Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

The United States Needs No Enemies,

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The United States Needs No Enemies,

    THE UNITED STATES NEEDS NO ENEMIES,
    WITH FRIENDS LIKE TURKEY!

    By
    Dr. Christos Evangeliou
    Professor of Philosophy
    Towson University, USA


    The war in Iraq, so far, has cost the lives of more than seventeen hundred American solders, with thousand more wounded, not to mention the billions of dollars spent. The war effort has produced minimal results, that is, a “cleaned” Saddam Hussein, sitting in his prison waiting for trial, and an inefficient Constitutional Committee struggling desperately to meet the new deadline for the New Constitution of Iraq.
    It is not surprising, then, that many Americans, even those who supported the Iraq war initially, now seem to have second thoughts about the wisdom of starting the war and the flimsy grounds, on which such serious decision was based. Clearly, in the minds of many Americans and friends of America around the world, the “phenomenon” of Saddam sitting in his prison room watching TV was not worth the pain of even a single wounded soldier, let alone the lives of American citizens and friends of America.
    Before the war, three predictions were circulating, which the war has proven untrue. First, of course, was the “myth” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; second, the “myth” that the secular regime of Saddam had “official” connections with the religious fanatics of Al Qaeda; third, the most dangerous “myth” of all that the terrorist threat to America (and the post 9/11 terrorized world) will diminish, as a result of a forceful intervention in Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime. All these have received plenty of political attention and public discussion two and a half years into this war.
    But there is another “myth,” which the war in Iraq brought to light, but has not received equal attention in the media. This is the “myth” that Turkey was America’s “most reliable ally,” within the NATO structure. For more than fifty years, since Turkey entered the NATO Alliance in the early 1950ies, this “myth” had been cultivated intensively and believed widely by the policy makers in the United States and in Europe.
    Having the second largest army in NATO and being well equipped with American weapons, Turkey was considered as the “most-trusted” allied friend. So much so, that it was tolerated even when it used the NATO weapons for defense to invade and occupy about half of Cyprus in 1974, forcing about half of its population out of their homes. No other NATO country (certainly, not Greece) would have done such a terrible deed with impunity. But it was taken for granted that Turkey’s built up of military strength would be at hand in the hour of NATO’s need (facing then the threat of Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and Central Asia). Especially in the Middle East, apparently because of its strategic location in that volatile part of the world, Turkey’s role as a potential helpful NATO ally was systematically and continuously overestimated.
    Well, the war in Iraq came to prove that all this was baseless wishful thinking. Turkey was offered billions of American dollars in compensation and as an inducement. But, at the end, it refused to support NATO’s venture into Iraq, although it bargained hard for more cash. Since other NATO countries had refused to participate militarily, the Turkish refusal might have appeared as an “excusable misstep.”
    However, Turkey went much further than this, when it refused to allow the NATO army to open a second front in Northern Iraq in the critical moment of the war, spring of 2003. This second refusal by the newly elected Erdogan Government was unworthy of even a friend, let alone allied friends, and very costly to American interests. This Turkish plan of the second refusal was similar in nastiness and brutality with the Attila II Plan, which Turkey applied so ruthlessly in August of 1974, and the United States unwisely tolerated then. Now it pays the price.
    The well-thought out strategic plan to enter Iraq from the North would have shortened the war considerably. It would also have given the opportunity to the American army to capture most of Saddam’s generals and other supporters, who escaped to the North and the West before the allied armies got there. Most importantly, it would have made it much more difficult for the fugitives and the insurgents to save their cash and ammunition, to regroup so quickly and efficiently, and to start their deadly quotidian attacks.
    The killings are still going on in Iraq. They have increased the American casualties from less than two hundred in the summer of 2003 to almost two thousand, two years later. Surprisingly, no one (at least not publicly and loudly enough) seems to hold Turkey responsible for the unfolding and mostly avoidable tragedy in Iraq. The “most-trusted” NATO ally proved to be the most unreliable in the critical hour of need. For Turkey not only did not help the war effort, it even made it more difficult. It did all these bad things for America in a cold and calculating manner, which should have shocked all concerned Americans. They should have demanded a radical revision of the US policy towards this particularly unhelpful ally.
    As if that was not bad enough for the future of Iraq and the fate of the American venture there, the policy of keeping the three diverging parts of Iraq (Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni) united is apparently faulty. It has been proven wrong and costly in American lives and dollars but, ironically, it was adopted apparently to please Turkey, the “good” NATO ally. Because Turkey fears that the natural tri-partition of Iraq may lead to an independent Kurdish State in Northern Iraq, it objects to such sensible solution of this problem. So it is bound to get more complicated as time goes by and the attacks on innocents Iraqis continue.
    But that is exactly what Turkey wants “diplomatically.” It hopes that, sooner or later, the Americans will be fed up with this bloody bath and pull out of Iraq, allowing Turkey to imitate Saddam and try to resolve its chronic Kurdish problem, as it resolved the Armenian problem and Asia Minor problem, about a century ago. But that is not by any stretch of the imagination in the US’s best interests.
    America would have been served better, saving thousands of lives of its brave solders and the lives of innocent Iraqis, if it had adopted a different and sensible policy. As soon as the Saddam army had dissolved, it should have allowed the liberated Iraq to be divided naturally and peacefully into Kurdish North, Shiite South, and Sunni Center, squeezed between the other two and kept under tight control. If such policy had in all probability worked well for the US interests and saved many lives, but Turkey did not like, then too bad for Turkey!
    Turkey might fear that, if the tripartite division had worked well in Iraq, and served the long-term strategic interests there, then possibly something similar could happen to Turkey itself. Like Iraq, turkey too seems naturally divided into three parts, the Kurdish, the European (or westward looking) and the Asiatic (or eastward looking). These three parts have very little in common, other than a “Turkish identity,” forced on them after the end of World War I. The last two parts do not even want to be part of the European Union, as the first part wishes. The Kurds want to be part of a united Kurdistan in the near future, while the Asiatic Turks would like to be reconnected with their brethren in Central Asia.
    So, hypothetically, with Western Turkey in European Union, with Eastern Turkey in Central Asia, and with Southern Turkey united with other Kurds, every one would be happy and the American interests well served in that strategic area of the world. But will the policy makers in the US see these advantages and act accordingly, before more lives of innocent people and brave soldiers are lost in vain?
    "All truth passes through three stages:
    First, it is ridiculed;
    Second, it is violently opposed; and
    Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

  • #2
    Turkey-Israel Military Arrangement

    Turkey-Israel Military Arrangement
    By Gene Rossides
    January 10, 2005
    The Turkey-Israel military arrangement initiated in 1996 is not in the best interests of the United States nor is it in the best interests of Israel.

    That arrangement was initiated primarily to obtain profits for Israel¢s arms industry, and not for reasons related to Israel¢s security as a nation.

    The late Professor Amos Perlmutter, a Middle East expert, stated on June 21, 1999 at an American Hellenic Institute noon forum that the goal of the military cooperation understanding from Israel¢s viewpoint was to provide jobs and profits for the Israeli arms industry.

    In response to a question he stated it was not aimed at Greece. It was simply arms cooperation with Turkey for profits. In 2003, Defense News ranked Israel number 3 in arms exports based on 2002 contracts including significant sales to Turkey.

    Israel does not need Turkey to defend itself. As was astutely observed long ago by Israeli General Moshe Dayan, Turkey is not within Israel¢s defense perimeter. Turkey is thus of limited value to Israel.

    The Turkey-Israel military arrangement can be considered harmful to Israel as it has been an impediment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the road map because of its misguided emphasis on the military instead of diplomacy.

    It is also tragic that part of the understanding between Israel and Turkey was that
    Israel would continue to deny the Armenian Genocide and would not comment on Turkey's human rights violations against Turkey's 20% Kurdish minority.

    Furthermore, Israel's military cooperation with Turkey makes Israel an accessory to Turkey's ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide against its 15-20 million Kurdish minority. It should also be noted that the U.S. military and economic assistance to Turkey these past decades has made the U.S. the prime accessory to Turkey¢s massive human rights violations against the Kurds.

    Israel¢s failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide mirrors those nations and individuals who do not acknowledge the Jewish Holocaust. Unfortunately, Israel does not stand alone in this regard: the U.S. Executive Branch has also failed to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The U.S. and Israel also need to acknowledge the genocide by Turkey between 1914-1923 of 350,000 Greeks of the Pontos, Black Sea region.



    The attempts to deny the Jewish Holocaust have been vigorously denounced and rightly so by Israel and the U.S., in books, articles, speeches and in the media. Yet where is the outcry against Turkey's and Israel¢s denial of the Armenian Genocide? And where is the outcry against Turkey's horrendous crimes against its Kurdish minority?

    It is imperative that the U.S. change its policy towards Turkey. If nothing else, Turkey's refusal on March 1, 2003 to allow U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front on Iraq should have resulted in a critical review of U.S. policy towards Turkey. The successful prosecution of the war by the U.S. against Iraq without Turkey's help proved Turkey's marginality as a strategic resource in the region.

    Unfortunately, a critical review of U.S.-Turkey relations has been blocked by the handful of Turkey's proponents to the detriment of U.S. interests. The handful of Turkey's proponents is comprised of present and former U.S. officials, think tank advocates and Turkey's paid U.S. foreign agents registered with the Department of Justice.

    Leading the pack are Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Under Secretary for Policy, Douglas Feith, former Defense Advisory Board member Richard Perle, State Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Marc Grossman and U.S. registered foreign agents for Turkey, former Congressmen Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Stephen Solarz (D-NY) who are paid $1.8 million annually by Turkey. Mr. Feith is a former paid agent of Turkey who headed International Advisors Inc. (IAI) from 1989-1994 and received $60,000 annually. IAI was initiated by Richard Perle and was registered with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent for Turkey. Mr. Perle is a former paid consultant for Turkey in his capacity as a paid consultant to IAI at $48,000 annually.

    U.S. policy regarding Turkey is not being run on the basis of what is best for the U.S., but on the basis of what Israel¢s proponents believe is best for Israel, which they then equate with what is best for the U.S. How else can one explain the decades long appeasement and double standards applied to Turkey on aggression, the rule of law and human rights. The Cold War has been over for 15 years.

    The overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans recognize the Armenian Genocide and are appalled by Turkey¢s horrendous human rights abuses against its Kurdish minority and citizens generally.

    A critical review of U.S. policy towards Turkey and a termination of the Turkey-Israel military arrangement is needed in the best interests of the U.S. Included in such a review should be a strong recommendation for support of Turkey¢s human rights organizations and its leaders.



    Gene Rossides is President
    of the American Hellenic Institute and
    former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
    "All truth passes through three stages:
    First, it is ridiculed;
    Second, it is violently opposed; and
    Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    Comment


    • #3
      Never say never

      By Narine Mkrtchyan/ President Of The National Press Club (Armenia), Editor In Chief Ambion Newspaper
      Friday, November 4, 2005


      Narine Mkrtchyan is a visiting editor-in-chief of AMBION newspaper from Armenia and the president of the National Press Club (Armenia). She has spent two weeks working and learning with the Community Newspaper Company and the Watertown TAB & Press.

      European Union membership talks have been extremely hard for Turkey. It was obvious that Ankara, knocking on EU doors, was nervous about the prospect of being rejected. And had it not been for cajoling of European partners on the part of Washington, Turkey might well stay aside from the opportunity of playing a role on European stage for a long time.

      Nobody doubts that Turkey is a strategic ally of the United States; during the war in Iraq, Turkey has made Washington's feet dirty not a single time. They were forced to forget it in the U.S. in spite of the fact that at the hard time for America, Turkey turned face from him.

      Washington had lessons to learn from this slap in the face from Turkey. Turkey's crafty policy took from the U.S. what it desired. Washington, frustrated by Ankara's refusal to allow its territory to be used for military bases against Iraq, but not wanting to lose its perceived ally, began to flirt with this naughty child, pressing the issue of negotiations of Turkey's EU membership.

      The reality is that Europe is not only a geopolitical force, but a cradle of political culture and education. Turkish extremism, in the forms of both past and present times, has no rightful place inside the gates of Europe. Why do these undemocratic features of Turkey not bother the U.S. at all? And why is the United States so supportive of Turkey and its quest to join the EU. Perhaps, the U.S. wants a new ally in the EU.

      What will the U.S. gain from this? A country that has problems almost with each neighbor, and the history of which always goes after as a ghost, and which is not able to show a will to put an end to historical mistakes.

      The next circumstance, which has to make the U.S. to think over, is that Ankara does not fulfill conditions imposed by the U.S.; in spite of pressure from the latter, the border with Armenia is closed yet, and Armenia is deprived of communications.

      Also, Muslim extremism can be supported by the government at any moment in this country (if it is not the case now). Turkey is not a democratic country; human rights violations are quite common and the U.S. knows it.

      It is clear and natural that Turkey is needed for the United States to have a base of support and influence in the Near East. But it is difficult to state adequately that these kind of high-level relations between Turkey and the U.S. are beneficial for both sides. From the global point of view, Ankara absolutely benefits from these relations, giving a chance to Washington to win only local fights.

      And at least, it is possible that during coming two decades, the Turkish way of thinking will prevail in this country, and as a result of global changes, Turkey may be broken into several parts. In this case, whom will the United States continue its policy with?

      Has the United States, that likes to make long term counts, neglected this perspective? Or may be a new collaborator is needed?

      If American political thought does not view this perspective as possible, the well-known proverb must me recalled - "Never say never."

      Comment


      • #4
        Turkish Daily Accuses Cia Of 'crimes Against Humanity'

        AZG Armenian Daily #205, 11/11/2005


        Turkey



        "A sort of human smuggling sponsored by governments is gradually becoming a
        nightmare for the entire world... Are we going to cover up operations,
        unlawful acts, and crimes against humanity committed by the CIA or on its
        behalf in this country", Yeni Safak, quoting foreign media on alleged secret
        CIA interrogation centers abroad, says. It adds: "State-sponsored unlawful
        acts and abduction of people have been institutionalized just like
        state-sponsored terrorism". It also says that the "secret torture centres"
        in Eastern Europe will be recorded in history as "the United States'
        Auschwitzs". The paper also asks questions about Turkey's role in the
        events. The following is the text of a column by Ibrahim Karagul entitled
        "Who were aboard a CIA plane which took off from Istanbul?", published by
        Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak website on 3 November:

        A plane, which had taken off from Istanbul, landed on Copenhagen airport in
        Denmark on 7 March. It waited there for 23 hours before taking off for
        Keflavik airport in Iceland. It later departed to fly to an unknown
        destination in the United States.

        It was later revealed that the plane belonged to the CIA, which created
        uproar in Denmark. Frank Aaen, defence policy spokesman of Union Party, a
        left-wing opposition party, asked Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller to
        explain the reason for the CIA plane's arrival in the capital city.

        The Danish Communications Minister said that the plane with tail number
        N221SG, had arrived in Copenhagen at 9 A.M. local time on 7 March after a
        flight originating from Istanbul. He noted that the plane took off at 8:04
        A.M. on the next day for a flight to Keflavik, Iceland, adding that they had
        received no information about the reason for the plane's arrival in Denmark.
        It was later revealed that those planes had been using the Danish airspace
        since 2001.

        A state-controlled television station in Sweden later reported that Turkish
        security units had handed over some people, who the United States believed
        were terrorists, to the CIA after apprehending them in operations they
        carried out in Turkey and abroad. It cited an operation carried out in March
        as an example. The report said: "There were a group of terrorists, who were
        being hunted by the United States and captured on Turkish soil, aboard the
        plane. It was a CIA cargo. They were first taken to Copenhagen via Turkey
        and then sent to the United States via Iceland for being interrogated by the
        CIA."

        Many reports have appeared in newspapers in the United States and other
        countries about the CIA's secret torture camps across the world. Reports
        issued by some human rights organizations alleged that people kidnapped from
        certain parts of the world had been taken to around ten countries, where
        they had been questioned and tortured. They claimed that some of those
        people were killed and that US military bases and warplanes were used as
        torture camps. The reports also noted that the intelligence agencies of many
        countries of had collaborated with the CIA in committing those crimes
        against humanity.

        The identities of the people, who were aboard that Gulfstream 5 VIP plane,
        remain a secret. They are denied all legal rights and it is not possible to
        track their whereabouts and get information about their conditions. Thus, a
        sort of human smuggling sponsored by governments is gradually becoming a
        nightmare for the entire world.

        These operations are carried out by Premier Executive Transport Services, a
        front company, by using its planes. The Washington Post reported that the
        tail number of one of those planes was N3779P. The planes operated by the
        CIA's front company secretly arrived in Baghdad, Kuwait, Karachi, Riyadh,
        Dubai, Tashkent, Baku, and Rabat, Morocco in order to carry smuggled people
        after 2001.

        It is known that the CIA has used 23 planes and formed seven front companies
        for that purpose. The plane, which flew from Istanbul from Copenhagen,
        belongs to Path Cooperation, one of those companies.

        Why does not anybody make some comments about that issue? Are we going to
        cover up operations, unlawful acts, and crimes against humanity committed by
        the CIA or on its behalf in this country? Let me cite a passage from my
        article entitled "Offshore Torture Centres," which appeared on 6 July: "We
        must take an interest in and inquire about the whereabouts of many people
        smuggled out of tens of countries located on the coasts of the Atlantic
        Ocean and the Pacific Ocean and seek answers to those questions. We know
        that American military bases are used as interrogation and torture bases. We
        also know that ships belonging to the US Navy are used as interrogation
        centres. Where are hundreds or probably thousands of people, who have gone
        missing? What kind of a tragedy are the families, spouses, children, and
        parents of those people experiencing? Who could they turn to for help? What
        are those people actually accused of? Why are not legal proceedings brought
        against them? Why are not they formally charged with committing a crime?
        There are hundreds of unsubstantiated allegations and many people were
        apprehended at their homes, streets, schools, workplaces, and mosques and
        then taken to unknown places due to those allegations. Some of them were
        abducted while they were at their stores or walking in the street. Those who
        have legitimized torture and state-sponsored terrorism have also
        institutionalized kidnapping people. State-sponsored unlawful acts and
        abduction of people have been institutionalized just like state-sponsored
        terrorism. Intelligence units teams were set up, methods were devised, and
        secret areas were allocated for that purpose.

        It was reported that the CIA had taken people it abducted to ships sailing
        on oceans. Manfred Nowak, the United Nations' special rapporteur on torture,
        has said that there were very serious allegations that the United States had
        secret prisons such as the prison ships sailing across the Indian Ocean.
        They are ghost ships. The United States is using international waters in
        order to avoid law, moral values, and humanity.

        Diego Garcia, a 1,600-km long island on the Indian Ocean from which B-52s
        that rained bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq took off and was not affected by
        tsunami waves that hit all countries in south Asia, has turned into an
        island of torture and terror where missing people are being kept and ghost
        shops are anchored. It was reported that US warships were constantly
        carrying prisoners to that island, which is described as the biggest
        offshore centre of torture.

        Events taking place in a variety of prison and torture camps located in
        various places ranging from the centre of Paris to rainforests of Thailand
        and from ghost ships on the Ocean to deserts in North Africa are dragging
        humanity towards a dark future.

        Did you know that prisoners being transported to Guantanamo are kept at
        Incirlik Air Base for almost two hours?

        The Washington Post yesterday reported that the majority of secret torture
        centres were located in the eastern European countries, which are the United
        States' new allies. I have no doubt that the biggest camp is in Poland.
        Those camps will be recorded in history as "the United States' Auschwitzs."

        I was not planning to write about unpleasant things today, which is the
        first day of the religious holiday, but I could not help writing about this
        matter. I wish you a happy holiday and apologize to my readers for not being
        able to respond to their messages.

        Yeni Safak website, Istanbul 3 Nov 05
        "All truth passes through three stages:
        First, it is ridiculed;
        Second, it is violently opposed; and
        Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

        Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

        Comment


        • #5
          gavur....!! you know where u will find ur self when you die...
          www.armenian-genocide.org

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, close to the SON OF GOD JESUS CHRIST! praise be his name.
            The nick I use is the way YOU see me I'm just holding a mirror in your face.
            "All truth passes through three stages:
            First, it is ridiculed;
            Second, it is violently opposed; and
            Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

            Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

            Comment


            • #7
              Leader's Islamic leanings seen as threat to EU bid

              By Andrew Borowiec
              THE WASHINGTON TIMES
              November 28, 2005


              NICOSIA, Cyprus -- A series of pro-Islamic statements and decisions by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan have considerably chilled his relations with the country's military leaders.
              In a confidential memorandum available to some diplomats, the military guardians of Turkey's secular system apparently cautioned the prime minister against damaging the country's image and its European aspirations. In October 2004, the European Union agreed to start membership negotiations with Turkey likely to last a number of years.
              Warnings have also been issued by some of the leading Turkish civilian secularists, who feel that Mr. Erdogan has yet to shed his Islamic sympathies from the days when he belonged to a now-banned religious party.
              Particularly alarming was Mr. Erdogan's proposal that Turkey's "Ulema," or a council of Islamic scholars, decide on the advantages or disadvantages of the ban on the wearing of head scarves by female university students.
              While the headgear is part of Islamic tradition, the government considers its wearing at universities and official functions as a political provocation, clashing with Turkey's European ambition.
              The council of the Ulema lost its official role when secularism was established in Turkey in the 1920s, and Mr. Erdogan's reference to it alarmed secular forces, both civilian and military.
              Equally alarming to some was a decision to build a mosque in an Istanbul park and permission for regional administrators to regulate the consumption of alcohol according to their wishes. Until now, sales and consumption of alcohol were banned only in areas within 50 yards of a mosque.
              According to Ankara commentator Burak Bekdil, such acts "are at odds with Turkey's European aspirations" and show that "Erdogan speaks from the heart, which has remained Islamic."
              Following its approval of Turkey's candidacy, the EU issued a favorable report on the country's economic reforms, but cautioned that more had to be done to stamp out torture and "ethnic discrimination" -- meaning the treatment of the restive Kurdish minority.
              Rioting and clashes with police recently cost four lives among the Kurds in southeastern Turkey, spreading the unrest to some suburbs of Istanbul. Last week, Mr. Erdogan traveled to the town of Semdinli, where the population accused security forces of summary executions. Mr. Erdogan pledged a thorough investigation of the charges.
              "Hate will bring nothing for us," he said. "Let's be calm in the face of these incidents."
              At the same time, human rights activists have accused Turkey of violating its newly revised legal code by going ahead with the trial of a book publisher and author on charges of "denigrating the state."
              The publisher, Fatih Tas, recently printed the book "Spoils of War" by U.S. author John Tirman, which contained interviews with Kurdish rebels, considered by Turkey to be terrorists.
              Facing similar charges is novelist Orhan Pamuk, who wrote about the Armenian genocide during the last stages of World War I, an atrocity Turkey denies.
              "All truth passes through three stages:
              First, it is ridiculed;
              Second, it is violently opposed; and
              Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

              Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

              Comment


              • #8
                Turkey's role in an expected civil war in Iraq

                Onder Aytac - Emre Uslu




                The U.S. president’s "Plan for Victory" speech made headlines worldwide last week. Although he emphasized that the United States would not withdraw without a clear victory, he neither defined what a “clear victory” is, nor gave a timetable as to when it would be considered a victory has been achieved.

                At the other end of the spectrum, soaring speculation about a possible U.S. withdrawal is spreading from Israel to London to Washington D.C., and other countries around the world. For instance, Ze'ev Schiff from Israeli daily Haaretz warned the Israeli government of a possible American withdrawal short of achieving the main goals of invading Iraq. Schiff claims that “well-informed American sources say that senior Republican Party officials are already dealing with the question of whom to send to the White House when Bush’s term is over. They fear that the current situation will cause a Republican downfall in the next presidential elections, so they want to change the timetable for the withdrawal from Iraq. That will require them to change Washington’s strategic goals in Iraq gradually. It’s something the U.S. has done before, in Vietnam, as Henry Kissinger did.”

                The worst possibility is, though, a civil war looming. A well-connected source in the intelligence community told us that intelligence experts in the U.S. and the U.K. say the “news from Iraq is very grim.” He added, “I fear, in the not-too-distant future, real civil war in Iraq.”

                Every group in Iraq is preparing for a possible civil war. The Kurds and the Shiites are using a government structure to train their militias whereas the Sunnis train their militias in guerilla warfare. For example, the New York Times reported that for American officials in Iraq “a greater problem now is that hundreds of militia gunmen have joined police departments around the country, while still retaining loyalties to their militia commanders and ill feelings towards their rivals. A result, in many cities, has been a blurring of lines between the police and the militias.”

                The Debka File reported that each community puts its own agenda way ahead of the requirements of a unified Iraq. Only this week, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, during his acclaimed visit to Tehran last week, secretly signed an agreement for the oil pumped in the fields of the Kurdish area near the northern city of Kirkuk to be piped 500 kilometers to Iran’s southern refineries at Abadan.” Debka further reported, “The Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda have deeply penetrated Iraqi security forces at all levels -- from field units up to staff command, and government ministries in the capital.”

                Moreover, an U.S. colonel told the New York Times that what's “of greater concern is the enormous size of the police force. The Interior Ministry has given the police chief permission to hire 5,500 people, he said, but there are now more than 10,000 on the payroll.”

                Against these developments in Iraq and America, in Washington’s backrooms new pictures are being developed. No matter how the circumstances change and what scenario comes into play, one element exists in every picture on the future of Iraq: Turkey. Thus, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice emphasized strategic relations with Turkey during the inauguration ceremony of the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Ankara, Ross Wilson. Rice said, “Turkey is among the countries for the U.S. that is critically important. Therefore Washington appointed its most experienced diplomats there.”

                Rice’s speech is just a small reflection of the arguments on Turkey’s significance for Washington in which one of the most-argued issues is the relationship between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. In the brainstorms, the debates focus on two issues: What would Turkish-Kurdish relations be if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq? Regarding this question, the U.S. tries to present Massoud Barzani and Talabani as decent men who have no motivation and interest in Turkey’s Kurds. Therefore, Turkey should be an older brother for these “good” men. The second issue that's hotly debated is what if the U.S. moves its bases to northern Iraq and stays there as the protector of the Kurds.

                As for the first issue, the debate runs this way: From now on, among the Kurds, Barzani and Talabani, not terrorist Abdullah Ocalan, dominate. Therefore, it becomes necessary to define a bit more clearly what Barzani and Talabani think about Kurdish separatism in Turkey. Do they want the Turkish southeast to break away? Would they want to incorporate those provinces in their autonomous or independent domain?

                We believe that these are important questions for Turkish officials to consider. Let's elaborate this debate a little further. For Barzani and Talabani, these questions are too bold to talk of for now. However, what they want is to secure their autonomy and authority as much as possible. For instance, in regards to the Kirkuk issue, they, especially Barzani, use the presence of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in northern Iraq as a bargaining chip against Turkey, to force Turkey to compromise. If this is the case, they might use whatever means, including terrorism, to secure their position and authority. It is even logical to expect from them that they can use the threat of separatism in the future when they think it's the right time for them.

                Thus, we believe, although Turkish authorities don't worry what Barzani and Talabani want for now, they still have the fear of the Treaty of Sevres. According to Turkish official thinking, when Turkey gets weaker the Kurds and Western states would be inclined to intervene in Turkey’s domestic affairs.

                Another point, Turkish officials worry, is that they don’t see Talabani and Barzani’s demands as important. They are a trivial issue for Turkey and can be tolerated. Yet, the real question from the Turkish perspective is the possibility of a significant number of Turkish Kurds living in the region wanting to join the Barzani and Talabani's oil-rich Kurdish region. What would the Western countries say about this development? What would be the U.S.' position in this case?

                We believe Turkish officials fear these two scenarios and both scenarios are inherently related to whether the Kurds in Iraq will be an oil-rich independent state.

                As for the second issue, the argument goes as follows: Turkey is slowly coming to realize that the U.S. "protection" over Iraqi Kurds is not such a bad thing after all. It makes the Iraqi Kurds dependent on Washington, and keeps them out of mischief! Moreover, the U.S. says, like Turkey, it too wants Kirkuk's resources to be shared by all Iraqis. But what if the U.S. cuts and runs and the rules change overnight?

                In response to these arguments, we think that in this region people don't look at “what” the U.S. is doing. Instead they look at “why” the U.S. is doing what it does. For instance, we heard a fascinating analysis of U.S. intentions from a 70-year-old farmer in a Malatya village: "The U.S. has a big plan in this region. It was the U.S. that put Israel as a barrier in front of Arabs’ development. It's now putting the Kurds as a barrier in front of Turkey and Iran and putting Georgia and Ukraine as a barrier in front of Russia. These countries have potential for improving their power in the region but the U.S. doesn't want them to advance."

                The Israel experience in people’s mind as a collective memory automatically forces people to a make a similar analogy about the Kurds in Iraq. The U.S. lost its credibility in the Arab world because of Israel and its support to the kingdoms and corrupt governments. Now if the U.S. makes the same mistake by supporting the Kurds, it will lose Turkey and force Turkey to make an alliance with Iran, which we believe would be the most dangerous alliance for the world.

                What the U.S. should do is to make it clear that it doesn't want an independent Kurdistan, and that Kirkuk shouldn't be a city of the Kurdish regional government. Instead, like Washington D.C. or Sarajevo, Kirkuk should be an independent city or belong to Baghdad.

                The U.S. shouldn't cut and run, but shouldn't be there as an invader either. The U.S. should be there as an invisible force, with its credible words and military force in Incirlik, or somewhere in Turkey. If the U.S. has its power in the Kurdish region, the Kurds will be the most hated people in the region. Moreover, their geographical position is not like that of Israel in that they have no access to the rest on the world via sea, land or air. They should be aware that they will be dependent on other neighboring countries.

                We believe that Talabani and Barzani’s recent U-turns, from demanding an independent Kurdistan to attempting to secure what they have gained so far, is a decision which has been made in Washington against the expectation of a possible civil war. As part of Washington’s decision, they have started sending sympathetic messages to Turkey.
                "All truth passes through three stages:
                First, it is ridiculed;
                Second, it is violently opposed; and
                Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

                Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Turks have Paradoxical Opinions About America

                  By Suleyman Kurt, Ankara
                  Published: Tuesday, December 27, 2005
                  zaman.com


                  Turkish people have paradoxical opinions about the United States, revealed in a questionnaire prepared by the International Strategic Research Center (ISRC).

                  According to the questionnaire, the US is in first place at 29.8 percent among those countries threatening Turkey's security. Twenty-two percent, however, pointed at the US, in response to the question “who will help Turkey the most if there is a problem.” Other countries seen to be threatening Turkey’s security are Israel with 13 percent and France with 11.4 percent, while the perceived threat emanating from Turkey's two neighbors, Greece and Armenia, was recorded at 7.4 and six percent, respectively.


                  The number of individuals who accepted the US as a friend fell from 6.1 percent to 3.4. A total of 2,500 people participated in the survey.


                  Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan, and Bosnia are the first five among "friends of Turkey ".


                  Public support for European Union membership has decreased from 61 percent to 55 and support for the "Turkic world" that has been accepted as an alternative to the EU, increased to 21 percent, while support for the "Islamic World" increased to 11 percent.
                  "All truth passes through three stages:
                  First, it is ridiculed;
                  Second, it is violently opposed; and
                  Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

                  Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Four Injured in Blast at Turkish-US Association in Adana

                    ANKARA (Reuters)--A bomb exploded at a building housing a Turkish-US
                    association in the southern Turkish city of Adana on Monday, injuring at least
                    four people.
                    There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast. Adana is
                    home to
                    a sprawling airbase used by the US military to supply its forces in Iraq and
                    Afghanistan.
                    "The explosion was in the hall on the ground floor at the entrance. Four
                    people have been injured, but none of them seriously," said the head of the
                    Turkish-US association in Adana, Cevdet Gulap.
                    The state Anatolian news agency quoted Cahit Kirac, governor of Adana
                    province, as saying five people, four of them English language students, had
                    been hurt in the explosion.
                    "None of the injured are in any danger," Kirac said, adding that three of
                    them
                    were women.
                    "Immediately after the blast, efforts were made to catch a person who
                    hurriedly left the scene and an investigation has begun into the kind of bomb
                    involved," Kirac said.
                    Turkish television showed several people being helped into an ambulance at
                    the
                    site. The building is in a central district of Adana, a city of 1.5 million
                    people near the Mediterranean.
                    Several Turkish cities have a Turkish-US association, usually dedicated to
                    promoting commercial, cultural, and educational ties. The United States, a
                    NATO
                    ally of Turkey, also has a consulate in Adana.
                    A variety of militant groups have carried out bomb attacks in Turkey in the
                    past, including Kurdish separatists, Islamists, far leftists, and right-wing
                    extremists.
                    Diplomatic ties between Washington and Ankara, traditionally warm, have
                    improved steadily since hitting a low point in March 2003 when Turkey's
                    parliament rejected a US request to allow its troops to invade northern Iraq
                    from Turkish territory.
                    But Turkish public opinion remains strongly critical of US foreign policy,
                    especially in neighboring Iraq. Films and books with an anti-US message have
                    found a receptive audience among Turks over the past few years.
                    "All truth passes through three stages:
                    First, it is ridiculed;
                    Second, it is violently opposed; and
                    Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

                    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X