Anti-Turkish Hysteria from the Financial Times: A Challenge to Democracy

Competing with other mass media in terms of event falsification, historical misinterpretation, severe misinformation as regards the Turkish society, and blind support to the Islamic terrorist Turkish premier Erdogan, the Financial Times contributed tremendously to the orchestrated diffusion of fallacies concerning the ongoing Turkish political crisis by means of an article written by Andrew Duff (MEP; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/eeb2d648-1411-11dc-88cb-000b5df10621.html).

The article’s title (A challenge to Turkey’s ideologues) suggests already that we have in Turkey a typical scenario of "pragmatists vs. ideologists". It is pleasant to the Financial Times editorial board to present country profiles through this erroneous and devious device; those you do not like – or those who do not facilitate the financial interests you obediently service, to put it correctly – you call idealists and surrealists, as if you suggest that the only realistic position is to agree with you, and do as it suits you best. This is the ultimate, immoral and inhuman, Neo-Stalinist face of the devious pseudo-Liberal relics.

The only Turkish ideologues are Erdogan’s uneducated and totalitarian thugs.

In reality, the opposite happens in Turkey. The various Turkish political parties of the right, center right, and center left have rather pale ideological colours, and have all demonstrated a strong commitment to free market economy, democracy, and modernization. It is under the center right Anavatan and Dogru Yol parties that Turkey progressed in the world of liberal economy and globalization standards. The center left parties accepted the changes brought about by the former presidents Turgut Ozal and Suleyman Demirel, and the former prime ministers Mesut Yilmaz and Tansu Ciller.

The Islamists won the 2002 elections only because of the electoral law, and the multi-division of the Turkish political scenery. They could not do anything but accept the reality, as they did not have constitutional rights to force their non pragmatist, deeply ideological, gravely anachronistic, and dangerously extremist positions and plans. If they had the constitutional power, Turkey’s Islamist premier and his gang of thugs would be as pragmatist as ….. Ayatullah Khomeini.

Published on June 6 2007, the Financial Times article deserves a complete refutation. The article starts with a literary and emotional paragraph:

"Atilla Yayla is not a terrorist. He is not a Kurd. He is not an Armenian. He is not a Marxist. He is not a conscientious objector. He is not a gay activist. He is not a Christian. He is not a Muslim fundamentalist. He is not famous, like Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel Prize winning author. Dr Yayla is a quietly spoken Turk, a liberal, a professor of politics at Gazi University in Ankara".

Quitly spoken! Prof. Yayla? As much as the immaculate Aymann Zawahri and the sulfuric terrorist ‘sheikh’ Qaradawi!

Suffice it that you learn Turkish and read his brilliant publication "Türkiye'de Ýslam, Ýnsan Haklarý ve Demokrasi" (1998); you will immediately realize that this theoretician of Turkey’s islamization and barbarization suggested that Human Rights and Democracy should be implemented in Turkey by ….. the Islamists! This happened four years before Erdogan’s unexpected and undeserved rise to power.

Prof. Yayla, thanks to the existing respect of Human Rights in Turkey, published his irrelevant ideas, but if his favourite ideological system prevails in Turkey, his opponents will have the fate of Ayatullah Khomeini’s adversaries….

This same ‘professor’ became an issue of article for the perverse and mentally corrupt MEP Andrew Duff. The Liberal Euro-deputy went on supporting the Turkish theoretician of Islamic Simulation only because this person is widely unknown in the West.

Andrew Duff would not dare support in public Ossama bin Laden, yet he did back someone who can be 10 times more nefarious and more ominous for the entire world than the paranoid disciple of the Afghani Mullah Umar.

This is the absolutely immoral and perfidious way European politics are ‘practiced’ these days by the Apprentice Magicians of the Islamic Terorism proliferation. The voters of Mr. Andrew Duff should perhaps ask themselves whether they wished to commit suicide by voting him for the European (Islamist ?) Parliament.

You will not denigrate the Only Possible Hindrance to Global Islamic Terror.

We should follow Mr. Duff’s ‘argumentation’ through this text to better appreciate his efforts:

"On July 2 Dr Yayla will be on trial in Turkey, facing a maximum of four and a half years in prison, for breaching Article 53 of the Turkish penal code. According to the ultra-Kemalists who have brought the case, his crime was to "publicly insult the moral legacy" of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. Dr Yayla is supposed to have committed the offence during a seminar given in Izmir, a city on Turkey’s Aegean coast, last November to a group of 30 or so members of the ruling Law and Justice Party (AKP)".

Going to jail is not a wish for people allover the world, and you may perhaps imagine Prof. Yayla is saddened and worried; well, you should spare your feelings and sorrow for he is not!

The vicious Prof. Yayla’s ideal prototypes enjoy spending time in jails in order to convert other prisoners to Islamic Extremism; the embodiment of Islamic Liberation for the unfortunately unknown in the West Prof. Yayla is the "Ultimate Sacrifice, the Suicide for the Grand Cause of Islam’s global preponderance".

We should focus on what a European Parliament Deputy finds necessary to denounce in Turkey, namely the fact that the Islamic terrorist professor’s comments were met with legal action. According to Mr. Duff’s words, "insulted the moral legacy of Kemal Ataturk". The claim that this attempt should not be met with legal action and due response necessitates two comments.

First, Andrew Duff is English; he certainly knows that the corresponding symbol to what Kemal Ataturk as founder of the Turkish Republic is in Turkey is in England the Queen Elizabeth II. I am sure that Mr. Duff knows only too well that no one goes unpunished in England in the case of a public speech including insults of the British Head of State. He should not therefore be surprised that the Turks do the same.

Second, Mr. Duff should have better studied the History of the Middle East, the Political History of Dar al Islam, and the theological – ideological background of the Islamist movements. He should know that illiterate, uneducated and cannibalistic sheikhs throughout the Arab Barbary hate Kemal Ataturk more than any other person in the world. The barbaric, pseudo-Muslim sheikhs of the bogus-universities of Saudi Arabia and the other neighboring realms of Darkness promote material, videotapes, books, magazines and all sorts of pamphlets against Kemal Ataturk, precisely accusing him of Jewish origin, apostasy, and all sorts of anti-Islamic attempts.

Ataturk’s model imposed throughout Islam to bring the end of Islamic Terror

Instead of his inconsistent and pathetic article, Mr. Duff should ask Turkey to impose Kemal Ataturk’s ideas, legislation and political practice throughout Islam.

In addition, Mr. Duff should fall short of viciously misinforming the European public. But perhaps it is in his nature to develop a kind of self-denigration that through his publications he suggests that others impose on themselves!

Mr. Duff should come to terms with a world far less paranoid than a Briton who publicly states the following:

- "The "English" stand in the way of a United Europe and must be defeated."

If one said the equivalent of the defeatist Mr. Duff’s words in Turkey, the statement would be considered as high treason. And this would be very reasonable and very democratic. Defeatism is for corrupted minds, not free citizens.