Thursday 29th of July 2021

and here is the turkish nuz...


turkish nuz...

The Turkish Government has shut down 130 media outlets in a mass purge of the media following the coup attempt.

President Recep Erdogan has responded to the apparent coup attempt by clamping down on alleged dissidents since the failed bid to oust him from power rocked the country.

The increasingly authoritarian regime has purged the media, universities, schools, the police, judiciary and military of potential opponents.

Read more:


the radicalisation from the top...

Not since the days of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of the modern Turkish Republic, has any figure dominated the country for as long Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The president's grip on power was seriously challenged by an attempted coup on 15 July. Yet he was back less than 12 hours later, some say in an even stronger position than before. And he had out-manoeuvred the plotters.

To his supporters he has brought Turkey years of economic growth, but to his critics he is an autocratic leader intolerant of dissent who harshly silences anyone who opposes him.

And dissenters range from a 16-year-old arrested for insulting the president to a former Miss Turkey who got into trouble for sharing a poem critical of the Turkish president.

The failed coup claimed at least 240 lives and, according to his officials, also came close to killing Mr Erdogan, who had been staying at the Aegean holiday resort of Marmaris.

Within hours, he appeared on national TV and rallied supporters in Istanbul, declaring he was the "chief commander". But the strain on the president was clear, when he sobbed openly while giving a speech at the funeral of a close friend, shot with his son by soldiers during the attempted coup.

Presidential ambitions

Mr Erdogan, 62, came to power in 2002, a year after the formation of the AK Party (AKP). He spent 11 years as Turkey's prime minister before becoming the country's first directly-elected president in August 2014 - a supposedly ceremonial role.

He is known to harbour ambitions of creating an executive presidency, to regain some of the powers he relinquished when his tenure as prime minister ended in 2014.

erdogan imposes authoritarian regime...

The Turkish government is daily issuing decrees based on the emergency law, and today it just shut down many TV channels, newspapers, etc., Alp Altinors, Deputy Chairman of the Turkish Peoples' Democratic Party, told RT.
In the wake of the failed military coup in Turkey, state media has released shocking figures detailing the intensity of the subsequent crackdown on the press.

Turkish authorities have shut down dozens of organizations, including 16 TV channels, 23 radio stations and three news agencies. Some 60 publications - mostly newspapers - have also been closed.

The country is under a state of emergency that will last for at least three months, according to President Erdogan.

RT: How far could this purge go? Is it possible to investigate all these people and organizations? When will this end?

Alp Altinors: First of all, I want to state that these purges are made in the name of defeating the coup. And our party thinks that to defeat the coup d’état, you should democratize the country. If you don’t democratize the country, you can beat one coup d’état, but another military coup d’état will come. And military coup d’états occur in authoritarian regimes not in democratic regimes. So, our party made the call to lift the emergency law and we voted against the emergency law. Every day the government issues legal decrees based on the emergency law, and today they shut down many TV channels, newspapers, etc. And this is not the correct way to fight against a coup d’état to shut down newspapers or arrest newspaper editors or columnists. You should democratize the country and especially we call for a return to the peace process which was broken by President Erdogan last year on July 24 when they began the war over the Kurds.

This coup d’état was organized under martial conditions in our country. If there had not occurred a war in the country or intentions to intervene in Syria, this coup d’état would not happen. They could not find conditions to militarily intervene in state power. And we say that the only solution to come out of this crisis is a peace policy in our country and also in Syria, in all regional countries because Turkey has become a country isolated from all its neighbors, which has problems with all its neighbors. The government still has the idea to topple the Syrian government in Damascus. And still they are very worried about what is going on in Aleppo… We call for the democratization of the country, but we see that the government still has authoritarian tendencies and they want to utilize the post-coup conditions in order to raise their authoritarian tendencies, for example, they want to bring back capital punishment, executions, and we see that torture is applied to people in custody. And torture is a crime against humanity.

read more:

new powers to Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan...

The counting of votes began on Sunday in a referendum that would give sweeping new powers to Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan and herald the most radical change to the country's political system in its modern history.

Polling stations across the country closed by 5:00 p.m. (10.00 a.m. ET) and results were expected to start coming in within hours. Stations in eastern Turkey, which opened an hour earlier, were closed at 4:00 p.m. (1300 GMT).

Opinion polls have shown a narrow lead for a "Yes" vote, which would replace Turkey's parliamentary democracy with an all-powerful presidency and may see Erdogan in office until at least 2029.

The outcome will shape Turkey's strained relations with the European Union. The NATO member state has curbed the flow of migrants - mainly refugees from wars in Syria and Iraq - into the bloc but Erdogan says he may review the deal after the vote.

A crowd chanted "Recep Tayyip Erdogan" and applauded as the president shook hands and greeted people after voting in a school near his home in Istanbul. His staff handed out toys for children in the crowd.

"God willing I believe our people will decide to open the path to much more rapid development," Erdogan said in the polling station after casting his vote.

"I believe in my people's democratic common sense."

Some 55 million people were eligible to vote at 167,140 polling stations. Turkish voters abroad have already cast their ballots.



The referendum has bitterly divided the nation. Erdogan and his supporters say the changes are needed to amend the current constitution, written by generals following a 1980 military coup, confront the security and political challenges Turkey faces, and avoid the fragile coalition governments of the past.

read more:


See toon at top...

the turkey in turkey...


From Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

(President of Turkey, via the Wall Street Journal US, a Murdoch publication who hates Assad)

Across Turkey’s southern border, Bashar Assad’s criminal regime has for seven years targeted Syria’s citizens with arbitrary arrests, systematic torture, summary executions, barrel bombs, and chemical and conventional weapons. As a result of the Syrian civil war, which the United Nations Human Rights Council calls “the worst man-made disaster since World War II,” millions of innocent people have become refugees or been internally displaced.

Turkey has gone to extraordinary lengths to alleviate suffering of the Syrian people, hosting some 3.5 million refugees—more than any other country in the world. At the same time we have become the target of terrorist organizations operating next door : the so-called Islamic State and the PKK. Neither the heavy cost of humanitarian efforts nor security concerns have weakened our resolve.

As Turkey faced those challenges, it made diplomatic efforts to find a political solution. We have brought the Syrian opposition to the negotiating table in Geneva and launched the Astana process alongside Russia and Iran. Consequently, Turkey was able to broker cease-fires, create de-escalation zones, and evacuate civilians from areas under regime attack.

Today we find ourselves at a critical juncture again, as the Assad regime, with the help of its allies, prepares to launch a massive offensive against Idlib, which is home to some three million people and one of the few remaining safe havens for internally displaced Syrians. In an attempt to prevent the assault, my government contributed to the creation of a deconfliction zone and set up 12 observation posts to document and report cease-fire violations.

The Assad regime seeks to legitimize its imminent attack on counterterrorism grounds. Make no mistake : No country appreciates the need to combat terrorism better than Turkey, which has suffered severely from terrorist attacks since the Syrian conflict began exporting insecurity throughout the region. But Bashar Assad’s solution is a false one. Innocent people must not be sacrificed in the name of fighting terrorism. This will only create new hotbeds of terrorism and extremism. The rise of ISIS was an outcome —not the cause— of what was happening in Syria. The international community must contain such violence to stop terrorism from taking root.

In Idlib, we face similar challenges. Certain designated terrorist organizations, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, remain active in this area. Yet those fighters account for a fraction of Idlib’s population. In order to eliminate terrorist and extremist elements in Idlib and to bring to justice foreign fighters, a more comprehensive international counterterrorism operation is necessary. Moderate rebels played a key role in Turkey’s fight against terrorists in Northern Syria ; their assistance and guidance will be crucial in Idlib as well.

Preventing the assault on Idlib need not set back counterterrorism efforts. Turkey has succeeded in fighting terrorist groups, including ISIS and the PKK, without harming or displacing civilians. In order to restore some level of stability to affected areas, dozens of Turkish servicemen and servicewomen have lost their lives. Turkey’s ability to maintain order in Northern Syria is proof that a responsible approach to counterterrorism can win hearts and minds.

All members of the international community must understand their responsibilities as the assault on Idlib looms. The consequences of inaction are immense. We cannot leave the Syrian people to the mercy of Bashar Assad. The purpose of a regime offensive against Idlib would be indiscriminate attacks to wipe out its opposition —not a genuine or effective campaign against terrorism. A regime assault would also create serious humanitarian and security risks for Turkey, the rest of Europe and beyond.

It is crucial for the U.S., which has concentrated on chemical attacks, to reject its arbitrary hierarchy of death. Conventional weapons are responsible for far more deaths. But the obligation to stop the next bloodshed is not the West’s alone. Our partners in the Astana process, Russia and Iran, are likewise responsible for stopping this humanitarian disaster.

Idlib is the last exit before the toll. If the international community, including Europe and the U.S., fail to take action now, not only innocent Syrians but the entire world stands to pay the price. Turkey has done everything in its power to stop the bloodshed next door. To ensure that we succeed, the rest of the world must set aside narrow self-interest and throw its weight behind a political solution.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Wall Street Journal (United States)


Read more:



On 9 March 2018, the Lebanese police arrested the Turkish citizen Ayten Öztürk at the international airport Rafiq Hariri (Beirut, Lebanon), when she was making her way to Greece.

On 13 March, the Minister for Home Affairs, Nohad Machnouk, secretly referred her to the Turkish equivalent of the CIA or MI5 (Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT), bypassing the judicial process for extradition.

Mr Machnouk is a member of the Current of the Future (Hariri’s party).

Ayten Öztürk is a journalist who opposes the government. Her two brothers have already died prison in Turkey. She was living as an exile in Syria. Turkey had offered £600 00o.oo for her capture.

Ayten Öztürk has been tortured for a long time. She has been submitted to electroshocks, blows to the soles her feet, being suspended by her arms for long periods of time, simulated execution...). All this continually for six moths by a counter-guerrilla unit. It is unclear if she was conscious at the time and under the influence of hallucinatory drugs. She was later found on 28 August 2018 quite by chance in a cell of the department of Political Police at Ankara.

On 5 April 2018, the Turkish Vice Prime Minister, Bekir Bozdağ, declared on Habertürk TV that MIT had already managed to catch 80 citizens in 18 countries.

Anoosha Boralessa


Read more:


Read from top.

demilitarized zone in idlib...

Russia and Turkey have agreed a “demilitarized zone” between militants and government troops in Syria’s Idlib, President Vladimir Putin said after hours-long talks with Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan focused on solving the crisis.

We’ve focused on the situation in the province of Idlib, considering presence of large militant groups and their infrastructure there, Putin said at a press conference after the talks.

“We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide, with full withdrawal of hardline militants from there, including the Jabhat Al-Nusra.”

As part of solving the deadlock, all heavy weaponry, including tanks and artillery, will be withdrawn from the zone before October 10, Putin said. The zone will be patrolled by Turkish and Russian military units.

Before the end of the year, roads between Aleppo and Hama, and Aleppo and Latakia must be reopened for transit traffic, he said.

The agreement has received “general support” from the Syrian government, according to Putin.

The deal and other issues of Russian-Turkish ties apparently took almost 5 hours to hammer out. In what appears to a breakthrough solution, Putin and Erdogan have agreed to ensure peace with the help of Russian and Turkish troops.


read more:


Read from top.

changing the name of lokum to "aussie delight"...

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has slammed Turkey's President and threatened further action for "deeply offensive" comments besmirching Anzacs and threatening violence to Australians and New Zealanders following the Christchurch massacre.

Key points:
  • Scott Morrison rejects "excuses" used to defend Turkish President's Christchurch shooting comments
  • Tayyip Erdogan warned Australian and NZ citizens who came to Turkey with anti-Muslim sentiments would be sent back in coffins
  • The PM threatens further action against Turkey unless the comments are withdrawn


Australia will review its travel advice for Turkey following President Tayyip Erdogan's threats Australians visiting Gallipoli would return in coffins like their grandparents if they came to the country with anti-Muslim sentiment.

Mr Morrison summoned the Turkish ambassador Korhan Karakoç to Parliament House this morning and left the meeting warning he would take further action.

"I do not accept the excuses that have been offered for those comments," Mr Morrison told reporters after his meeting with the ambassador.

Mr Erdogan criticised the Anzacs for their role in the Gallipoli campaign and threatened to return anyone who came to his country with anti-Islam sentiment back in coffins.

Mr Morrison said he had spoken with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and would continue to liaise with the New Zealand Government in response to the comments.

He said he wanted the comments withdrawn and the state broadcaster to revoke its "misrepresentation" of Australian policy.

Mr Morrison said failure to do that would prompt further action.


Read more:


Read from top.

he risked hurling his country into a state of barbarism...


Turkey gives up on the idea of a Caliphate for the second time

by Thierry Meyssan

In Islam, the role of Imam does not fall to a theologian, but like Christianity in Roman times, to the most powerful head of State. The function of Caliphe has therefore become a political rather than a spiritual gamble. After having believed that the Caliphate of Daesh could offer Turkey the possibility of reclaiming its Ottoman splendour, President Erdoğan realised that, on the contrary, he risked hurling his country into a state of barbarism.

In the 18th century, during the Crimean War, the Tsar was the first head of State to recognise the double political and spiritual nature of the role of the Caliphe. Constantinople had lost the military confrontation, but its Sultan had maintained an influence over the souls of the Tatar people.

The sultans had auto-proclaimed themselves as the successors of Mahomet, due to the place they had won in the History of the Muslim world by the power of their sabres. In the absence of rivals, they took on the spiritual guidance of the faithful, including those outside of their Empire.

At the end of the First World War, when the Empire had been definitively vanquished and dissolved, Mustafa Kemal was extremely troubled by his heritage. He attempted to separate the temporal power, over which he had some sway, from the spiritual power, which he tried in vain to transmit successively to an Arab personality and then to an Indian personality. Finally, he was able to find no other solution than to abolish the Caliphate on 5 March 1924, and to proceed with the modernisation of Turkey [1].

For the King of England and the head of the Anglican Church, George V, it thus became possible to incorporate the Caliphate into one of its colonies, and thereby seize spiritual power over all Muslims. This was what King Fouad 1st attempted in colonised Egypt – in vain.

In 1928, Hassan el-Banna created the Muslim Brotherhood in order to regenerate Egyptian society. Its activity was exclusively moralistic. However, it made clear the fact that once the life of the people had been « Islamised », it would become necessary to unite Muslims around the Caliphate, and then extend the system to the world. King Fouad 1st saw in this a powerful support for his collaborationist régime with the British Empire. He therefore presented candidates for the legislative elections in 1942 and had the secular Prime Minister assassinated in 1948, according to the expectations of King Farouk.

As for the philosopher of the Brotherhood, Sayyed Qutb, he described the Caliphate not as an ideal to be attained in the distant future, but as the ripe fruit of social regeneration. Anouar el-Sadate, with whom he had served as a liaison officer between the Brotherhood and the « Free Officers », found his way to the Presidency of Egypt thanks to the support of the CIA. He Islamised society and prepared for his proclamation as Caliphe by the Parliament. But the Brotherhood was not playing the same game, and had him assassinated by Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad [2].

Identically, Daesh considered – against the advice of Ayman al-Zahawiri, who had become the emir of Al-Qaïda – that it had imposed « Islamic » order and attained a perfect society in Rakka. It therefore had the lawful right to proclaim the Caliphate on 14 June 2014.

However, according to the report of the participation by the Turkish secret services in the preparatory meeting for the conquest of Iraq by Daesh (Amman, 27 May to 1 June 2014), as revealed by the Turkish daily Özgür Gündem, this proclamation had not been mentioned by the Anglo-Israëlo-US participants [3]. It was therefore possible that this was an initiative by mercenaries of the Islamic State which exceeded their mission. In any case, for Ankara, the Caliphate provided the occasion to win back the spiritual power which had been lost over the whole of the Muslim world.

Logically, Islamist Turkey supported Daesh without reserve. Only Russia denounced this state of affairs, first during the G20 in Antalya (November 2015), then by five Intelligence reports which were handed to the United Nations Security Council between 29 January and 17 May 2016 [4]


The military failure of the Caliphate facing the Syrian and Iraqi armies revealed to Turkey the worst possible image of itself. There is no difference between Tamerlane’s hordes charging on Baghdad and the convoys of Toyotas taking Mosul [5]. There is no difference either between the genocide of non-Muslims – including Armenian Christians – by Sultan Habdul Hamid II, followed by the young Turks, and that of the Yezedi Turks and the industrial-line decapitation of secular citizens. Within a few months, all of the work accomplished by Mustafa Kemal to abandon the barbarism of the « children of the steppe wolf » and construct a modern Turkey, was completely destroyed.

We must therefore take very seriously the change that occurred in Ankara on the occasion of the 3rd anniversary of the attempted assassination of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Marmara, and the improvised coup d’etat which followed. The way of the Muslim Brotherhood dragged the country into a dead end of horror and violence. After having imagined itself as the « Protector » of the Brotherhood, the AKP was once again obliged to return to the separation of moralistic values and politics, in the wake of Atatürk. This was not a choice, but a vital necessity [6].

The propaganda according to which the pseudo-« Rojava » sheltered no element of Daesh, and the vague agreement concluded with the United States concerning Northern Syria will change nothing of this about-face. They will do no more than postpone its clarification a little longer. Ankara can only pursue the Astana-Nour process.

This is why, in his video message for the Aïd al-Adha, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reminded his audience of the unitary character of the ritual, in memory of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim revelation of Abraham, then the Turkish military victories, and ended his speech with a curious appeal concerning road safety. Ankara is turning carefully to a redefinition of its identity, no longer religious, but nationalist, no longer exclusive, but inclusive.

Thierry Meyssan


Pete Kimberley



Read more:




Read from top.

turkey vs russia?...

During his 5 February 2020 speech before the MPs of his party, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan designated as "friendly elements" the members of the Turkmen rebel militia who constitute the "Syrian National Army" (Jaych al-Watani as -Suri), as well as those associates of Al-Qaeda who made an alliance with local groups to form the Levant Liberation Organization (Hayat Tahrir al-Cham).

In principle, you never claim a relationship of authority over your proxies to avoid having to assume responsibility for their actions. Hayat Tahrir al-Cham murdered 4 Russian FSB officers in Aleppo on 1 February.

Then, he claimed the legitimacy of the Turkish military deployment in Syria in light of the Adana Agreement. The text of the agreement, dated 20 October 1998, which put an end to the previous Turkish-Syrian war, has never been officially released. An unconfirmed version was published on this website [1]. Therein, Syria commits to stop supporting the PKK of Abdullah Öcalan (which was then a pro-Soviet organization) and allows the Turkish army to chase Kurdish military units attacking Turkish territory 5km deep into Syria. Considering that the current embodiment of the PKK/YPG (now a pro-NATO organization) is armed with more modern equipment, during Operation "Spring of Peace" (9 to 22 October 2019), Turkey unilaterally extended its right of hot pursuit to 30 km inside Syria.

The Adana Agreement never authorized Turkey to deploy its army throughout the Idlib governorate. However, such deployment is contemplated by the Russian-Turkish Sochi Agreement of 17 October 2018, which was endorsed by Syria [2]. Still, this was conditional on the withdrawal of all "radical terrorist groups" (including Hayat Tahrir al-Cham from the demilitarized zone before 15 October 2018. But, Turkey never did manage - not any more than the United States before it— to distinguish between and separate the "radicals" (jihadists) from and the "moderates" (democratic opponents). Consequently, the Syrian Arab army has since been trying to liberate the Idlib governorate from the jihadist occupation.

By citing the Adana Agreement instead of the one concluded in Sochi, Turkey admits to having failed to comply with its obligations towards Russia. Moreover, it harks back to the period when the two powers were waging a secret war in the context of the Cold War.

In the same speech, President Erdoğan, brandishing his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood - the source of the jihadists - (photo), continued by giving Syria until 28 February 2020 to abandon the localities it just liberated and to withdraw behind the Sochi ceasefire line.

In the afternoon, a suicide bomber from Hayat Tahrir al-Cham blew himself up in a building housing Russian forces. We are still unaware of the outcome of this operation, which we understand should be assumed by Turkey.

This is a complete turnaround of the situation. On 13 January 2020, the heads of the Turkish and Syrian secret services met discreetly in Moscow to lay out a peace plan [3]. However, since then, much to the surprise of Western powers who were convinced of Damascus’ opposition, the Syrian Arab Army launched a victorious offensive in Idlib, liberating fifteen cities. The United States then supported Turkey while withdrawing from their joint operations. On 19 January, Turkey suspended the movement of 30,000 jihadists from Idlib (Syria) to Tripoli (Libya) which it resumed in late December. Only 2,500 have had the time to emigrate.

Meeting with foreign ambassadors on 5 February to receive their credentials, Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned them, saying: "Unfortunately, humanity is once again close to a dangerous line. Regional conflicts are increasing, terrorist and extremist threats are increasing, the arms control system is about to be abolished."

We are heading in the short term towards a conflict between Turkey, a member of NATO, and Russia, a member of the CSTO.


Read more:


Read from top.

turkey vs women...


Turkey slammed for quitting treaty protecting women's rights

As protests grew nationwide, the international community condemned President Erdogan's decision to leave the world's first treaty on violence against women.

Turkey's decision to withdraw from the world's first binding treaty to prevent violence against women sparked both domestic and international outrage after it was announced on Saturday.

The 2011 Istanbul Convention, widely regarded as the gold standard in international efforts to protect women and girls from violence, was signed by 45 countries and the European Union.

It requires governments to adopt legislation prosecuting domestic violence and similar abuse as well as marital rape and female genital mutilation.

Why did Turkey withdraw?

The move is the latest victory for conservatives in Erdogan's nationalist party and their allies.

They claim the Convention undermines family structures, encourages violence and divorce. Additionally its references to equality are being used by the LGBT community to gain broader acceptance in society.

"Preserving our traditional social fabric" will protect the dignity of Turkish women, Vice President Fuat Oktay said on Twitter. "For this sublime purpose, there is no need to seek the remedy outside or to imitate others."

How did Turkish citizens respond?

DW correspondent Julia Hahn spoke with protesters demonstrating in Istanbul throughout the day.

"This is a political decision — and they are ignoring the rights of women and children for the sake of their own political benefits," said one woman. 

It "is a means of protection for us," another female protester said. "Now the government has paved the way for more violence."

"We are all here because there are huge inequalities in our country," said one man to DW. "We stand with our female friends and we are supporting them!"      

Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, one of Erdogan's main political rivals, tweeted that the decision "tramples on the struggle that women have been waging for years."

Gokce Gokcen, deputy chairperson of the opposition CHP party, said abandoning the treaty meant "keeping women second-class citizens and letting them be killed."

"Despite you and your evil, we will stay alive and bring back the convention," she said on Twitter.


Read more:



Read from top.





a kardashian reality...

In his vacuous study of the vacuousness of fame for being vacuous, Robert Moran hit a rare note of Kardashian’s reality.:



8. Shout-out to Armenian representation

Come on, besides The Kardashians and System of a Down who else is out there discussing the Genocide of 1915 in mainstream culture?




Here we enter a difficult stage of world history which like the Holocaust has its deniers. But Joe Biden is the first US President to recognise the genocide…:

On its 106th anniversary, US President Joe Biden has recognised the Armenian genocide, a historic declaration that is set to infuriate Turkey and potentially further damage ties between the NATO allies.


Beginning from April 24, 1915, swathes of Armenians living in the former Ottoman Empire were forcibly removed from their homes as part of mass deportations in eastern Anatolia, which is now modern Turkey.

Many were marched south through deserts towards Syria and Mesopotamia, with many killed by starvation, disease, or dehydration. Others were brutally massacred en route by Ottoman forces. 

The total death toll from the genocide remains disputed. The International Association of Genocide Scholars puts the toll at more than a million, while Armenians put the number at 1.5 million.





Could we say the influencers-Kardashians influenced Old Joe? Was this a spur of the moment or had he this bee in his pocket for many years? The genocide did happen. But so did the US bombing of many countries in the world that, in a conservative estimate, has killed more than 40 million people since 1946 — and created many refugees from such US war, as to people taking risks to escape to Europe for safety... 


Read from top.




Free Julian Assange Now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it wasn't the kardashians...





The issue of Turkish genocide against Armenians during World War I has once again become volatile. President Biden on Saturday issued a statement speaking out on the death march conducted in 1915 by the Ottoman Turkish forces to “ethnically cleanse” sensitive military regions of eastern Turkey of its restive Armenian population, leading to the deaths of at least one million Armenian civilians. 

The Armenian case ranks just below the Nazi Holocaust in the annals of modern genocide. Indeed, while the full circumstances surrounding the Armenian case is still debated, all parties, including the modern Turkish government, acknowledge that, at the very least widespread killings, occurred. The Armenian genocide took place towards the end of the war in the middle of a complex geopolitical situation in eastern Turkey where Armenians have been living for over one thousand years; they constituted a significant part of the huge, thoroughly multi-ethnic, multi-religious Ottoman Empire that collapsed at the end of the war, eventually giving rise to the new much smaller modern Turkish republic. 

The Ottoman government perceived the Armenian population of eastern Turkey as hostile during the war, and there is evidence that violent nationalist Armenian groups carried out some terrorist acts against the government at the time. The Empire was also facing invasion from Tsarist Russian forces fighting on the side of the Allies in Europe.

That massacre was one of the most horrific cases of broad-scale elimination of huge numbers of a civilian population. Indeed, it is hard not to qualify it as genocide by today’s standards. Turkish accounts note that the Christian Armenian population was suspected of having sympathies with the invading Tsarist Russian (and Christian) forces into Eastern Anatolia where large numbers of Armenians lived. Russia, in fact, had some grounds to believe the Armenians could be induced to serve as a fifth column of resistance against Ottoman forces. The case is complicated since it simultaneously involved widespread disorders in eastern Anatolia under wartime conditions, much anarchy, brigandage, killings, seizure of Armenian lands, etc. Local Kurdish populations were also largely anti-Armenian. 

Biden’s official declaration and condemnation of the Armenian genocide now joins many similar Western condemnations. But this is the first public condemnation by Washington of an incident reaching into Turkey’s past. Unfortunately, the statement has much more to do with current U.S. foreign policy towards Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan than it does with any morality of the case. At this point, condemnation of the genocide is effectively being wielded as a tool of American foreign policy.

While the government of modern Turkey, which came into being in 1923, has unofficially acknowledged that a large-scale massacre of Armenian civilians indeed did take place, Ankara steadfastly rejects the use of the term “genocide.“ Among other things, it argues that the modern Turkish Republic is not the same state or even the same country as was the massive Ottoman Empire. It also points out that, before the term “genocide” in invoked, Turkish and Armenian scholars need to jointly work out all the relevant facts and conditions of the complex events that took place under wartime conditions on the eastern front of the Empire against invading Russian forces. Indeed, there have been a few working groups of Turkish and Armenian scholars working to shed broader light on the full story. But large numbers of fervid Turkish nationalists fiercely reject any idea of Turkish culpability while many Turkish liberals support the investigation. In any case, the political “complexity” of the issue in no way diminishes the horror of what took place. In the international view, the Armenian cause has the moral argument on its side.

The U.S. Congress has debated for decades as to whether to officially recognize the killings as genocide,, as long urged by well-organized Armenian-American and human rights groups.. Concerned over the potential impact it would have on U.S. relations with Turkey, especially at a time when Ankara was viewed as a more “stalwart'” member of NATO, the State Department lobbied Congress against such a move. Nonetheless, both houses of Congress finally passed resolutions recognizing the genocide and rejecting its denial in 2019. The Trump administration, however, refused to endorse Congress’s action, essentially reaffirming Washington’s long-held position.

Biden’s statement, however, marks a dramatic change. The question is, why this declaration now — over 100 years after the terrible events? Clearly, it has everything to do with Washington’s great dissatisfaction with the foreign policies of the Erdogan government in Turkey and is intended as a point of punitive pressure against Ankara. Over the past nearly 20 years under Erdogan, Turkey has increasingly pursued an independent direction in its foreign policy, often in direct contradiction of what Washington perceives as its own interests. And indeed, Ankara has been adroitly playing both sides of the game in working closely with both Russia and China, while offering occasional olive branches to Europe. 

The timing of Biden’s genocide declaration highlights what is part of a generic long-term problem of serious hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy; it claims to be based on “moral values” or “human rights” or  “democratic values.” Yet these genuine values are primarily used instrumentally. They serve as weapons against countries Washington does not like but are almost never directed against regimes we do. The countries and leaders chosen for U.S. denunciation are invariably cherry-picked according to time, place and the political needs of the moment, rather than values. 

Washington speaks out about the “genocide” of Uighurs in China but has nothing serious to say about Israel’s treatment of nearly four million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The Indian government’s harsh policies against Muslim Kashmiris go largely overlooked because we want India on our side against China. Rwanda was never prominent on the U.S. political agenda in a genocide of some 800,000 people in 1994; we had no Cold War interests to protect there. The widespread killing of Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka over nearly three decades were largely ignored. And the savage massacres of 200,000 Mayan peoples in Guatemala were overlooked because the generals in charge were “anti-communist.” The United States has been similarly virtually silent about the severe repressions against the Shi’ite populations of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The list goes on.

Surely this approach cheapens and devalues our professed concerns over “human rights.” The United Nations, or perhaps more modest countries that are not playing in the international strategic game, such as the Scandinavian nations or Canada, wield far greater credibility on these issues. 

Most Armenians are justifiably pleased to see further recognition and condemnation of the terrible events that befell them over a century years ago. But what useful purpose does it serve for Washington to issue such a condemnation of genocide precisely today?

The declaration will of course anger Turkey — and that is the point — a message to Erdogan that we no longer consider him a valued ally to be shielded from criticism. But the declaration is quite unlikely to change the broader course of Ankara’s policies. Erdogan today faces serious domestic pressure as a result of failing economic policies and, above all, the abuse of liberal values and free speech in his heavy-handed treatment of political opposition. At the moment, he is making nice with the West in hopes of relieving pressure  as he moves towards elections in 2023. But last year Erdogan was deep in his “Eurasian mode” in  seeking closer relations with Russia and China. This pendulum is likely to be a predictable phenomenon as Erdogan weaves back and forth in his complex vision of Turkish foreign policy extending from Western Europe and North Africa to China.

Human values should always matter in governance everywhere. But when they are employed opportunistically for transient political ends on a century-old issue, we undermine the very importance and significance of those values.


Read more:


Read above comment and from top



the turkish theatre...


On June 14, Joe Biden held his first meeting as US president with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ending a five-month wait for personal contact between the two leaders. The outcome and themes of this meeting were clear to all long before it took place, although Washington has been persistently emphasizing the cooler relations with Ankara since Biden took office in January and the “series of disagreements” between the NATO allies.

For example, the US claims were made public because Turkey bought S-400 air defense systems from Russia, even though, by a strange coincidence (!?), Washington has not made any claims against Greece, which has been using Russian S-300 air defense systems for over 20 years.  The human rights activist continue pressuring Ankara because of the massive crackdown that Turkish authorities began after the coup and is still going on: more than 90,000 people imprisoned and more than 150,000 Turks fired or suspended because of alleged links to the Gülenists.

In response, Turkey has continued to demand that the United States extradite Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen, who, according to officials in Ankara, organized the 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan. The Turkish leader accused Biden last month of “writing history with bloody hands” after he approved arms sales to Israel during the Jewish state’s conflict with Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip. Ankara was sharply criticized because of the White House’s recognition of the 1915-1922 Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire
and the US support of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria, which Ankara considers a “terrorist organization”.

However, if looking not at the external manifestation of the US-Turkish relations, but at the actual activities of Ankara in recent times in fulfillment of various instructions from Washington, a somewhat different picture emerges.

Thus, in recent years, the US has actively used Turkey as its battering ram to solve many geopolitical problems of interest to Washington. And it is certainly not just about Turkey as a very important NATO instrument in the southeast.

Suffice it to recall Turkey’s role in the redistribution of the Middle East and, in particular, in the unleashing of the Arab Spring, weakening the unity and former power of the Arab states of the Mediterranean basin. In particular, in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, and North Africa, where the radicals of the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), under the patronage of Ankara, unleashed national unrest, overthrew the existing regime in Libya, and attempts by radicals of the Muslim Brotherhood to consolidate power not only in Egypt. Moreover, such activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and their rise to power with Mohamed Morsi in Egypt or Tunisia, where Moncef Marzouki became president in 2011, took place with the active participation of the CIA, which has already been published in various media.

And it must be realized that Ankara’s use of the Muslim Brotherhood was no accident, since the Justice and Development Party in power in Turkey today is a Turkish version of the Muslim Brotherhood. And clearly, according to Erdogan’s plans, they intended to become one of his main tools in the struggle for supremacy in the Sunni world with the same Saudi Arabia, which Washington hoped, among other things, to “curb” with the hands of Ankara. Even in Jordan, where, on orders from Washington, the Muslim Brotherhood retains about 40% of that country’s parliament, and the Americans do not allow the king to change this proportion, as Washington expects to use this leverage on the army and the kingdom’s government.

Therefore, it is not surprising that today, having understood much of Washington’s hidden game in the Middle East, in a significant number of leading Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia) is on the top of the black lists of banned terrorist organizations, in particular in Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Egypt and Syria.

Washington is also actively using Turkey to counter Russia. In particular, encouraging Ankara’s latest development of military cooperation with Kiev, as well as in its political and financial support through it of the banned in Russia “Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people,” led in Ukraine by Mustafa Dzhemilev, who speculates on the Crimean issue in favor of Ukraine and the national minorities.

One must not forget that the ideology of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood includes Ottoman and Turan ideas, i.e. the subsequent subordination to Ankara of the entire Turkic-speaking population of Eurasia, including Bashkiria, Tatarstan, Tuva, Chuvashia, Yakutia and several other territories of Southern Siberia. As well as the states of Central Asia.

So today, while the US has not solved its geostrategic problems with the involvement of Turkey and Erdogan personally in the Middle East, Russia and China against the Chinese Uighurs, the external quarrels between Washington and Ankara and Erdogan published by the Western media are more akin to a staged performance. Indeed, the president of Turkey is playing the game with everyone, including the Americans, for his own benefit. But if today Erdogan is in power, tomorrow he may be gone, thanks to the participation of the very same US. He can be replaced by another person, tougher, through “democratic” elections “the American way”. However, he is likely to have in his hands the same tools that Erdogan has prepared.

But in any case, the United States will allow Turkey to complete the stage of cleaning up the macro-region, and then they will give the same Kurds a fat chunk at the expense of the Turks. And then they won’t need Erdogan anymore.


Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


Read from top





turkish mafia...

Interview with Former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu“Parts of the Government Are Mafia-Like”


As prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu was one of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s closest allies. In an interview, he now accuses the Turkish president of driving his country into the ground.


It’s shortly before midnight when Ahmet Davutoğlu arrives for an interview at a guesthouse in the Old Town of Antakya, near the Syrian border. He has spent the entire day rushing from appointment to appointment in nearly 40-degree-Celsius (104-degree-Fahrenheit) heat, meeting supporters of his Future Party as well as speaking with young people and local business owners. Davutoğlu, 62, served as foreign minister from 2009 to 2014 and then as prime minister from 2014 to 2016, both under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In 2019, he bolted from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) following a dispute with Erdoğan and founded his own party. Since then, he has been traveling around the country to build up support for his party. Davutoğlu believes Erdoğan’s administration will soon collapse, and the former prime minister aspires to be part of a new government.




DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Davutoğlu, you served as foreign minister and head of government under President Erdoğan. Why are you turning against him now?

Davutoğlu: There wasn’t just one reason or just one episode. It was a process. As Erdoğan’s chief foreign policy adviser and as foreign minister, I was responsible for diplomacy. My powers were limited. When I became prime minister, I realized that the country needed to be fundamentally reformed in terms of democracy, rule of law, and transparency. After my election victory in November 2015, I presented a reform package that included measures such as to change the criteria used for awarding government contracts. No one – no minister, no businessman – should continue to be able to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.

DER SPIEGEL: Have you personally witnessed instances of government corruption?

Davutoğlu: Yes. Power corrupts. When Erdoğan became prime minister in 2003, he still wanted to curb corruption in the country. Today, it is more rampant than ever. I wanted to fight nepotism, but my efforts were in vain. After I left office, Erdoğan’s son-in-law became the most powerful man in the system. I stood up for ethics in politics. Erdoğan didn’t want that.


DER SPIEGEL: Did you have to go because you were too critical? 

Davutoğlu: I was too visible and too efficient as prime minister. Erdoğan couldn’t deal with that. He accepts no one alongside him. He turned the party leadership against me. I realized that it is impossible to implement reforms in this kind of environment. That’s why I stepped down as prime minister. 

DER SPIEGEL: You are presenting yourself as an outsider, but you were part of the system for almost two decades. 

Davutoğlu: I categorically reject that. If I had tolerated corruption, mismanagement, nepotism and attacks on the rule of law, I would still be prime minister or in some other leadership position today.



Read from top


Read more:


Free Julian Assange NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~