Despite the Paris attack catching the world red-handed in regard to terror, exposing the world’s hypocrisy, and while the world was being held hostage to the superficial stance against terrorism by those who don’t move a finger about the hundreds of thousands of its victims in the Islamic world; Turkey yet again managed to miss the point, dilute the issue, and even use the issue settle personal scores!
Of course, it would not be possible to expect the irresponsible and shallow Turkish media, which is incapable of performing an in-depth and fundamental examination of any issue, to take the Paris attacks as a starting point and examine the major slaughter experienced in the region, whose core it constitutes, during the last 20 years, and the roles of those countries in those acts of slaughter.
But a person still holds on to expectations, saying “this is an opportunity, a few things will be said.” One expects that while condemning the Paris attacks “some mention will be made of the 300,000 killed in Syria; some mention will be made of the refugee children who froze in Lebanon; some mention will be made about those who even suspended the Geneva Convention to pursue torture; some mention will be made of the 5,000 people killed in Egypt who only wanted democracy.”
We have a list, which runs pages long, of similar things that could be said about them, and of things that need to be done. A media and intellectual makeup that cries when Europe tells it to “cry,” gets enraged when it tells it to become “enraged,” and rejoices when it is told to “rejoice,” is very disturbed by anti-terror remarks that contain “buts.”
We are very disturbed by this as well. We are also well aware that while condemning the Paris murders; questioning its complicated nature and availing of the opportunity to protest against some things does not make it a remark containing “buts.” We also saw that those who created a furor in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that all “Muslims should apologize,” did not bother to protest against the killing of approximately 2 million people in the wake of those attacks, even by resorting to remarks containing “buts.”
Our use of “but” during such a situation represents our endeavor to voice the realities that hurt us. It doesn’t mean that we approve of anyone carrying out acts of violence and terrorism, even through implication.
To see Benjamin Netanyahu among those marching against terrorism in Paris deserves a remark with a “but” attached. No one will be convinced by the condemnation of terrorism by a leader with blood on his hands, and one who issues a call to the world “to wage war against Islam.” We know very well the charge sheet of many countries when it comes to the topic of terrorism. We know very well that those countries killed hundreds of people through covert operations in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia; that they resorted to state-sponsored terrorism, armed (illegal) organizations and sent them to countries in those regions.
Our “buts” refer to these ugly actions and we will voice them at every opportunity. We will continue to form such sentences until Europe learns to weep in solidarity with Muslims. We have never been concerned with attracting their attention and hoping that they hold us in higher regard. We will prioritize putting an end to the pain in our own geographical region, as we contribute to the common good of mankind. We will continue to question the past records on acts of terrorism of countries that become victims of it, we will be enraged with them, and we will fling their hypocrisy back in their faces.
While doing this, we will not use the language imposed on us by those who even export terror to their own allies, like to Turkey for instance. That period has been left behind. It was a mental siege belonging to the 20th century. Now we know many things, we can see how the world works, and we can also see who is engaged in mischief. This is why we will know to speak our own truths and form our own sentences. This is why we will incessantly use sentences that contain “buts.”
Instead of discussing these matters within the framework of the Paris attacks, Turkish public opinion was fixated on two topics. The participation of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu in the Paris march, and the ceremony where President Tayyip Erdoğan received Mahmoud Abbas in front of an honor guard, where soldiers wore the military uniforms of the 16 Turkic states of the past…
Do you think Turkey isn’t aware of the fraudulent stance on terror of the countries whose leaders were represented in that photograph from Paris? Are we not aware that Davutoğlu was uncomfortable being in the same frame as Netanyahu? We had to act in this manner given that we are a country that has been a victim of terrorism for decades. The prime minister had to be there and had to show that Turkey would stand by the side of Muslims in Europe. This is because Europe is trying to push Islam and Muslims to the highest threat category, and is trying to implement an exclusionary refugee strategy on that basis. Which country, apart from Turkey, could stand up for them?
There were countries present that have left Turkey’s requests unanswered for years despite its all-out cooperation with them on the issue of terrorism. There were countries present that have shelved the lists provided by Turkey, didn’t even hand over terrorists whose residential addresses had been provided, and violated bilateral agreements in this regard. All this means that Turkey was the country with the clearest stance on terrorism.
Real hell would have broken lose if Davutoğlu hadn’t gone to Paris. Just like the example involving the MİT (National Intelligence Organization) trucks, this would have been exploited by those trying to have Turkey declared “a country that sponsors terrorism” and campaigns would be initiated that “Turkey is ISIL’s backer.” The parallel organization and its choir would travel from capital to capital, and carry out a campaign via the media in Turkey. Their hopes were dashed. Another trump card of theirs came to nothing. (The parallel organization is the term used to refer to the Fethullah Gülen-led movement.)
They were disturbed by the manner in which Erdoğan received Mahmoud Abbas. They were about to explode from the indigestion this caused them. Who do you think was upset with the presence of symbols representing the 16 Turkic states, and their display at the ceremony to receive Abbas?
They can’t stomach it on behalf of Israel. It is true that it was a conscious display by Turkey to Israel and the world. It wanted to say “we are the biggest supporters of Palestine.” The result is a joint reaction from the European press and some media and parallel circles in Turkey. Why?
Whoever ordered the media to adopt a derisory, denigrating and condescending tone with regard to the presidential palace of a country like Turkey, has also ordered the reaction to this ceremony. We know who they are.
They are disturbed by Turkey’s reclaiming of its past, although symbols of monarchy in Europe still remain. They want to consign Turkey to a narrow nationalist prison while they embrace their own imperial past. The 21st century is the century where core countries will move their accumulated knowledge from the past to the present. Pay attention and you will see that every country that makes history is doing the same thing.
The biggest struggle this century for Turkey, too, will be to move its accumulated knowledge from the past to the present -- particularly from the Seljuk and Ottoman periods – to reconcile with the past, and to build a future. While doing this, it is trying to recognize its own geographical region, and once again embrace its neighbors and brothers.
So, who do you think is disturbed by all this? Everyone who implements the chaos theory in our geographical region and employs the strategy of dividing its countries and cities. Those who want to deplete its strength so that it won’t be able to rise up for another century. Turkey is issuing a challenge against this. Pay attention to those creating a domestic front against this challenge, and observe them closely to see whose language they use, whose words they repeat, and in whose name they target Turkey and try to wear it down.
Powerful states have symbols. What we term a state is comprised of symbols. It is these symbols that depict strength, justice and welfare. Those who study the priorities of the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, China and France with regard to their policies for the 21st century, will to a large extent comprehend what Turkey is trying to do.
What business did Germany have in Kunduz, Afghanistan? What business does the same Germany have in northern Iraq? Why did the United States and its allies settle in the heart of Mesopotamia? Who is drawing up the map to encircle Turkey to our south? Who is creating an obstacle to Turkey’s reconciliation with the Arabs and Kurds?
Our brotherhood with Gaza, Kut al-Amara, Jerusalem, Damascus and Yemen existed as recently as 1917. Those who tried to make us forget history that is not older than a lifespan by making it sound like it happened centuries ago, should not try to lecture us.
Leave aside the things you learned by rote and first state whose front you are fighting on in this great struggle. You are no longer any different from the British Gurkhas!
