY IS STINKING

    PARIS IS SEETHING, TURKEY IS STINKING

    10675738_10153015972938330_8555134918826886992_n

     

    Istanbul
    7 January 2015

    Enough! No more Turkish experts. No more lying politicians. No more cheating and stealing. No more talk of the obscene palace wherein resides the source of all of it. No more rancid, pompous rhetoric from the president of this stinking country. No more television discussion panels. No more Turkish language for it has died from murderous abuse. Shame covers Turkey like gas from a swamp. Breathe! Breathe! Breathe, you Turks!

    You, the Turkish people, have so diligently supported your terrorist government. What didn’t you understand? What clouded your minds? Islam? Please be serious. What clouded your minds was money. Bribes. Jobs. Big construction contracts. Unnecessary bridges. Irrelevant airports. Polluting power plants. Coal in bags. You were cheated there, too. Coal and stones. Can you tell coal from stone? Shit from shoe polish? The government couldn’t even give you a “pure” bribe. Such is its cheating, thieving nature. Thefts. Nothing could prevent you from supporting a criminal for prime minister who grew to become a criminal as president. And nothing could prevent you from supporting the treasonous opposition parties who collaborate with the terrorist government and foreign powers intent on your destruction. Bow down, Turks! Stoop and bathe in the blood of innocents! Let it run up to the elbows! Stoop! Stoop! Bow to your boss!

    It was all in front of your noses, this stink. This rotten game played with Syria. This disgusting, double-faced game known as being-a-friend-of-Erdogan. And so the weapons and bestial volunteers flowed through Turkey. And so rose ISIS! And Hatay was destroyed. Erdogan, the big shot friend of America. Erdogan, the expert on the Middle East. Erdogan, a man whose venality defies description, indeed a scowling metaphor of venality. And the corruption continued to flow. Arms to terrorists under the cover name of Free Syrian Army. Moderate Islamic “folks” trying to overthrow a duly constituted, sovereign nation—Syria! He is the source of the evil, of the beheadings, the slaughters, the rapes, the genocide of the Syrian Diaspora. And all the thefts from the moderate Islamic killers flowed back into Turkey. How eager were these Turks to buy cheap gasoline, stolen whisky, stolen cars. Isn’t god great? What a bargain! Cheap gas for the lives of innocent Syrians. Good job!  Eat! Eat! Eat, you Turks!

    The blood of the innocents in Paris is on the Turkish government’s hands. Erdogan, this most unnatural creature, has already destroyed his own country. And 53% of the Turks think that this is a good idea, if they are thinking at all. This Erdogan was America’s main man. A hard guy who could make it all happen. America loves guys like this. They make movies about them. But this hard guy had another agenda, and it wasn’t moderate. His ego was as big as all outdoors. Look at his house. Can you understand, you 53% of the Turks who are the equivalent of war criminals?  You aiders and abettors of terrorism and murder! And you of the remainder, the 47% who think your ideas are the only important ideas and delay and discuss while the fascists prepare the end of Turkey as a nation. Talk! Talk! Talk! And then the back of your skull suddenly splinters like all the others.

    The weapons in Paris arose in Syria through Turkish hospitality. The road to hell leads through Turkey. And so does the road to Paris. And so do these others, these big shots who think they know something. These are the ones who have helped Erdogan’s Turkey become a terrorist state. Their guilt is vast. And is no mystery to normal, ordinary people. And a complaint was filed with the International Criminal Court on 6 October 2014.

    I have the honor to file with you and the International Criminal Court (ICC) this Criminal Complaint against

    U.S. citizens Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Forbes Kerry,John Owen Brennan, Michael Joseph Morell, David Howell Petraeus, and Leon Edward Panetta;

    Turkish citizens Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ahmet Davutoğlu and Hakan Fidan;

    Saudi Arabian citizens King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and Prince Saud al-Faisal; 

    Qatari citizens Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa and Al Thani Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani;

    Jordanian citizens Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein and Abdullah Ensour;

    Croatian citizens Ivo Josipović and Zoran Milanović;

    Belgian citizen Elio Di Rupo;

    Bulgarian citizens Boyko Borisov, Marin Raykov Nikolov and Plamen Vasilev Oresharski;

    French citizen François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande;

    Great Britain citizen David William Donald Cameron;

    Romanian citizens Traian Băsescu and Victor-Viorel Ponta; 

    for their criminal policy planning, subsequent crimes against humanity and ongoing crime of aggression in Syria.

    I accuse the above listed individuals of planning, preparing, initiating and executing an act of criminal aggression resulting in the commission of grievous crimes against humanity. These crimes are both “widespread” and “systematic” within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed the “Crime of Aggression” by supporting and arming brutal and bestial mercenaries in violation of Rome Statute articles 8(2)(a), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d), 8(2)f) and 8(2)(g). Furthermore, the Accused have committed numerous “Crimes against Humanity” in flagrant, repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(d), 7(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Finally, the Accused’s Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity as specified above constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues today. 

    Read the details below. It won’t take long. These are the ones that should be arrested immediately.

    But first, Hollande! Then Erdogan!

     

    James (Cem) Ryan
    Istanbul
    7 January 2015

     

  • CYPRUS: Greek Cypriot side remains firm

    CYPRUS: Greek Cypriot side remains firm

    By Jean Christou

    President Nicos Anastasiades on Tuesday met political party leaders ahead of his meeting later with UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide where he is due to give an official response for the Greek Cypriot side’s rejection of a proposal for a twin-track process to resolve the hydrocarbons dispute.

    After the meeting at the presidential palace, Government Spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said there had been a good exchange of views with the party leaders on the argument the Greek Cypriot side would be putting to Eide.

    The content of this position would remain a private matter between the President, his aides and the UN Special Adviser during their meeting later, the spokesman said. Anastasiades is due to meet Eide at 6.30pm.

    “Mr Eide will be briefed through this meeting and not in public,” Christodoulides said.

    What he could say, was that the position of the Greek Cypriot side had not changed and was unanimous. “The issue of hydrocarbons can in no way be discussed either at the [negotiating table] table nor during any other parallel process,” said the spokesman.

    “It is very important that the party leaders firmly agree on this position.”

    The spokesman said the issue of energy was an important incentive both to the Turkish Cypriots and to Turkey to solve the Cyprus problem as soon as possible. “Any other discussion or idea for discussion serves as a vehicle for failure to resolve the Cyprus problem,” Christodoulides said.

    “It was Turkey by its actions, which have escalated the situation, that led us to the decision to suspend our participation in the negotiations, so any action or efforts [to defuse the situation] should be directed there.”

    In early October, Turkey announced plans to carry out surveys within Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and sent in the seismic vessel Barbaros on October 20 with plans to carry out exploration until December 30. This prompted Anastasiades to withdraw from the talks. The Greek Cypriots will not contemplate returning to the talks until the Barbaros has left the EEZ, it has said.

    Eide has been trying to defuse the situation recently suggesting a twin-track process where hydrocarbons would be discussed in parallel to the settlement talks. This has been rejected by both sides. The Special Adviser arrived back on the island on Monday for a week of meetings with leaders, the chief negotiators, other political figures, ambassadors and academics.

    The UN said earlier in the week, Eide was expecting an official response to the rejection of his proposal.

    CYPRUS MAIL
    26.11.2014

    Turkish Cyprus says equal rights to resources ‘our red line’

     

      Küfi Seydali

    Comment by Fevzi Ogelman (1) and John Mavro (2)

    (1) – Fevzi Ogelman

    The history of Cyprus is littered with Greek Cypriot mistakes that gave them grief every time. After losing a third of the island and making a huge proportion of their people refugees in ’74, they’re at it again. This time, encouraged by the ‘recognition’ afforded to them by the international community, they think they can exploit the riches under the sea exclusively when the UN, US, EU and others are saying that both communities must benefit. When will they realise that it won’t work?

    (2) – John Mavro

    The headline of this article above, ” Greek Cypriot side remains firm” is incorrect.

    It should read: ”As anticipated, the Greek Cypriot side remains firm in its perennial, infinite stupidity”.

    How else can any sensible individual, interpret the following gems from the genius who doubles up as ” government spokesman”:

    – “The issue of hydrocarbons can in no way be discussed either at the [negotiating table] table nor during any other parallel process,” said the spokesman.

    So when does this extension of the useless, gutless president propose that the issue of the hydrocarbons be discussed? If not at the negotiating table?

    Since these hydrocarbons were first found, have we not heard from ALL these corrupt ”politicians”, without exception and including the super patriots such as Omirou, Papdopoulos Junior, Lillikas etc, that these could be the catalyst required to reach a settlement on the long suffering Cyprus ”problem”? Is this not the right opportunity to use our (very small) trump card?

    Or is the ”government spokesman” avoiding this issue for the sole purpose of delaying and driving these latest talks to a dead end? So that his boss may enjoy more F1 grand prixs until 2018, and maybe beyond? What other reason can there be to the out of hand rejection of Mr Eide’s very sensible proposals?

    – “It is very important that the party leaders firmly agree on this position.”

    Really?

    Since when is it important for these career super patriots, the rejectionists and the partitionists making up less than 30% of the popular vote to AGREE on any position of the Cyprus ”problem”? Since we all know that that their entire, miserable ”careers” have been built on maintaining the Cyprus ”problem” very much a problem without the prospect of any solution?

    -“Any other discussion or idea for discussion serves as a vehicle for failure to resolve the Cyprus problem,” Christodoulides said.

    Note the irrationality of the Christodoulides’ ”logic” here. That any other idea, suggestion or proposal which falls outside the thinking of these idiots, can only serve as ”vehicle for failure”! After all, all these corrupt, unintelligent peasants who have led us from catastrophe to catastrophe, since 1960, are also infallible. They know best. And more than the rest of the world – including the UN, the US, the EU and just about everyone else.

    The above statements by this pompous propagandist merely confirms why this place has been utterly destroyed by ”leaders” such as his boss.

    Unintelligent, in some cases uneducated, peasants who believe that this place is their personal fiefdom. To plunder at will for self enrichment.

    Individuals with no vision, nor ability, nor statesmanship to look ahead and visualize a modern country without political problems. Without any more ”freedom fighters” ,”liberators” and super patriots who have reigned supreme here since 1955. With the well known disastrous results.

    Anastasiades should actually do some self critique. And realize he has painted himself into a corner. As well as being hijacked by the super patriots, the rejectionists and the partitionists.

    He should ditch these cancers and return to the negotiating table. Accept Mr Eide’s sensible suggestions and place the hydrocarbons firmly on the agenda.

    It is the only chance of reaching an acceptable win-win solution. And to extract the hydrocarbons for the benefit of the whole island.

     
    Like