Eurabian Union Condemns Turkish Military

Eurabian Union Condemns Turkish Military

The European (soon to be renamed Eurabian?) Union is doing its level best to sabotage secular Turkey’s struggle against rising Islamism by pressuring the Turkish government to curb the influence of its military as part of its EU membership bid.

The Quislings and Chamberlains running the EU are calling the election of the country’s new president a “test case” for the Turkish military’s respect for democracy.

In reality, the election is a test of totalitarian Islam’s ability to hijack a parliamentary process for purposes of taking power–and ending democracy.

The president can veto legislation in Turkey; therefore, the prospect of installing a leading member of the Islamic-oriented government in the position is causing great concern among members of Turkey’s establishment, including the nation’s most powerful political faction–the men in uniform–who (thankfully) regard themselves as the guardians of the secular system.

The military said late on Friday that it was monitoring the elections with concern, and indicated it was willing to become more openly involved in the process.

In a statement posted on its website, the military said: “This is a test case if the Turkish armed forces respect democratic secularism and the democratic arrangement of civil-military relations.

“It should not be forgotten that the Turkish armed forces is one of the sides in this debate and the absolute defender of secularism.

“When necessary, they will display their attitudes and actions very clearly. No one should doubt that.”

Encouraged by the EU (and perhaps also by idiots in America’s appeasement-oriented State Department), the Turkish government responded defantly, declaring that the statement was not acceptable in a democracy. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the nation would oppose actions that would hurt political stability.

Speaking to the Turkish Red Crescent in Ankara on Saturday, he said: “This nation has paid a heavy, painful price when the base of stability and confidence has been lost. But it no longer allows, nor will it allow, opportunists who are waiting and paving the way for a disaster.”

Erdogan then convened a meeting with Abdullah Gul, the pro-Islamist foreign minister and the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) presidential hopeful, and some cabinet ministers.

On Friday, Gul failed to win enough votes in a controversial first round of voting in parliament. He secured 357 votes–just 10 short of the 367, or two thirds of all deputies–needed to win.

An insufficient number of legislators were present for a quorum, prompting an appeal by opposition membersin the constitutional court. They have called for early elections as the only way out of the impasse.

If the constitutional court rules in favour of the ruling party, Gul is likely to win in the third round when only a simple majority is required.

Though he has promised to uphold Turkey’s secular traditions, Gul is an Islamist in secular garb. At best, his victory (God forbid) would strengthen the role of Islam in politics; at worst, he would pave the way for an Islamist takeover.

His party has supported pro-Islamist religious schools and tried to lift the ban on Muslim headscarves in public offices. A ban on the backward, ugly headscarf is a sacred symbol of Turkish secularism; and Gul’s wife, Hayrunisa, has made a point of wearing it to show her Islamist leanings.

Hundreds of thousands of people recently demonstrated for secular ideals in the capital, Ankara, and another large rally was planned in Istanbul on Sunday.

If push comes to shove, secularists will support a military coup. The army is arguably the country’s most trusted institution; it has staged several coups in past decades, and in 1997 led a campaign that pressured an Islamic party–to which of which Erdogan and Gul both belonged–out of government.

At the time, the military issued warnings to the government to curb religious initiatives, while secularists took to the streets in protest against the government’s policies.

Arab School In New York To Teach “Multiple Perspectives” About America, Islam, Terrorism

Arab School In New York To Teach “Multiple Perspectives” About America, Islam, Terrorism

by Omri Ceren

No way this can go poorly:

The new school has yet to enroll a single student. But its very existence is at the heart of a controversy in New York. The Khalil Gibran International Academy was set up to teach students about Arab language and culture. The school is only expected to open in September, but has already been called ‘jihadi’ and ’segregationist’… Mr. Daniel Pipes, a conservative commentator, wrote on his blog: ‘In principle it is a great idea – the United States needs more Arabic-speakers. In practice, however, Arabic instruction is heavy with Islamist and Arabist overtones and demands.’

Not necessarily, Ms Almontaser said. ‘Being that we are a public school, we certainly are not going to be teaching religion,’ she said. Ms Almontaser said the school won’t shy away from sensitive topics such as colonialism and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. ‘Teachers are going to be expected to provide students with multiple perspectives on whatever the issue is. Students will, through the critical-thinking skills that they will develop, make informed decisions on the perspective that they want to believe.’

Yeah, it’s not necessary for Arabic instruction to be heavy with Islamist and Arabist shading. But in practice it always seems to turn out that way. Strange, that. Here’s the problem with “multiple perspectives”: sometimes, some people’s perspectives simply aren’t true. We know it’s kind of banal to point out, but it seems to get lost in odes to critical thinking skills.

There were multiple competing stories about the role of Jews in 1920s Germany, but only the Jewish story unlocked what was actually going on. In the Israeli-Arab conflict both sides sometimes exaggerate or obfuscate, but there is still a wild difference between Israelis underestimating the number of Palestinians at a checkpoint and the Palestinians making up tales of Israeli atrocities out of whole cloth. Just because those made up atrocities are parroted by weasel reporters using weasel phrases like “…but Palestinian sources insisted” – well, that doesn’t make those tales any more true.

That’s before we even get to which “multiple perspectives” will be represented in the textbooks being used in Arabic language classes. How many textbooks published in Arabic do you think fairly represent the Israeli side – big market for that, you think? When arguments are premised on lies, there can be no room for discussion. Pretending that the propaganda being fed to kids is actually grist for the critical thinking mill makes things worse, not better.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

This Summer’s War With Syria – Iranian Coordination Edition

This Summer’s War With Syria – Iranian Coordination Edition

by Omri Ceren

DEBKA is reporting that Syrian generals are visiting Tehran, coordinating and planning in preparation for a major was with Israel. Whether or not Syria is really gearing up for war (it’s a DEBKA so it might not be true except for the fact that it’s obviously true) – at the very least, it looks like the Iran-Syria alliance isn’t going anywhere:

[Syrian Ambassador to the US] Imad Moustapha, April 23, 2007: “Q. Some people hope engagement would be a way of wooing Syria away from its relationship with Iran? What are the chances?

A. It’s bemusing to hear this…. While we are the best possible friends with Iran, we don’t have the same policies as Iran. Iran has a well-publicized policy against Israel, but President Assad, at least once a month, has publicly invited the Israelis to peace talks in the last four years…. Iran is a friend to Syria. It is an ally on many issues. But we disagree with Iran on other issues.”

Maybe Assad could be convinced by another Pelosi visit. Last time she only wooed him by wearing a hijab. Maybe if she donned a full burka she could abase herself sufficiently to persuade him to stop supporting the current epicenter for global terrorism. Obviously, “best possible friends” leaves a lot of room for compromise, right? Here’s some more from this week on this summer’s impending war: Ha’aretz, Smooth Stone, and Meryl.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

Posted by Omri Ceren @ 12:59 pm |

Mainstream Caliphate Confessions

Mainstream Caliphate Confessions

coment by Jerry Gordon

My buddy Andy Bostom author of ‘The Legacy of Islam’ and a forthcoming companion volume, ‘The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism’ has an interested ‘nugget’ of analysis he’s come up with from a survey of the Muslim world by a credible group and significant represenative sample. To wit:

‘Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007—1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians—reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed—almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”—desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

What these survey data results that Bostom has analyzed tell us is that a clear majority of the Muslim ummah favor a caliphate and strict application of sharia law.

Tells me that ‘assumptions’ about moderate Muslims being in the majority of the ummah is a veritable misnomer. But then Muslim advocacy groups have bought into the Religion of Peace ‘branding’ to dissaude us with their soothing taqiyyah. They have even duped politicians at the highest levels in our government and a fair number of media pundits who believe that extremists are a ‘thin’ minority.

by Andrew Bostom, FrontPageMagazine.com, April 27, 2007

Writing in 1916, C. Snouck Hurgronje, the great Dutch Orientalist, underscored how the jihad doctrine of world conquest, and the re-creation of a supranational Islamic Caliphate remained a potent force among the Muslim masses:

…it would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated…the canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam’s greatness. The legists continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam—the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture [i.e., Jews and Christians] by submission.

Hurgronje further noted that although the Muslim rank and file might acknowledge the improbability of that goal “at present” (circa 1916), they were,

…comforted and encouraged by the recollection of the lengthy period of humiliation that the Prophet himself had to suffer before Allah bestowed victory upon his arms…

Thus even at the nadir of Islam’s political power, during the World War I era final disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, Hurgronje observed how

…the common people are willingly taught by the canonists and feed their hope of better days upon the innumerable legends of the olden time and the equally innumerable apocalyptic prophecies about the future. The political blows that fall upon Islam make less impression…than the senseless stories about the power of the Sultan of Stambul [Istanbul], that would instantly be revealed if he were not surrounded by treacherous servants, and the fantastic tidings of the miracles that Allah works in the Holy Cities of Arabia which are inaccessible to the unfaithful. The conception of the Khalifate [Caliphate] still exercises a fascinating influence, regarded in the light of a central point of union against the unfaithful (i.e., non-Muslims). [emphasis added] CONTINUE

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 5:17 pm |

Turkish government official: “Missionaries are more dangerous than terror organizations”

Turkish government official: “Missionaries are more dangerous than terror organizations”

Meanwhile, we in the West face groups engaging in da’wah that are actually connected with “terror organizations.” “Turkey – Four street evangelists jailed,” from Compass Direct:

ISTANBUL, April 27 (Compass Direct News) – Police jailed four Christian street evangelists in Istanbul for “missionary activity” this week, even as government officials openly defended the right of all religious groups to carry out evangelistic work in Turkey. Officials released U.S. citizen David Byle this evening, more than 48 hours after he was arrested along with a Korean and two Turkish Christians, his wife said. Christian sources maintained that Turkey plans to deport the Korean believer, though further details remain unknown. The four men were detained Wednesday afternoon (April 25) while sharing their faith with passersby at a park in Istanbul’s Taksim district. The arrests occurred in the midst of tense national debate over the legitimacy of Christian missionary activity, sparked by the gruesome killing of three Christian men in southeastern Turkey last week. “Missionaries are more dangerous than terror organizations,” Niyazi Guney, Ministry of Justice director general of laws, reportedly commented only a day after the murders.