Erdogan and his European, crypto-Nazi friends
By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
As the confrontation between the outright, pro-secular majority and the 15% Islamist – extremist minority reaches a peak in Turkey, an unbelievable debate takes place in Europe whether European democrats should express an alignment with one of the two parts, because mainly of Turkey's importance for the entire world and secondly of Turkey's pending adhesion to the European Union.
Ignorant, ideology-driven, Europeans in support of 2007 Hitler
Have European statesmen, diplomats, academia and intellectuals been the victims of Turkey's extremist, Islamist government's propaganda, believing whatever lies the quasi-analphabet Turkish premier and his ridiculous and untrustworthy foreign minister diffused over the past four years?
Have they failed to monitor developments in Turkey?
Have they ignored the really barbaric dimensions of Erdogan's and Gul's society models?
Have they been gullible enough to believe that there can be a democratic society with women wearing the idiotically called 'Islamic headscarf'?
Or have they a genuine interest in pushing as strongly as possible Turkey to the Darkest of the Dark, ignoring the catastrophic consequences of cataclysmic impact for Europe, the Middle East, and the entire world?
So blind and immoral are today's European politicians and journalists to shamelessly neglect the consequences of their words and deeds?
Or their anti-Turkish hatred is so deep that can allow them to support a person with intentions worse than those of Hitler?
Before analyzing facts and demonstrating the anti-democratic, anti-Western, and anti-human nature of Erdogan's and Gul's ideals, we have to publish exemplary fragments on the preposterous, pro-Nazi discourses and argumentations of a certain number of supposedly democratic Europeans.
Don Blair-xote in Search of the most Quixotic Oxymoron
One should expect that the outgoing British premier would try to minimize the effects of his failed commitments; overwhelmingly rejected by his own party's most authentic representatives, ingeniously exploited by the most conservative elements of the British society and opposition, categorically denounced for his poor performance in a variety of crucial world issues, Iraq, Darfur, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Abyssinia, to name but a few, and widely disapproved by the British peoples, Tony Blair failed even in his last trickery to thwart Gordon Braun's rise to power. Yet, the embattled outgoing British premier tried to intervene in Turkey's internal affairs, by urging the military to abide by the country's democratic constitution (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/681ef09a-f7cd-11db-baa1-000b5df10621.html).
In his statement, the outgoing British premier declares that “it is essential that all those engaged in the political process do so in accordance with Turkey's well established democratic principles and in compliance with the constitution”. He further added he was “confident” that this would happen and that in this way Turkey would continue “to play a role as a key and democratic partner”.
Refutation of Tony Blair's statement
If we accept “Turkey's well established democratic principles”, then we should obliterate Erdogan and Gul, who rejected them first. The only proof that the ruling tandem accepts “Turkey's well established democratic principles” would be that Abduallah Gul's wife declares that she renounces to her ridiculous and pathetic headscarf, and she suggests to all Turkish women to do so.
In the current confrontation in which it would be essential to stress that the army did not intervene militarily but made use of rights accorded by the Constitution, the Democratic principles are threatened not by the army but by the Erdogan government. And if we refer to Democracy's supreme principle and effective 'law', namely that the majority rules, we know very well that the majority is against the Islamist government that with 33% of the voters (and not all of them Islamists) got the absolute majority in the parliament only due to a political occurrence.
When the army supports the majority in a country, this is a fully accredited democratic procedure.
Before leaving office, Tony Blair should rather answer the following question, so that we have a clear idea about his concept of the world:
- Wouldn't it be better for Germany and the world, if the German army intervened in 1934 Germany and overthrew Hitler who had just got a 'majority' similar that of today's Erdogan?
BBC asks a question of the utmost naivety
Just two days ago, the British media demonstrated in the best possible way that 2007 = 1934. Either ignoring everything about Turkey or pretending to ask a supposedly innocent question, the news agency's website posted an article under the title (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6603141.stm):
Why is the Turkish army so determined to defend secularism, the separation of religion and state?
The question testifies to deliberate ignorance of what happens in the Islamic societies. We republish here excerpts:
“Secularism is fundamental to Turkey's identity as a nation.
Turkey was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a military general, in what had been the Ottoman Sultanate.
Ataturk was determined that this mainly Muslim nation would be a modern, secular country, and he introduced wide-ranging reforms, including the emancipation of women, the introduction of western dress, legal code and alphabet, and the abolition of Islamic institutions.
Turkey's ruling elite and the powerful military have seen it as their job to protect what Ataturk set up.
The army has not been afraid to intervene militarily whenever it sees fit - it has led three direct coups against elected governments in Ankara.
When, 10 years ago, Turkey elected its first pro-Islamic party to government - the Welfare Party - the military campaigned to force it out of office. The following year the party was banned by the courts.
But despite the efforts of the establishment, it seems that Islamic parties are popular in Turkey, and in 2002 the Justice and Development (AK) party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a landslide victory.
The army has tolerated its position in government, but the prospect of one of its members taking up the highest post in the land is causing it great concern.
The staunchly secular elite of Turkey believes a president whose wife wears an Islamic headscarf would have Ataturk turning in his grave”.
This is all lie, and deserves an immediate rectification.
BBC's mendacious disinformation: a genuine threat for Europe and the world
1. It is a lie that “the Turkish army is so determined to defend secularism” because “Secularism is fundamental to Turkey's identity”. Secularism is fundamental to Democracy; if Turkey ceases to be secular, Turkey will not be a Democracy anymore. Why as that? Simply, because those who reject secularism in Turkey want to establish Sharia law based society, impose compulsory religious education, prohibit alcohol, reestablish Friday as non working day, reintroduce Arabic characters to write Turkish, enforce hedjab on all women, and in brief bring Turkey far from the Democratic Values introduced by Kemal Ataturk. It will be either Secular Democratic (for the Muslims, Christians and Jews of Turkey) or Religious Islamic and Dictatorial (like in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan and other realms of the most repugnant barbarism).
2. It is a lie that “Turkey's ruling elite and the powerful military have seen it as their job to protect what Ataturk set up”; it is the job of the Turkish people, and it is the Turkish people, the outright majority that rejects Islam as a modern way of life, that took to the streets. Turkey's ruling elite stayed at home, and the military stayed in the barracks.
3. It is a lie that “The army has not been afraid to intervene militarily whenever it sees fit - it has led three direct coups against elected governments in Ankara”. This happened in the past, when Greece, Spain and Portugal were under the rule of the colonels, Franco and Salazar. The army will not intervene militarily now, because the Turkish people took to streets to do the job in their stead. However, according to the Constitution, the military have a say, and all proceeded according to the law. You cannot confuse past and present because someone should say that Britain's Heir Apparent is homosexual, because there were many cases of British homosexual heir apparent in the past.
4. It is a lie that “But despite the efforts of the establishment, it seems that Islamic parties are popular in Turkey”; they are not. In the 90s, Prof. Dr. Necmettin Erbakan's party never gathered more than 22 – 23%, and it formed only coalition governments. The present premier's party totaled 33% of the voters, and only through the multi-division of the nationalist, conservative and social-democratic opposition, and the particularities of the electoral law, it gained absolute majority in the Parliament.
In addition, many of the voters of either Prof. Erbakan or analphabet Erdogan are not Islamist at all; they voted these parties as a reaction against the West and the ongoing anti-Turkish crusade that involves false stories about the Armenian Genocide, premature and irresponsible Cyprus admission in the EU, reluctance to recognize Kossovo as an independent country, and many other similarly biased policies. In fact, less than 20% of Erdogan's voters are Islamists. The phenomenon is similar with the rise of religious feelings in Poland and other Eastern European countries, but the Islamists are and will be a marginal minority of lewd character and low social level in Turkey.
5. Last but not least, it is a lie that “The staunchly secular elite of Turkey believes a president whose wife wears an Islamic headscarf would have Ataturk turning in his grave”. With a Turkish first lady wearing headscarf, Ataturk will not turn in his grave; the Turkish people will turn the entire country upside down in order to reject and massacre the vicious and mendacious criminals who in the name of Democracy attempted such a barbaric act.
What remains to be explained is why the Islamic headscarf and Western Democracy are incompatible; this will be the subject of another article.