Dhimmi Watch: Fitzgerald: Note to the Turkish government

October 11, 2007

Fitzgerald: Note to the Turkish government

Note to the Turkish government:

1) The Cold War, or at least the First Cold War, is over. It is no longer 1950, or 1960. There is no longer a need for Turkey's help in confronting Russia, which, while it has reverted to unpleasantness and despotism, is not the menace it once was. And Turkey is not quite so important a place for listening-posts and other bases.

2) Turkey was seen, not quite correctly, as a staunch ally against Communism, because, you see, "Islam is a bulwark against Communism." American policymakers liked the Turkish generals, with their stolid soldiers (who fought in Korea). But they failed to realize that they got along so swimmingly with those Turkish generals not because they were such good Muslims (and therefore positively bulwarkish against Communists), but because they were not -- because they were in fact "modern Turks," bearers and preservers and protectors of the Kemalist legacy.

3) Those Turkish generals, and the secular class of Turks whose development had occurred because of the constraints Ataturk placed on the political and social power of Islam, did not do what they should have before the Return of Islam under Erbakan, and such shadowy backers as Fethuleh, and Erdogan, and now Gul. That is, they did not continue to pursue, to push still further, the Kemalist program. They were satisfied with what had been achieved. Like the leftists in Iran who made common cause with Khomeini, they could not quite believe that the lowly Muslims -- that is, the real Believers -- would ever return to power. But they have, and they are also, cunningly and methodically, chipping away at the whole Kemalist enterprise.

4) Turkey has not fulfilled, as it seems to think, its duties to its American "ally." It did not permit the use of Incirlik airbase. Three rather than four divisions, therefore, had to take over Iraq. There was no invasion force from the north that might have made a difference in Anbar.

5) The Turkish population has, in the last few years, made a viciously anti-American movie -- one depicting American soldiers in Iraq as veritable Nazis, and a Jewish doctor as a Mengele-like figure, harvesting the organs of dead Iraqis to be sent to such places as "Los Angeles and Tel Aviv" -- into the biggest Turkish box-office smash of all time. And at the top of the book bestseller list was a Turkish edition of Mein Kampf. And high Turkish officials described the American effort in Iraq as one of rapacious murderers. No one in Turkey seemed to think they were duty-bound to protest. No one seemed to realize that there was anything that needed protesting.

6) Turkey is a member of NATO. The Turks apparently think they will remain in NATO no matter how outrageously they behave. But why should NATO continue to tolerate an Islamic country? What conceivable good can come of having privy to NATO circles a government like that now in power in Istanbul, given that the great threat to the other countries of NATO, and to the Western alliance, comes now from the forces of Jihad? That is, Jihad through terrorism, Jihad through qitaal or conventional warfare, Jihad through the Money Weapon, Jihad through campaigns of Da'wa, Jihad through demographic conquest, Jihad through the constant pressure and battering of the legal and political institutions of every Infidel nation-state in which Muslims now feel themselves to be sufficiently numerous and powerful to act in such a manner. They are sure that there will be no consequences no matter what changes in those institutions or special treatment that they continue to demand. They are sure there will be no consequences despite the extraordinary prickliness and quickness to anger, and the campaigns of apologetics intended to sow deliberate confusion among the Infidels, and the refusal to collaborate, as one would think all Muslims would be eager to, falling all over themselves to, with security forces in ferreting out all those -- those "few" -- who have "hijacked a great religion" and so need to be watched, reported on, taken into custody, expelled or imprisoned.

The Turkish government may find that its threats will win it a temporary reprieve in Washington. It may be that the Bush Administration will be able to stop this resolution from being passed. It may be that Bush thinks that the large-scale murders of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks began in 1915, when it began twenty years before, with no "wartime conditions" to blame, with the first great modern massacre of those Christian Armenians (in which both Muslim Turks and Muslim Kurds participated): the massacres of 1894-96.

But it won't be able to do that forever. It is up to the secular Turks -- Orhan Pamuk has been among the first -- to start discussing the mass murder, or genocide, of the Armenians. They can't hope to prevent the discussion. The more they try to stop it, the more intense that discussion will become. Vahakn Dadrian's book will go into another edition, and another, and another. And Spyros Vryonis's work on the massacres of the Greeks, and the 1955 attacks -- The Mechanism of Catastrophe -- will start being read more avidly. The more they deny, the more it will come out.

And they will see. They can already see that the E.U. does not need Turkey, does not want Turkey. And they will see that NATO, and the Americans, do not need Turkey, a recalcitrant Turkey, a difficult Turkey, a Turkey that makes demands for the rewriting or the ignoring of history. This is not a Turkey that the American government needs quite so much. After all, if the Turkish army will not be ordered to collaborate with Infidels against other Muslims -- and it will not be, not by the current government -- then what good is Turkey to NATO? Who will it fight, or help to fight?

The Americans should have learned, must have learned, that they never again should invade and remain in a Muslim country. By all means, when necessary, bomb from on high; that's what missiles and planes in the Air Force are for. But not land troops, not remaining in place among a permanently hostile population -- hostile not because we do this or fail to do that, and not as Bush likes to say "because of who we are" (meaning, as he does, people who "love freedom" blah blah blah), but "because of who we are" in another, more primitive and obvious sense: we are not Muslims, we are instead Infidels. That's enough. That's more than enough.

This Tarbaby in Iraq apparently now is forcing the Administration to placate Turkey. That is one more reason, if one more were needed, to exit Iraq as soon as an administration comes to power that is capable of coming to its geopolitical senses.

The brouhaha may, not right away, but soon, lead to Turkey threatening to leave NATO. No doubt the Turkish government fully expects the Americans to rush to them, to offer them this and offer them that in an attempt to get them to stay. They may find that no one tries to stop them, that every country in NATO is secretly pleased that the one Muslim state has removed itself, voluntarily, and thus relieved NATO members of the difficult and embarrassing undertaking of forcing Turkey out.

Posted by Hugh at October 11, 2007 6:03 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

Greetings:

Excellent points all.

The Islamist government in Turkey will probably use this issue to foment its supporters (tomorrow's Friday, after all, the Muslim Day of Demonstrations) and advanced its Islamist agendas.

The EU does not need or want Turkey; NATO should wisen up but I doubt it will.

Back when I was studying Public Administration, one of the emphasized concepts was the fundamentalism vs. incrementalism construct.

Fundamentalism referred to starting programs from a zero-state such as FDR's development of Social Security. Incrementalism referred to making minor changes to programs that already exist in some form such as the current situation with the S-CHIP children's health insurance.

Fundamental decisions are usually avoided and incremantal ones made in their stead. Often with mixed or bad results. I am afraid that the only way for Turkey to be removed from NATO would be if they asked to leave.

Posted by: 11B40

at October 11, 2007 6:42 PM

Perhaps Russia and the rest of the old Eastern Block should be considered for membership to NATO and the EU, and then close the door on Turkey's application to the EU, and discontinue their membership in NATO ?

Posted by: elcordobes

at October 11, 2007 8:01 PM

And by the way, what is it about the Turks that they refuse to allow the Kurds, anywhere - even in IRaq -a piece of land?

If they would, they'd get the monkey (Kurdish rebels) off their back.

Posted by: allat

at October 11, 2007 8:11 PM

It's a good article Hugh. You were wise to leave out the bit about America's ability to pressure the Turks into accepting a Kurdish polity.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 11, 2007 9:08 PM

Good article Hugh, I still at this point have no faith in the US, EU, or NATO to stand up and do the right thing.

Logic would dictate that Russia be the next country we bring into the EU and NATO, and cut the EU aspirations of Turkey for ever.

The Turks behave as they always have, and they have always been allowed to get away with it.

Cyprus entered the EU as the first occupied European country. Did it bring them a joint EU response to Turkey to withdraw troops from Cyprus? Of course it didn't. Did Turkey comply with any of the criteria laid out for her by the EU? Not one single step has been taken to move on the list She's given, yet EU leaders still creep closer to a motionless Turkey.

The Kurds will be sold out by the US once again, this all in hope that Turkey will look at this turning away as a sign of appeasement and friendship. It will earn the US no favours and I fear that the administrations in the US are almost addicted to the idea of Turkey, instead if the reality of Turkey.

Let's hope that someone will emerge with a clear mind that can lead the ousting of Turkey as an ally and friend.

Posted by: The fanatic

at October 11, 2007 10:48 PM

The fanatic

Let's hope that someone will emerge with a clear mind that can lead the ousting of Turkey as an ally and friend

Not much chance of that

For Al Qaeda’s network Turkey is a haven for its sources of funding. Turkish networks, along with Russians’, are the main players in these fields; they purchase the opium from Afghanistan and transport it through several Turkic speaking Central Asian states into Turkey, where the raw opium is processed into popular byproducts; then the network transports the final product into Western European and American markets via their partner networks in Albania. The networks’ banking arrangements in Turkey, Cyprus and Dubai are used to launder and recycle the proceeds, and various Turkish companies in Turkey and Central Asia are used to make this possible and seem legitimate. The Al Qaeda network also uses Turkey to obtain and transfer arms to its Central Asian bases, including Chechnya.

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/

Posted by: shiva

at October 11, 2007 11:40 PM

Great points Hugh. Turkey should not be allowed into the EU and you are absolutely right that it has no meaningful function any more in NATO. America should regard Turkey at arms-length and cut the military ties.

The Islamists and the generals are one in denying the Armenian genocide. The resolution should go through and the Administration should accept it as the will of the American people.

Unfortunately the muddle-headed Islamophiles in the State Department will continue looking at Turkey through rose-colored glasses. And there is a question about the RU bureaucrats as well.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones

at October 12, 2007 1:53 AM

"4) Turkey has not fulfilled, as it seems to think, its duties to its American "ally." It did not permit the use of Incirlik airbase. Three rather than four divisions, therefore, had to take over Iraq. There was no invasion force from the north that might have made a difference in Anbar."

........that is absolutely correct...those nitwits who complain that not enough troops were sent in are completely ignorant to the fact that a larger force was planned for Iraq.....they are in the dark about Turkeys role in denying the US the capability of delivering a large force through the northern route....

.....par for the course...the complainers and anti-war moonbats do not know the true facts....and they probably do not know who or what the enemy is....and they fight for the wrong causes....they are just as dangerous as armed Muslim terrorists....

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at October 12, 2007 7:32 AM

the bill that was passed through congress passed by a 27-21 vote. I'm interested to see who voted against it, and specifically how many republicans voted against it. Anyone have a link to the vote breakdown?

Good for those treasonous democrats to finally do something in line with what they pretend to stand for.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader

at October 12, 2007 10:00 AM

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 3930 As Amended )
Vote Number: 259 Vote Date: September 28, 2006, 06:37 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 3930
Measure Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 65
NAYs 34
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Not Voting
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---65
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---34
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Snowe (R-ME)

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Not Voting
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at October 12, 2007 12:29 PM

Of course the Turks committed an act of genocide against the Armenians. And, of course,the Moron-in-Chief, the great interpreter of Islamic law and history and his advisors such as Rice who are even more egregious in that they should have known better, have gotten us bogged down in an attempt to build a democracy for a people dwelling in the seventh century. But it is a little unseemly for the Democrats in Congress, who don't want to actually take any responsibility by ending funding for this war, to sneakily sabotage it by voting on this question at this time. Would they have done so if there was no war in Iraq? And would Islam's new found friends on the left have silently assented to insulting Muslims were it not for the imperative of sticking it to the Bush administration? Notice how what occurred is always described as what the Turks did to Armenians and never as what Muslims did to Christians. A dirty little secret about the massacre is that it was enthusiastically supported by Muslim clerics. Another dirty little secret is that our beloved Kurdish allies and other Muslim ethnic groups happily joined with the Turks in looting, raping and slaughtering a defenseless civilian population. Don't expect Pelosi and Company to acknowledge these facts.

Posted by: RBLA

at October 12, 2007 3:12 PM

Very interesting....thanks for the vote breakdown Ex.

Turks are really whining about this...all they've done is threaten. Threatening Israel and the US with "actions". They have their protesters working into a frenzy...

"Gates said that 70 percent of US air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about a third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq."

"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said. He also said that 95 percent of the newly purchased Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are being flown through Turkey to get to Iraq."

The Turks have gotten away with far too much over the years. From the theft of Constantinople, to the massacres, to the Janissaries you name it....they've gotten away with it. What the hell are these people doing in NATO?

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader

at October 12, 2007 3:24 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald,

I must disagree with your hostile remarks towards Turkey, a critical ally against the global Jihad. This hostility, which seems to be shared by some of your readers shows an ignorance of Turkey's role in Islamic history. Turkey, a deeply Islamic country, with Islamic roots going back atleast a millenium, is the only Muslim country to have self-democratized. Certainly there are other countries with Muslims in them that have liberal-democratic aspects, but this is typically a result of the non-muslim portion. In other words, the Turks are one of the few muslims that have "gotten it". They have ccome to the understanding that democracy is better then Sharia and have taken firm, uncompromising steps to end Jizya, dhimitude, and the other negative aspects of Islamic governance. Turkey, thus, represents something of an anomaly in the Islamic world, one that we should be capitalizing on rather then shunning. If the Pipes mantra (Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution) is correct, then Turkey represents a critical part of that solution, not the problem. We should be pointing at Turkey and saying "See this is how you do it", not criticizing Turkey for something that happened over 100 years ago. I should also mention that it is nonsense to imply that Turkey is guilty of an act of genocide as Turkey did not even exist at the time. It was the Ottoman empire that did this thing. As horrible as it was, there is simply no Ottoman Empire for us to point the finger of shame at, so why are we wasting our breath quibbling over the past when there is so much uncertainty about the future.

Posted by: Monte Gardner

at October 12, 2007 10:00 PM

Monte - I have the impression you are not up to date on Turkish Islamist leanings, from Erdogan on down.You are describing a Turkey of the cold war, one that is no longer with us. The Generals no longer have the power or the will to control the Islamists. And anyway, what kind of "democracy" has military keepers?

You note "there is no Ottoman Empire for us to point the finger of shame at, so so why are we wasting our breath quibbling over the past when there is so much uncertainty about the future."

Then the current generation of Turks should have no quibble in accepting the facts of history.

The British Empire for example is also no more, but that does not mean we re-write history to omit British suppression of America, India, Ireland, etc. And that goes for dozens of other now defunct empires. French, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, Mongol, and on and on. Facts are facts. The world needs to live with its history and new generations must learn the truth about humanity. The fact is that we are frequently inhuman.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones

at October 13, 2007 12:43 AM

Mr. Gardner I can't help but disagree with your assessment.

The Ottoman Empire was still in existence at that time, and Ataturk was an influential person directly involved in this genocide. If the issue is Turkey didn't exist, what's the harm in recognizing this genocide? The problem is that these Turks are the same people and the history they teach in their schools is unique to Turkey. They have revised more history than any one else has to serve their own needs.

The great achievement of Turkey is largely nothing more than propaganda. These secular Turks have completely squashed any rights non Muslim's should have had under a true secular government, and its population has shown nothing but disdain for any of its neighbours.

Turkey still has laws that non Muslim's cannot inherit property, as a result the largest Greek city ever(Constantinople), has a population of less than 2000 Greeks. The Eastern Orthodox Patriarch has to be a Turkish born citizen by law to hold that position, this in itself is cultural genocide that still exists today. The Agia Sophia remains a museum and does not look like it will ever be reopened for Christian's to pray in.

One needs not to look any further than the Patriarch's residence in Istanbul. It's a fortress with high walls and barbed wire surrounded by the most fanatical extremist Muslim community in the city. I wonder if this positioning of this neighborhood was an astonishing coincidence, or a planned settlement by the secular government? There is also a festival that takes place every year where someone dresses up like the Patriarch and is placed on a boat and sent off. Thousands of people are on the shore waving goodbye to the Patriarch in a symbolic gesture that they don't want Christians in their country. I don't know what they are so upset about, Turkey is 99% Muslim.

Turkey still makes territorial claims on Aegean islands and is poised to wipe out the Kurds in Northern Iraq, once again.

This is not a great country of tolerance as you claim, it is intolerant and belligerent and is becoming worse instead of better.

As I've said before Turkey is a figment of the western worlds imagination, as we desperately desire to see something good where it doesn't exist.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html

Posted by: The fanatic

at October 13, 2007 1:22 AM

allat:''And by the way, what is it about the Turks that they refuse to allow the Kurds, anywhere - even in Iraq -a piece of land?

I wonder why? Perhaps this item may go some way towards explaining their reasoning:

http://www.geocities.com/t_volunteer/pkk/pkk.htm

According to Bruce Hoffman's recently (1998) published "Inside Terrorism", terrorism is; "ineluctably political in aims and motives; violent - or, equally important, threatens violence; designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim of target; conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia); and perpetrated by a sub-national group or non-state entity."

The PKK (The Kurdistan Workers Party ... it's always a good scam for these bozos to associate themselves with 'the workers' isn't it? Joshua) killing spree started on August 15, 1984 where 2 police officers were murdered (Eruh & Semdinli villages). In the ensuing years 17,179 attacks resulted in over 30 thousand murders. 3,489 soldiers, 180 police officers and 1,144 armed village guards were murdered. Among the 4276+ civilians massacred were 501 children, 512 women. You will agree with me that according to pretty much all definitions of terrorism PKK is a terrorist organization. I had earlier writen another paper on the results of some research including numerous clippings of foreign media, detailing the violence caused by PKK, please make sure you take a look at it if you are not sure about PKK's terrorist status. It is important to remember what PKK has done in the past to understand the mind set within which it operates.

With regards to Turkey, 2 terrorist organizations were listed on The U.S. Department of State, Counter terrorism Office's list of foreign terrorists in the world (released October 8, 1997). On this list are Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, (DHKP/C) and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) led by Abdullah "Apo" Öcalan . Another group not mentioned in the list but elsewhere in the report was TKEP/L.

Posted by: Joshua

at October 13, 2007 3:09 AM

Hugh:

You are correct that Turkey is far less important militarily than it was. You did not mention that Romania and Bulgaria (and perhaps soon Georgia) have greatly lessened Turkey's importance. However, you ommitted mention of Turkey's place in Europe's energy equation (which is under enormous strain from Russia). Consider important pipelines such as the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. You also forgot about the rising importance of the Bosphorous and access to the Black Sea. Since the Black Sea region is playing a far more prominent role for the fast growing economies of southeastern Europe (where there are now two EU members and where the EU now has a keen interest), you cannot deny the strategic importance of Turkish cooperation to European trade. Consider also the land link to places such as Georgia and the eastern Black Sea region’s possible further isolation.

I am not disagreeing with the jist of your post that Turkey has so much more to lose, but you failed to mention other ways in which the Turks can make quite difficult for the West.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at October 13, 2007 12:07 PM

I might have taken what you say here seriously if you had gotten the capital of Turkey correct. It's in Ankara, not Istanbul. This is an error on a par with a Turk saying the American government is "in power in New York."

Learn the basics, then you won't sound stupid.

Posted by: Clubbeaux

at October 13, 2007 5:00 PM

"They [the Turks] have come to the understanding that democracy is better then Sharia and have taken firm, uncompromising steps to end Jizya, dhimitude, and the other negative aspects of Islamic governance. Turkey, thus, represents something of an anomaly in the Islamic world, one that we should be capitalizing on rather then shunning. If the Pipes mantra (Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution) is correct, then Turkey represents a critical part of that solution, not the problem."
-- from a posting above

1. I don't agree that "the Turks" have "come to the understanding" that Islam itself as a political and social force needs to be contained. The whole effort of Ataturk was to do that, and do it systematically. But what do we observe? After 80 years of Kemalism, we see that Islam was not sufficiently constrained, that the Turkish Army has on more than one occasion had to cease power because those who wanted more Islam, who wanted to undo Kemalism, were in power. As for an end to the "Jizya" and "dhimmitude" -- well, the attitudes remain. The "jizyah" is not formally demanded in other Muslim countries, but there are ways to enforce a different standard on non-Muslims. I consider the Bumiputra system in Malaysia a disguised form of Jizyah. I consider the treatment meted out to Copts in Egypt since Farouk fell, despite those decades, chiefly when Lord Cromer (and Edward Cecil and many other Englishmen) was attempting to reform the Egyptian civil service, and Major-General Elgood the Egyptian army, when the Copts were treated decently, to be a form of dhimmitude. I don't know what to call the treatment of Armenians, Jews, and Greeks, who may be "Turkish citizens": but are not considered to be "Turks" and cannot conceivably aspire to be considered as "Turks" in Turkey today, but it certainly isn't one of total legal, political, and social equality. During World War II the Turkish government imposed the varlik vergesi, a special tax -- a tax placed only on non-Muslims.

What happened in Turkey is that Islam was contained in part by the promotion of another cult. Instead of worship of Muhammad, there would be the worship of Ataturk. Instead of the "best people" being Muslims, or more accurately Muslmi Arabs, "the Turk" and the Sun People --- see, inter alios, the writings of Inonu, Ataturk's immediate successor -- offered what might be called a Replacement Theology. It is long past time for the secularists, or those who are deeply worried about a political resurgence of Islam, to have extended the Kemalist enterprise so as to also take apart the worship, or Cult of Personality, of Ataturk, and all that stuff about the "Sun People" and "the Turks" who, to hear some tell it, were there long before Byzantium, practically back in the time of the Hittites.

I think what the example of Turkey indicates is not how far Turkey has come, how advanced its population, how very rational and very Western, but quite the reverse: how just below the surface, what strange hysteria and crazed defensiveness there is. Does Gul, does Erdogan, does anyone think that from now on they can avoid, put back to bed or out of sight, the matter of the Armenian massacres? Do they think they can continue to prate about how it all took place in wartime, when hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed in the first great massacre, that of 1894-96, for the same anti-Christian reasons ("die, giavour"!) that explain why both Muslim Turks and Muslim Kurds killed those Christian Armenians in the mid-1890s, twenty years before the outbreak of World War I?

It is disturbing to see the hysterical reaction in Turkey. What I would do, were I a secular Turk, is do what Orhan Pamuk has done. I would own up. I would not only own up, however, but I would say that the impulses of the killers were to be located in Islam, and modern Turkey has, since the mid-1920s, tried to tie up in knots the power of political Islam, and in some ways to make possible a way to dampen the impulses that Islam, if not so constrained, naturally gives rise to.

It was not Turks who killed Armenians. It was Muslim Turks (and Kurds) who killed Christian Armenians. That is how I would put it. But of course in Turkey today who will dare say that? Who will take on Islam in such a matter, or blame Islam, as rightly they should, for the behavior of some people in Turkey about 90 years ago?

They can't, won't, don't know how to do it. Well, we can do it for them.

We just have.

Posted by: Hugh

at October 13, 2007 5:27 PM

I have now read the arguments from Hugh, and others, and still I think it is beastly of the Democrats to bring up a resolution of this nature now. What is their reasoning to do it now?

And yes, I too am mad at the Turks for not allowing us our base to move troops into northern Iraq.

Posted by: CLL1709

at October 13, 2007 6:54 PM

--
Monte - I have the impression you are not up to date on Turkish Islamist leanings, from Erdogan on down.You are describing a Turkey of the cold war, one that is no longer with us. The Generals no longer have the power or the will to control the Islamists. And anyway, what kind of "democracy" has military keepers?
--
Posted by Jimmy Bones

Yes, there has been some rumblings of Islamist political activity in Turkey. There are such rumblings all over the world - Brittan, Indonesia, India, and for all I know Equatorial Guinea. This alone does not disqualify such nations from being our ally. Also, I understand the Islamists have been pretty thoroughly slapped down by the majority of Turkey.

For more on this, see
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4497

Sometimes your have to hold a mirror up even to your friend, and if the Turks are denying a genocide took place, perhaps there should be a discussion of that, but let it be a discussion between friends with common goals not the shrill, harsh rantings that have so characterized this debate thus far.

And all democracies have military keepers, thats the job of the military.

Posted by: Monte Gardner

at October 13, 2007 11:27 PM

Monte Gardner

Daniel Pipes has been proven wrong time and time again. In short he is quite idiotic in the cllasic sense. he repeats the same rants no matter what the facts.

It cracked me up to have you post (right above):
"I understand the Islamists have been pretty thoroughly slapped down by the majority of Turkey.
For more on this, see
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4497"

Yeah you would understand the FALSE and blind view if you read only Pipes. Why not read about the ELECTIONS which proved how wrong Pipes was (as always) a few weeks ago?

Pipes is of the Bernard Lewis vein. He has a romanticized pro Turkish view from 50 and 40 years ago that is not based in any facts in contemporary Turkey.

Please stop quoting or citing apologists who have long been discredited by reality.

Posted by: FrankLev

at October 14, 2007 1:15 PM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.