"Okay, I can go along with Xymphora's statement that the recent demonstrations in Turkey are "purported" pro-democracy demonstrations. For one thing, there is no democracy in Turkey. But it's correct, too, that these demonstrations are pro-Pasha and nothing more.thnx mizgin.
In fact, I would not be surprised if the Pashas i.e. the military, encouraged these demonstrations, just as they encouraged the pro-democracy, pro-secular demonstrations in the wake of the Council of State attack last may. Anyone remember Hilmi Ozkok calling for those demonstrations? It's ridiculous; I mean, here's the Turkish military which pretends to be the sole defender of the Turkish state, and they're calling on the people to defend them.
I guess that goes along with the fact that the current constitution is a legal fraud in which the state is protected from the people. It's also a legal fraud because the writing of said constitution was overseen by Pashas.
However, there is a murky area that Xymphora fails to realize here, as well as in the Saturday post, and that is the implied, simple, black-and-white implication that the Pashas are actually secularist. Who was it that brought about Turkish-Islamic Synthesis? That synthesis never would have come about without the permission of the military and, in fact, it didn't.
The Pashas have an attitude that's best expressed as follows: "If there will be Communism in Turkey, WE will bring the Communism."
Same thing with Islamism. Same thing with anarchism. Same thing with Presbyterianism. It doesn't matter; it's all about internal political control of Turkey itself. And that is where it comes to the real point, protection of the ruling (military--always) elite.
It seems that Xymphora makes a contradiction between this post and Saturday's, in the fact that the Saturday post states that "The 1996 Susurluk car crash is ancient history," whereas in today's post there is the following statement:
". . . but the real point is to protect the establishment/military/‘deep state’/Zionist/organized crime interests that have been running Turkey for so many years."
Okay, so for how many years exactly? Since 1996? Then how is Susurluk ancient history? Also, since Mehmet Agar is running as a DYP candidate and has been shooting off his mouth right and left for the last several months, AND since he was the Interior Minister (in charge of the national police at the time of Susurluk), AND since very few have spoken, or written, about the fact that his shit still stinks from Susurluk, how is Susurluk ancient history.
Since, after the Council of State attack last May, the head of the parliamentary commission that investigated Susurluk--Fikri Saglar--as well as former IHD head Akin Birdal both stated that the Susurluk scandal needed to be cleared up, brought out into the open and, basically, exorcised, if anyone ever hoped to see democracy in Turkey? See Bianet for more.
Trivia: Akin Birdal (ethnic Turk) underwent a very serious assassination attempt by a member of the Susurluk clique, the notorious assassin "Yesil" for his work with IHD. So when he says stuff about the Susurluk clique, he knows what kind of danger he faces.
Notice that the Bianet article references Veli Kucuk? Name ring a bell? He was named as making threats to Hrant Dink during one of Dink's trials and Dink's whole family knew what that meant. Then, Kucuk was linked to Alparslan Arslan--the shooter at the Council of State--as well as to the handlers of Dink's murderer, Ogun Samast.
In other words, Susurluk is far from ancient history.
Now, although Sibel Edmonds has not mentioned anything about AKP because, I am guessing, that AKP did not come up in any of the classified information that she was privy to, AKP is far from clean anyway. It has it's own people in the ATC, the most interesting of which is Cuneyt Zapsu, someone very close to Erdogan.
Erdogan got himself in a bit of trouble a number of years ago, for reciting an inflammatory Islamist poem in public, and he went to prison for it. Then he comes out of nowhere and becomes the prime minister? Interesting? Well, there's someone behind that too, someone with a worldwide network of his own.
In fact, the guy in question has his own moles in the Turkish general staff, as well as people in the US that are involved in the battle.
This has nothing to do with Sibel's info, but it's still a fact.
As for a "Kurdish problem in Iraq," is that the same as the "Kurdish problem in Turkey," as in, "Kurds exist?" To my knowledge, there is no Kurdish problem anywhere; rather, there are Iraqi problems, Turkish problems, American problems, Israeli problems, etc., but no "Kurdish problems."
Other than that, it's good to see that someone else is paying attention to the Turkish problem."
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
"purported" pro-democracy demonstrations
* Mizgin (in full) in the comments, responding to Xymphora's post:
Posted by lukery at 5/01/2007 05:27:00 PM