| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
“…Gül said that, in the case that the [Armenian] bill is accepted at the House of Representatives, there will be ‘a real shock in Turkey' and that the Turkish government could not contain the demands by the public to halt cooperation with the United States…” (Hürriyet Web site, Feb. 08). -- from this article
The so-called Kemalist Revolution -- that is, the putting of systematic restraints on Islam as a political and social system, lasted roughly a quarter-century, from 1925-1949. When Menderes came into power in 1950, the counter-revolution began, with the dervish orders re-emerging, and a campaign of government mosque-building, and other measures that answered the demands of the mass of primitive Believers who then and now make up most of Turkey's population. In 1955 came the attacks on the Greek community of Istanbul (see Speros Vryonis, "The Mechanism of Catastrophe"). The Americans failed to comprehend or to worry. After all, Turkey was a member of CENTO (which lasted, mostly as figment of American and British imagination, until 1958, when the overturning of the Iraqi regime by Col. Qassem changed everything).
Secularist Turks, advanced westernized Turks, the Turks who are the kind of Turks one meets abroad or in fashionable gatherings in Istanbul (and fails to see, much less read the minds of, all those other Turks who wait on you, or wait on the secularized westernized Turks who are your hosts), do not represent Turkey. They represent a part of Turkey. Perhaps they represent as much as a quarter of the population. But not more. And they will lose unless they do more to protect and to constantly expand the Kemalist undertaking. And that means as well being willing to rely on the army, that protector of the flame in Ankara, the one at Ataturk's tomb, the one that is at the centre of the narrative woven of the Great Man, and the Great People, intended to supplement or even to supplant the narrative of Islam.
As for Gül's threat, he seems not to realize that the need for Turkey now is not what it was once perceived to be. Russia is no longer a military threat. The listening posts, the airfields, are only of value if they can be used against the forces of Islam. If they cannot be, and so far they haven't been, then they are no use at all. That fourth division was not allowed to enter Iraq from the north, from those American bases in Turkey -- so what good are those bases, they must be asking themselves in the Pentagon, if they cannot be used as we will obviously be needing to use them?
Turkey's significance to American plans has gone way down. Turkey's behavior -- its willingness to allow the crudest anti-American and antisemitic books and movies ("Valley of Wolves"), and for its political figures not merely to oppose the war in Iraq (good god, I oppose the war in Iraq) but also to depict the American soldiers as "worse than Nazis" -- has not gone unnoticed and will not be forgotten here.
There are other things that should not be forgotten as well. A few years ago, a naive visitor, I was invited to dinner in Istanbul by those who might once have been called "Ottomans" in contradistinction to "Turks." These secularist Turks had studied or sent their children to study in the West. They greatly disliked all signs of resurgent Islam, and were acidulous on the subject of how Muslim women would stand in line at the American consulate or embassy to obtain visas, carefully removing their hijabs and putting on earrings and lipstick just before entering the premises. And once they had made their pitch or filled out the right forms, upon existing removed those earrings, wiped off that lipstick, and put back that hijab.
Yet in my innocence I asked why the Hagia Sophia could not be made again into a church. They looked at me as if I simply had not understood, could not understand, Turkish reality. What seemed to me (and some other Western guests) a perfectly reasonable thing to do, struck them as a fantastic request. "If we did that," the most vocal among the Turkish hosts replied, "we would have a revolution on our hands."
I began to understand that even in "secular" Turkey, Kemalist Turkey, the Turkey for which Bernard Lewis had offered such a stout defense, was not the Turkey that Westerners imagine. The Turkey for which several figures recently prominent in the Administration once worked as registered foreign agents, was not the real Turkey. Turkey remained deeply Muslim, and one has only to turn to the astonishing apologetics of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (google his name, and "Jihadwatch" for more), a prominent historian of Ottoman science and now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, to see that the standards one normally applies cannot be applied in the case of many prominent Turkish academics. Filial piety, loyalty to Islam, simply clouds the mind and leads to the uttering of and belief in all sorts of nonsense.
No, the Hagia Sophia will not be turned into a church. And if it were, it would only be in order to win points from the Infidels that could be traded in for economic gain, and would not reflect any kind of spontaneous impulse to do right by the non-Muslims of what was once Byzantium and has been steadily islamized ever since -- perhaps never so bloodily and cruelly since the early centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman conquest as in the 20th century.
See Vahakn Dadrian on the Armenian genocide, see Speros Vryonis ("The Mechanics of Destruction" or his polemic against Sanford Shaw).
Abdullah Gül has it all wrong. It is Turkey that should be trembling. Turkey that should be doing everything it now can to placate the Americans. It is Turkey that will not be allowed into the E.U. It is Turkey that needs American guarantees in the future chaos and confusion that will inevitably result -- thank God -- from the inevitable American withdrawal from Tarbaby Iraq.
He should get it right, or be replaced.
Why?
Because he doesn't understand the precarious position of Turkey today.
But he will.
Posted by Hugh at February 15, 2007 11:30 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Well, I'll give you my opinion, Hugh.
Here is what I would be in Iraq for (I've said this before many times on JW) -- and that would be to make up for the shortcomings of our "allies" like Turkey when it comes to the use of our own bases. Indeed, we should pull out of the carnage that is continuing in the streets of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq as soon as possible, but only when we have the proper targets in Iran calculated and sighted.
Airbases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the "thumb and first finger" pinching Iran in-between. Artillery. Missiles. We don't require permission any longer from Turkey to use our force within striking distance on Iran, because those bases in Turkey are simply no longer relevant. Our striking power no longer is having to come from just carriers or through the "good wishes" of sovereign nations under the sway of France or Islam. Being in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been parts of a longterm strategy. I believe they still might be.
I could be wrong. We might be training morons in our academies, but I somehow doubt that. The more likely scenario is that politicians are calling too many of the shots and have been and our holding the leash tight. And that's why we're in this current mess. I don't believe that our military commanders wish to coddle the Islamists the way they are being forced to, or again, they are training fools at West Point.
The current policing of Iraq, the "troop surge", needs to brutal and efficient and relentless. It needs to crush the enemy wherever he hides and drive the remainder fleeing for their lives to the borders.
And then we need to turn our eyes to Iran. Like it or not, we can not delay much longer. Iranian nuclear facilities must be destroyed at the very least. And if I was in charge, and I had firm proof of Iranian hands being dirty in the deaths of Americans these past 5 years (and possibly longer) then I would order air strikes upon Tehran itself and hit whatever compounds the Islamic leadership under Ahmadinejad and the current Ayatollah reside in.
At the same time I would strike Syria. Yes, Syria.
But, I have never been one to muck around when provoked. Perhaps it's a good thing for the Islamists that I'm not in charge. However, I'm still young, so they shouldn't get too comfortable. If Barack Obama has a shot at the Presidency, you never know who might end up in the White House someday. Not that I want the job, but I do a lot of things each day now that I don't like because I love the United States, so I'm just saying -- stranger things have happened.
Senator Foehammer has a nice ring to it.
*chuckles*
Posted by: Foehammer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 15, 2007 11:56 AM
Are we stuck with Turkey as an ally, given its membership in NATO?
If Europeans don't want Turkey in the EU, what about in NATO? After all, the country has changed and the needs of our alliance have changed as well.
The Turkey that was a stalwart ally of the West was also a secular military dictatorship, similar to Iran. Iranians had a revolution and we saw the result.
Turkey is now a democracy and its people clearly don't want to be associated with us. Is it possible to cut the ties? Can we kick them out of NATO and abrogate our mutual defense pact or do we just hope for a military coup? What is their military's position vis a vis the West?
at February 15, 2007 11:56 AM
Foehammer,
Let us know when you decide to run. Let's hope we still have a country worth preserving.
Posted by: PMK at February 15, 2007 11:59 AM
The "Turks" are historically Edomites and part of a Shabbatai Zvi / Islamic religious group. The Shabbatai Zvi are elitists who rule behind the scenes and are part of a European converted Jewish sect and is why the Israeli state is able to deal with Turkey in being both children of Isaac and a like Jewish belief system among the elites.
The Islamists are the massive cauldron which this sits upon that the government tries to contain. When it was the Soviet Union it was much more simple, but with revolutionary Islam spreading America being pro Armenian in their Holocaust which few speak of is considerable friction along with Kurdish support.
All of this is why Europe does not want Turkey in the EU. They fear a huge immigration of Turks like Germany is dealing with which will tip the balance of there being an Islamic France, Denmark and Germany erupting into civil war.
It is not just the precarious situation of Turkey being neither European nor completely Muslim it is that it is NATO. As push comes to shove with Russia, China and India now forming a wedge against Amerian interests, that some interesting oracles out of Europe speak of a Russian invasion into the Balkans (you remember their support of Serbs and the Bosian Muslim shooting up a mall yesterday).......it is this area they will spear into and cut off Turkey from the west to destroy it.
Yes that if future conflicts, but that is where this is going as Eurasia explodes into war after a middle east skirmish which is coming. The future though is what one has to be preparing for and not so concerned about proxy Islam. They will be swept away by the Eurasians when their purpose is finished.
at February 15, 2007 12:26 PM
our = are
Perhaps I might add dyslexia to my resume. :P
Posted by: Foehammer at February 15, 2007 12:28 PM
@Arnie: Woehammer? More likely I'll just end up Toejammer.
Posted by: Foehammer at February 15, 2007 12:30 PM
Hey Hugh, How come we never see a picture of yourself? I have from time to time imagined you as tall, distinguished, slightly gray at the temples, with a pencil thin moustache, or, are you very short with a tiny little body and an enormous head. Also, are you ready to announce that you might be the father of Anna Nicole's baby?
Enquiring minds want to Know!
All requests above come with great respect, as usual. Thanks for all the insightful posts, we need your supply.
P.S. I too, am a fan of C.S. Lewis
Posted by: guide inside at February 15, 2007 12:42 PM
Lame Cherry, my understanding has always been that the Turks a Turkic people have their roots in Asia. A true Turk is of Asian decent from Turkmenistan, Mongolia and eastern China area. The Edomites you refer to as far as I know are extinct as a people, and if they are not I highly doubt they somehow make up the Turkic people.
Aside from that, I do believe their time will come(Turks), I just don't know at this time how much anyone can rely on Russia to do that job.
One of the biggest disasters to befall humanity in the last century was the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia before she fell was poised to deal with Turkey then, and Constantinople would have been Christian again. However we all know how that story went and the rest is history.
Now dealing with this current Turkish matter, I have to tell you that I'm elated that people in the west are finally seeing what life looks like to the average Orthodox Christian regarding these people. Hopefully this will turn into a ground swell of anti Turkish feeling and we can start dealing with them once and for all.
The current occupation of Constantinople has lasted for far too long, and maybe its time to return her to her rightful owners. Nothing bothered me more than seeing Turks on the news when the Pope was to arrive in Turkey. People screaming "this is an outrage, this is like when they came here during the crusades." How many people realized the absurdity of those statements? The crusades were fought to keep the Turks out of there, obviously we failed.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 12:48 PM
Lame 'Brained' Cherry wrote:
"some interesting oracles out of Europe speak of a Russian invasion into the Balkans (you remember their support of Serbs and the Bosian Muslim shooting up a mall yesterday)......."
Notwithstanding the general insanity of your post, this bit was particularly ridiculous. The Russian-supported Serbs fought a bloody war with the Bosnian Muslims. The Americans supported the Bosnian Muslims.
Posted by: schmegel at February 15, 2007 1:03 PM
Schmegel I usually ignore those Russia supported anything in the Balkans posts. But I read one of your posts on Dhimmi watch and you seem to think that the reason people don't like Turks is because they're Dark?
Come on man, modern Turks are light skinned, dark skinned, Asian looking you are way off track. But I think you know that, Islam is not a race, but Muslims like to refer to anyone who exposes their lies as racists.
Anyone can see plainly that the Turks have probably created more crimes against humanity than any other ethnic group ever. They are insidious in their ways of explaining away anything they have done, and go as far as to celebrate some day as the battle of Smyrna. A battle that never happened, but a mass execution of Greek civilians, and this is the typical Turkish way around things. I have to say I'm surprised they don't celebrate the battle of Armenia day where they celebrate the murder of 1.5 million unarmed Armenians.
Do you know that the Turks flew daily through the Northern Iraq no fly zone long before this current Iraq War? They went into Northern Iraq and ethnically cleansed Kurds in that region, and its ally the US turned a blind eye to it. I'm sure that also will become a national holiday.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 1:16 PM
'The fanatic' (Niv) wrote:
"Now dealing with this current Turkish matter, I have to tell you that I'm elated that people in the west are finally seeing what life looks like to the average Orthodox Christian regarding these people. Hopefully this will turn into a ground swell of anti Turkish feeling and we can start dealing with them once and for all.
The current occupation of Constantinople has lasted for far too long, and maybe its time to return her to her rightful owners. Nothing bothered me more than seeing Turks on the news when the Pope was to arrive in Turkey. People screaming "this is an outrage, this is like when they came here during the crusades." How many people realized the absurdity of those statements? The crusades were fought to keep the Turks out of there, obviously we failed.
Niv"
The moronicism of that needed quoting in full.
You want the so-called Christian world to 'start
dealing with them [the Turks] once and for all'. Sounds like race hatred with Nazi 'final solution' rhetoric.
As for the 'occupation' of Constantinople, this is more than 500 years old. By that standard everyone is occupying someone else's territory. Americans are occupying Native Americans' territory, Russians are occupying Tatar territory, etc.
The Pope's reception in Turkey was positively welcoming compared to the previous Pope's treatment when he visited Greece a few years ago. Your charming Orthodox Christians were screaming outrage at him ('Anti-Christ', 'Satan' etc.)far more visciously and hatefully than the Turks did to his successor.
As for the Crusades, they were not fought to keep the Turks out of Constantinople at all. The 4th Crusade was a crusade against the Orthodox Christians of Constantinople by the Western Catholics, who destroyed the city and massacred its Orthodox citizens. This caused a weakening of Byzantine power that eventually led to the Turkish takeover.
at February 15, 2007 1:26 PM
"I read one of your posts on Dhimmi watch and you seem to think that the reason people don't like Turks is because they're Dark?"
Niv, that post was directed specifically at someone who actually used racist language to justify his hatred of Turks.
Posted by: schmegel at February 15, 2007 1:31 PM
OK, so we know this much,
1)There are Turks of many backgrounds and beliefs.
2)Some are not to be trusted at all; some only partially trusted and managed as well as possible; and some perhaps could be true allies.
3)Turkish NATO membership can be useful to us in the counter-jihad so long as the Turks are controlled, limited, and prevented from spying or destroying consensus (a tall order).
4)Hugh's article is helpful in lifting the veil of fantasy many of us (myself included) have been or still are subject to. It is hard to give up the fantasy of a truly pluralistic, secular, tolerant and modern formerly Islamic society.
5)One need not completely give up this fantasy as long as one realizes that it is a far fetched dream and possibly in some cases it is used as a mask behind which jihad is lurking.
Just a personal anecdote, I was in Istanbul about 18 months ago and like any tourist, in a very short time I learned to avoid carper venders. While in the Grand Bazzar, I made the mistake of looking at a beautiful carpet for about 2 seconds and drew the attention of a vender. As I walked away he pleaded in English (I must have been an obviously English speaking person to him) and then said a few untelligible Turkish words followed clearly by the word "London." I got chills realizing that in his frustration (self generated) at losing a customer he was invoking the London tube bombings to show me that we infidels could not always turn our backs on him without reprisal.
at February 15, 2007 1:45 PM
The vendors usually work like this. They have agents circulating to watch for tourists. You stop to gaze, to do a little window-shopping, or vitrine-licking as is said in French (lecher la vitrine) and soon enough, someone approaches, and tells you that if you just come inside his shop, you will find much better wares and his "brothers" are there, and they would like to give you tea, just tea, no obligation, nothing to buy, really, just because they like to tell people about their beautiful rugs and to show them their beautiful rugs and you are under absolutely no obligation, really, it's just me and my brothers and my father and you can just have the tea and you don't even have to look at the rugs, and why are you so reluctant, don't you like me, don't you trust me, and if you trusted me, if you liked me, you would come back to the store and see the rugs, the beautiful rugs, and drink tea, and my brother will tell you all about our rarest and most beautiful rugs and if you don't come back that means you don't like me, you don't trust me, you think I'm just trying to sell you something, of course I'm not what do you take me for.....
And so on. And so on.
Posted by: Hugh at February 15, 2007 1:52 PM
Papa Bear,
Your Istanbul anecdote is simply a tale of your own paranoia. When the carpet seller said, 'London', he was trying to engage your attention by naming a place you might possibly be from. It's a tactic they all use. They are harmless.
at February 15, 2007 1:59 PM
Schmegel, you obviously have no idea why the crusades were fought. When your people were screaming this visit by the Pope reminds us of the crusades tells me how diluted your minds truly are. Everyone here is aware of the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders, but the crusades were born out of a desire to preserve the Christian world from Islamic aggression. That aggression began in the 7th century AD and ended with the Turks taking Constantinople in 1453. Yes the Turks, Mongols, Asians who converted to Islam, I know who we fought, do you know who you are?
You see everything as yours even when you have stolen it, and you scream of atrocities committed against you, that are actually the reverse.
Sorry but I missed the part of the Pope being welcomed by you multicultural lover Turks. There was a police and military presence around the Pope that was unprecedented. George Bush needed less security to enter Baghdad, typical liar.
When Pope John Paul II came to Greece there were riots and people upset, but I personally disagreed with those sentiments. What you don't seem to grasp MORON is that unlike your perverse following, Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians don't walk into their respective communities and blow each other up with bombs.
Of course you probably don't believe that Sunni's and Shiite's are blowing each other up on a daily basis do you.
On the topic of Constantinople yes it is a 500 year occupation at this time, if Americans or western forces took over Saudi Arabia and held her shrines and first converted them to Christian sites, and then turned them into museums would you still say well 500 years have passed it's ok now?
I doubt it, but as usual the mind that is Muslim or that sympathizes with it is a twisted mind indeed. I can't tell you how many quotes from jihadists out there say that once a land is Islamic it always is. Why can't Christians play by the same rules then? Anatolia was Greek for over 2500 years, so why can't we have it back?
You go and throw your Nazi reference out but it was the Turks who the Nazi's modelled themselves after, and it was the Armenian Genocide that was Hitler's blueprint. So when you say Nazi, I think of the Turks, the real Nazi's.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 2:04 PM
Calm down Niv, old fruit. You're making yourself look silly. The assumption that I am Turkish is rather comical.
Another factual error of yours: the Mongols never converted to Islam, and they are currently Buddhists.
Posted by: schmegel at February 15, 2007 2:13 PM
Schmegel, yeah if you paid attention would have noticed that I said Muslim or those who sympathize with them as I know I shouldn't jump to the conclusion that you are Turkish.
Having said that the Turkic peoples are clearly Muslims and originated from the Asian regions in the vicinity of Mongolia, so if I refer to them as Mongols so what?
Now I'm certainly not old and definitely not a fruit, sorry to disappoint you fudgy.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 2:22 PM
Schmegel-Turks originated in an area known as the Altay Mountain region which is where Mongolia, China, Kazakhstan and Russia meet by the way.
That's a long way off of the Aegean sea, which Turkey still demands that it should have half of.
Just a little note for you.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 2:33 PM
'Old fruit' is a friendly term of endearment, redolent of olde worlde British upper-class flippancy. It was meant ironically.
The assumption that I am a Muslim is rather comical.
The Mongolians really exist, and they ARE Buddhists. This has been the case for the last few hundred years. At the time of Genghis Khan they were pagans, shamanists I think. They have definitely never been Muslims.
They are not Turkic! The Mongolian language is part of the Mongolic language group, not Turkic. Both the Turkic and Mongolic language groups are sub-groups of the Altaic language group. To say that this suggests some kind of identity would be like suggesting the English are Indians, because English and Hindi are in the Indo-European language group.
Posted by: schmegel at February 15, 2007 2:38 PM
Schmegel I believe I already answered you on being Turkish( I stated above I should not jump to that conclusion). I also answered you on who the Turks are, and I do know that Mongolians are Buddhists, thanks for that.
Why don't you enlighten me and tell me who the Turks are if they are not from that region? Or tell me what determines ones identity as a people?
My understanding is that these Turkic peoples migrated from the Caucuses where the above mentioned countries are. Once again China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia. These people migrated west and either spontaneously erupted into Muslims or converted to Islam, as there is no other explanation possible for how Turkey is 99% Muslim.
You still haven't on a more important note answered any of my questions on why the crusades were fought, on why we are held to different standards than Muslims on ownership of theological sites? AKA the Agia Sophia, and why Muslims seem to demand ownership of any land that was theirs?
I haven't read a rebuttal on the Popes wonderful treatment in Turkey, so I say this issue is either dead or going no where.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 2:59 PM
Niv
You keep tripping yourself up. China, Mongolia and Kazakhstan are nowhere near the Caucuses. You seem to be confusing the Caucuses with Altai - thousands of miles apart!
Muslims don't own Hagia Sophia; it's a secular museum, and has been since the 1920s.
You had difficulty understanding my first post that was addressed to you. I said there that the Pope's treatment in Turkey was welcoming IN COMPARISON to the shameful Greek treatment of the previous pontiff.
As for what determines the identity of a people, I repeat, to identify the Turks with the Mongols, AS YOU DID, is like saying the Americans and the Iranians are the same people, because they both speak Indo-European languages (English and Farsi). Absurd!
Posted by: schmegel at February 15, 2007 3:29 PM
Schmegel I am not the one who keeps tripping up here. I have clearly stated that they come from the Altay Mountains more than once. You refuse to tell me what identity the Turks have, and the Agia Sophia is a museum owned by a Turkish government that says its secular, but its practices are not.
That is plain as day to anyone who is objective on that matter. The Greek treatment of the Pope I also have agreed was shameful, however once agin it is oft pedalled how no one was allowed near the Pope in Turkey. Why, because they would have killed him, there is no doubt he needed that much security for a reason. But thanks for looking at that one with rose colored glasses.
The thing that bugs me most on this issue is that your attitude on this matter is what has offended Orhtodox Christians for the longest time. The pretending that everything done by Turkey wasn't bad and that we should just go away and accept that our previous land there is gone. Well it is gone and it was taken through many bloody conflicts and genocides that followed.
You can pretend that Turkey is secular and not a problem, and that we are all racists, but the fact remins that it is a country built on the bones of millions. Everyone in the west has to wake up to that fact and exmaine this country a little closer than they have.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 3:44 PM
Ah the carpet venders. Yeah, I avoided them like the plague. Very persistent buggers.
I remember my time in Turkey: crossing the border there was Turk wearing an "Iraqi Freedom" T-shirt, with F-16s probably and Iraq superimposed on the American Flag. The guy asks if I was an American, and of course I said yes, I don't deny it. Go on and Hate me. He then Said "George Bush is dictator evil” ok fine, I've heard this before- but term limits and checks and balances limit him - so not a dictator. Then the Turk said, "Osama bin Laden will get him” yeah nice!! And finally "you better look out." NICE.
Overall, my experiences in Turkey were negative, and that is disregarding the effects of drinking the water. I would meet one honest driver, who would call me back to the Taxi-bus because I gave too much money, but then I would meet Turks who were by far the most racist and sexist. They hate foreigners.
Amongst the worse was the churches in Cappadocia, churches hewn from rock well before the Seljuk Turks arrived, whose art and murals had there eyes gouged out and overwritten in Turk.
And don't get me started how Turks treat women!!
An aside: many of the Mongol khanates converted
to Islam, but not the Mongols located in mondern day Mongolia.
at February 15, 2007 3:57 PM
npabga wrote:
"An aside: many of the Mongol khanates converted
to Islam, but not the Mongols located in mondern day Mongolia."
It was the Tatar khanates that converted to Islam, and the Tatars and related Bashkirs are 'Muslim' (though thoroughly secularised by the Soviets) to this day. Tatars are Turkic peoples (linguistically), and are different from the Mongols, though the two ethnicities were allied during the period of the 'Golden Horde', where in the outer-(western)-reaches of the Mongol empire the Tatars constituted the majority lower class and the Mongols were the minority ruling class.
Posted by: schmegel at February 15, 2007 4:15 PM
sorry but i dont care what people like schegel think they are just like turks who hate orthodox christians. and he mentions how orthodox christian protested against the pope visiting greece but did any Greeks try and shoot the pope who shot the last pope again was it a greek or turk?
All i care about is that Greeks where minding there own business 500 years ago and barbartic turks came from centrel asia and killed stole and raped. and now turks are still threatening us but the west doest care they just want to suck up to turks becuase they hate greece and russia and all orthodox christian countrys
at February 15, 2007 4:34 PM
"They went into Northern Iraq and ethnically cleansed Kurds in that region, and its ally the US turned a blind eye to it. I'm sure that also will become a national holiday."
Would someone pls tell me why the pure hatred the Kurds and the Turks have against each other?
In fact, everytime the U.S. even talks about giving the Kurds a portion of Iraq - officially, since they already occupy the northern part - every time, the Turks threaten to invade Iraq with their military.
Aren't the Kurds and Turks the same religion?
at February 15, 2007 4:40 PM
It is Turkey that will not be allowed into the E.U. It is Turkey that needs American guarantees in the future chaos and confusion that will inevitably result -- thank God -- from the inevitable American withdrawal from Tarbaby Iraq.
He should get it right, or be replaced.
Why?
Because he doesn't understand the precarious position of Turkey today.
But he will.
Posted by Hugh
Hugh, I hope by God that you are right. PLEASE I hope they want US bases out of there!! Let us withdraw from this unholiest of lands which goes by the name of turkey!
So let us not hope he is replaced.. Let the turks delve into chaos. AND KEEP OUR BORDERS SHUT!
Posted by: scrualla at February 15, 2007 4:58 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/69385806@N00/391402406/?#comment72157594537899076
This graphic is for Greek gurl. To underline the threat we face from turkey. And don;t worry about schmegel. He's smegma. A shmuck.
Proundinfidel has it right: who CARES where the turks are from - just keep them away from US!!
They are disgusting in every which way. They also smell. Sorry but they do.
Greek Gurl.. Not ALL Europeans hate the Greeks. The inteeligent Europeans know who brought culture to Europe and who is intent on destroying it.
To make it clear:
Greece = culture and Civilization
turkey = islam and destruction
at February 15, 2007 5:04 PM
allat without getting schmegel into this now the Turks are not a homogeneous group anymore. They are a combination of the original Turks, forcefully converted peoples in the area and other Muslims.
Now the other Muslims are Kurds primarily and make up a significant percentage of present day Turkey.
So the Turks fear an implosion caused by Kurds if they are given their own country. This would be a great thing for the world, because a potential civil war may come one day in Turkey as a result.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 5:16 PM
allat-for a better breakdown I referred to the CIA website and found it states that the demographics are 99% Muslim, mostly Sunni and that the split is 80% Turkish and 20% Kurdish.
Hope that helps.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 15, 2007 5:24 PM
Hello Hugh: As much as I enjoyed reading your
assessment of Turkey, it's not an eye opener
but it is important to bring it up when
needed. On the ether hand I totally agree with
Foehammer on his strategy for our immediate
future, although
to judge from our retired high ranking military
officers, I believe that they don't have a
clue. Every time we hear from any of them,
they fail to address the real problem, ISLAM.
Posted by: kiko at February 15, 2007 5:33 PM
Hey schmegel regarding your previous comment "As for the 'occupation' of Constantinople, this is more than 500 years old. By that standard everyone is occupying someone else's territory. Americans are occupying Native Americans' territory, Russians are occupying Tatar territory, etc."
I guess we know where you stand on the right for Israel to exist.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at February 15, 2007 8:17 PM
Someone who knows more about Turkey than I do please help me out.
A Christian school headmaster from the US toured Turkey and returned with nothing but praise. I know the fellow is not too observant and not too bright. Heck, he's a school headmaster, what can you expect.
But somehow the Turks he dealt with left a favorable impression about their wonderful, modern, open society.
Are these propaganda tours common, as well as staged? Any details?
With some slight hope of an EU acceptance, I figured sure they're being nice now, but you don't see what's just below the surface.
So again, are these staged propaganda tours, and something that there pushing to show a good side?
Or is this visitor simplier dumber than I every imaged?
Posted by: LoneRanger at February 15, 2007 8:26 PM
... simply dumber than I ever imagined.
Posted by: LoneRanger at February 15, 2007 8:29 PM
"I read one of your posts on Dhimmi watch and you seem to think that the reason people don't like Turks is because they're Dark?"
Niv, that post was directed specifically at someone who actually used racist language to justify his hatred of Turks.
Posted by: schmegel
Schmegel-smegma-shmuck.. u out trollin' again?!
Poeple don't like turks bvecaus they are TURKS, stupid!
Study their history.. study what they **DO**.
THEN we'll debate why people don;t like them!!!!!
Till then vamoose, ya shmuck!
Posted by: scrualla at February 16, 2007 12:13 AM
So the Turks fear an implosion caused by Kurds if they are given their own country. This would be a great thing for the world, because a potential civil war may come one day in Turkey as a result.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic
That would be a wonderful thing for the Western World for sure. I'd like to see Greece and Bulgaria take control again of the European lands which are currently in turkey hands. islam must be pushed back across the bosporus.
islam = pure evil
Posted by: scrualla at February 16, 2007 12:29 AM
Just one minor anthropological note:
"Turks" -- that is the inhabitants of present day Turkey -- get their genes from Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Galatians (=Galicia=Little Gaul), Arabs, Seljuks and other 'Turkic' peoples,' as well as all the peoples of Eastern Europe from whom they stole children to be Janisaries. When I was growing up my image of what a Turk looked like was clearly Turhan Bey (who is half-Czech anyway.)
Go to www.kirkpinar.jp, click on the icon for English, and click on the icon for Wrestlers which will be second from the left. Place a piece of paper over the right side of your monitor and look at the faces which appear on the left hand side and try to decide which nationality they belong to. The first man is Irish or Scots Irish, the second Italian, third Greek, fourth French or German, but the names are Saban Yilmaz, Recep Kara, Ahmet Tasci, and Ekrem Yavuz. Mehmet Yilmaz looks more like a member of my father's side of the family than I do, down to the pattern baldness. Cengis Elbeye looks like an Armenian enginner I once worked with, and if you passed him in the street you would think he was Mexican. Kenan Simesk could be Yugoslav or Spanish. One man looks like the Welsh-born actor John Rhys-Davies while another could be a clone of the English actor Tony Haygarth. Some of the others look 'middle American' and could easily fit into football uniforms and helmets. The most commonly held characteristic I can see is the favoring of a bowl haircut.
Could Al Qaeda use the Turkish population as a source of 'white' terrorists who could infiltrate the US and other western countries to carry out attacks? So far they do not seem to be recruiting them, nor have they been recruiting them as jihadis in Iraq (at least I have not seen any reports of Turks joining the fighting, yet.)
Posted by: bigger at February 16, 2007 12:49 AM
Hugh’s description of the Turkish rug sellers reminded me of my experience with a couple of those types when I visited Turkey about 10 years ago. A friend and I had a similar, in retrospect, humorous experience in one of those shops near Ephesus.
They asked us to come in and visit their “souvenir” store. They gave us Cokes, same story, “no obligation,” etc., etc. They wanted us to buy a rug. $5000 was quoted. They said they would take a credit card. I didn’t want one of their rugs even for $5. The problem was that they blocked the door and physically wouldn’t let us leave. I pushed one aside and got out to our car. My friend followed. They ran out of the shop shouting and gesturing. One leapt in front of my car. I started it, drove around him and sped off. They jumped into their car and followed at high speed, through the narrow streets of the little village, right on my back bumper. I managed to lose them by driving through some bazaar and out onto the main highway. I drove as fast as I could to Kusadasi.
That trip was before we in the US thought much about Islamic fundamentalism. To paraphrase Mr. Edwards; I remember two Turkeys. One was the beaches and tourist sites with all of the Europeans. Istanbul, Bodrum, Kas, Antalya. It looked like Italy or Greece. I also visited the interior, where my mother’s Armenian relatives had lived and had either escaped or were killed. Westerners didn’t go there so much. Fundamentalists were on the rise. About half of the women were veiled; others wore micro-skirts and stiletto heels. The people were generally poor, in many instances living in hovels. I remember the people in the streets, scurrying to mosques at the call of the Muezzin. They also had cafes with soft core porn on the black and white TVs. We were primarily objects of curiosity. Some people were friendly, but we mostly got hard looks.
Posted by: Alek at February 16, 2007 2:43 AM
"Turks" -- that is the inhabitants of present day Turkey -- get their genes from Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Galatians (=Galicia=Little Gaul), Arabs, Seljuks and other 'Turkic' peoples,' as well as all the peoples of Eastern Europe from whom they stole children to be Janisaries. When I was growing up my image of what a Turk looked like was clearly Turhan Bey (who is half-Czech anyway.)"
The above only proves that what matters really is is upbringing and unfortunately the basis of Turkish upbringing, the essence that Turkish children get with mother milk, is the "Herrenmensch" distinction between Muslims and Non-Muslims, based on Islam, even if the child is born in rather secular family. How else could we explain that the wast majority of Turks , also those so called secular, modern and bla bla are taking proud in Turkish history that is basically a chronicle of the worst and most disgusting pillage, plunder, spoil and crimes. Even secular Turks , their intellectual elite, are not ashamed of this history , on the contrary , they are proud of it. If you are a European from the Balcans one of the first things that Turks you meet will tell you (mostly with an absolutely idiotic and disgusting smile) is that they once ruled the whole Balcans (and the second one is that they are discriminated in Europe because they are Muslims and suffer so much).
They were never forced to question their history because big European nations, first of all Britain, enabled this. Britain created the myth of "tolerant Islam" and spreaded fairy tails about Ottomane empire and happy lives of Non-Muslims there.
This propaganda is still alive today, to prepare us for final islamization of Europe - for instance, if you visit Andalusia in Spain, you will be able to see that even the books for children as old as 5 are full of remarks of the "Golden Age" when "Muslims, Jews and Christians lived happily together" (I am not kidding, I have seen such books, printed in Spanish, German , English and French. Some of those children books I saw are portraying life in harem as nice and happy ).
Last but not least, it is insane to equate Turkish ivasion of Europe with collonisation of America. America was a continent cultivated predominatly by the new comers, colonizers, while Turks were nomads and savages who built hardly anything on their own. Decline of the Ottomane empire came when Christian populations got empoverished and diminished, so there was nothing more to plunder. (Of course, I am not saying it is great that native Americans were completely extinct from some regions in America, BUT as far as I can judge most Americans see this part of their past critically and there are plenty of efforts to correct the historical unjustice, not only with good words but also with lavish financial support of native communities. Nothing of that sort is happening in Europe, on the contrary: groups that helped Turks in century long crime history are awarded with establishement of their states, see Bosnia, see Kosovo. And Turks themselves are still allowed to believe Europe owe them something).
Posted by: Serbian girl at February 16, 2007 8:38 AM
scrualla,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you a renamed version of a particular 'British'/Australian, BNP loving, racist? If so, welcome back.
Given all the well-documented evils done in the name of Islam, the best you can do is tell us that Muslims are dark and they smell.
You and your ilk are worse than pathetic!
Posted by: schmegel at February 16, 2007 2:09 PM
thats true serbiangirl turks think all of europe owe's them but it seems to me now europe does'nt want Turkey in EU but saying that even the arab countrys dont want turkey the only freinds turkey has is america and isreal and uk.
Turks have caused most of the wars in Europe nicosia the capital of cyprus is the only divided city in the world how can Turkey a EU country join the EU when it occupies a other EU country illegally Turkey continues to denies armenian genocide it still threatens Greece over the Aegean islands
the TUrkey today is as it always was 2 faced theives and murderers
Posted by: Greek Gurl at February 16, 2007 5:38 PM
hugh posted
Secularist Turks, advanced westernized Turks, the Turks who are the kind of Turks one meets abroad or in fashionable gatherings in Istanbul (and fails to see, much less read the minds of, all those other Turks who wait on you, or wait on the secularized westernized Turks who are your hosts), do not represent Turkey. They represent a part of Turkey. Perhaps they represent as much as a quarter of the population. But not more. And they will lose unless they do more to protect and to constantly expand the Kemalist undertaking.
hugh the kemalist undertaking was killing armenians and Greeks its no better then the turkish islamic undertaking it was also the same killing armenians and greeks but i guess you or other people in the west are only mad at turkey for the reason it didnt give you airbases in iraq the sad thing is people like hugh who say they are against islam but at the same time praise kemal ataturk who murdered thousands of christians
at February 16, 2007 6:10 PM
Hey schmegel regarding your previous comment "As for the 'occupation' of Constantinople, this is more than 500 years old. By that standard everyone is occupying someone else's territory. Americans are occupying Native Americans' territory, Russians are occupying Tatar territory, etc."
I guess we know where you stand on the right for Israel to exist.
Posted by pissedoffcanadian
Hey schmegel I see there's another question you want to dodge. Is it because you're a hypocrite, or are you a racist, no different than what you portray everyone here as?
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at February 16, 2007 8:10 PM
I agree with you Greek Gurl, Mustapha Kemel was a Hitler to Christians. He came in and finished the job. He built the "modern" state of Turkey by eliminating the left over Christians in the territory he controlled so that the victorious Western powers could not practically support an independent Armenia or support further Greek claims to Asia Minor and Islands.
Then came the Soviet Union and American groveling to the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, etc. chose to look the other way because they needed the bases in Turkey.
As pointed out by others on this thread, now we have bases in Iraq. Americans and Europeans don't need Turkish favors anymore. Turkey will not be admitted to the EU without major concessions regarding crimes of their ancestors. The US is finally waking up to what sort of ally we have in Turkey. I never thought I would see this.
Posted by: Alek at February 16, 2007 8:20 PM
Greek Gurl,
I am as appalled and disgusted by the Armenian genocide and the post-World-War-One 'ethnic cleansing' of the Greek minority in Turkey as you are. And I also think that Turkey must own up to these acts in order to become a mature modern nation, like present-day Germany.
However, to hate a whole nation as you do, and that means to hate every man, woman, and child of that nation, is desperate and pathetic.
As for the Cyprus question, there was a referendum a couple of years ago where the Northern Cypriots (Turks) voted for a united Cyprus, and the Southern Cypriots (Greeks) voted to retain the partition of the island. Given this fact, how can the blame for the current division of Cyprus be placed on the Northern Cypriots?
Posted by: schmegel at February 17, 2007 4:23 AM
Whatever the crimes of the historical Kemalists, surely an ideology of secular nationalism should be considered one possible way of Islamic countries shaking off the worst extremes of fundamentalist Islam, more effective than simply holding elections.
Posted by: schmegel at February 17, 2007 4:38 AM
schmegal
As for the Cyprus question, there was a referendum a couple of years ago where the Northern Cypriots (Turks) voted for a united Cyprus, and the Southern Cypriots (Greeks) voted to retain the partition of the island. Given this fact, how can the blame for the current division of Cyprus be placed on the Northern Cypriots?
schegal the reason Greek Cypriots voted no to the referundum in Cyprus was becuase it meant that if the island was reunited not all greek cypriots would be allowed to get there homes back that where stolen from them by the turks my parents where greek cypriot refugees who where forced out of there homes by the turks its not garrented my parents would have gotten there homes back.also it meant that as well as not all greek Cypriots getting there homes back it meant that the turk military bases would continue to be in Cyprus for the next 20 years. all greek Cypriots want is to have all the turkish illegal settlers to leave and the turkish military to leave so greek and turkish cypriots can all have there homes back and live in peace
at February 17, 2007 1:30 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)