- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #884 What the Hell Does Dave Emory Mean by “The Earth Island Boogie”?, Part 1 (Turkish Taffy, Part 4)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here. [1] The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by late spring of 2015. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more) is complete through the late spring of 2015.

WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE [2].

You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3]

You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [4].

You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE [5].

This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment [6].

[7]

[8]

Tayyip Erdogan

Introduction: Clarifying and further developing analysis of geopolitical discussion presented in both previous and future broadcasts, this program details the developing Islamic fascism of Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan. A NATO country and Muslim Brotherhood-derived Islamist in nature, Turkey is rapidly descending into fascism and aggressive militarism.

(Previous programs that should enhance listeners’ understanding of this complex analysis include: FTR #’s 549 [9], 720 [10]723 [11], 857 [12]862 [13], 863 [14], 878 [15], 879 [16], 880 [17] and 881 [18].)

Turkey’s geographical position bestows a unique dynamic on the former seat of the last “califate”–the Ottoman Empire. Proximate to Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, it is (along with Ukraine), a traditional “pivot point” of the “Earth Island.”

Stretching from the Straits of Gibraltar, all across Europe, most of the Middle East, Eurasia, Russia, China and India, that stretch of land: comprises most of the world’s land mass; contains most of the world’s population and most of the world’s natural resources (including oil and natural gas.) Geopoliticians have long seen controlling that land mass as the key to world domination.  The population that occupies the middle of that stretch of geography is largely Muslim.

Utilizing that Muslim population to control the resources of the Earth Island is a stratagem [19] that has been in effect [20] in the West for a century.

This analysis is presented in conjunction with, and against the background of, the Earth Island [11] or World Island as it is sometimes known.

In recent years, we have noted growing confluence between Muslim Brotherhood-based Islamism and Pan-Turkist elements. As events in Ukraine, the Middle East and Asia continue to heat up, the Islamist/Pan-Turkist connection appears to be solidifying. The “cement” that is bringing them together appears to be elements of Western intelligence, the BND and associated Underground Reich/transnational corporate faction of the CIA in particular.
Before examining the development of Turkish Islamic fascism, we note that “The Earth Island Boogie” embraces an overlapping series of “ops” including: the so-called “Orange Revolution” of Ukraine, WikiLeaks, the so-called “Arab Spring,” “L’Affaire Snowden” and the Maidan coup of 2014. We will flesh out this line of analysis in FTR #885.

During what we call “The Muslim Brotherhood Spring” of 2011, American media pundits were gushing about how what others termed the Arab Spring would bring about moderate Islamic democracies similar to Turkey’s and featuring the Muslim Brotherhood as the centerpiece of those “democracies.” We had a different take.

Let’s review the bullet points from the description of FTR #737 [21] (recorded on 4/2/2011.):

  • WikiLeaks appears to have played a role [22] in the events, with a purported “leaked” State Department memo having helped spur the uprising in Tunisia which, in turn, helped to galvanize events in Egypt. Far from being the “progressive,” “whistle-blowing” entity it purports to be, WikiLeaks is a far-right [23], Nazi-influenced propaganda and data mining operation.
  • Karl Rove’s dominant presence [24] in Sweden as the WikiLeaks “op” was gaining momentum may well have much to do with the “leaking” of State Department cables from the Obama administration that are undoubtedly making the successful execution of statecraft even more difficult under the circumstances.
  • Far from being a spontaneous event, the Middle East uprisings appear to have stemmed, in part at least, from a covert operation begun under the Bush administration [25] and continued under Obama’s tenure [26]. (Obama may well have been set up to take the fall for negative consequences of the event. It is unclear just how “on top of it” his administration is. In this regard, the event is very much like the Bay of Pigs operation, begun under Eisenhower’s administration and continued under JFK.)
  • The operation may well be intended to destabilize the Obama administration [27], paving the way for the ascent of the GOP in the United States. In this respect, it is very much like what has come to be known as the October Surprise.
  • Courtesy of WikiLeaks, the operation’s existence was “blown” [25]–contacts between U.S. Embassy personnel in Cairo and leaders of the April 6 movement during the last months of the Bush administration came to light courtesy of more allegedly “leaked” State Department memos made public by WikLeaks. Previously, the U.S. embassy in Cairo had been in contact with leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood [28].
  • Looming large in the unfolding scenario are the theories of non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp [29], who held positions associated with the “liberal” element  [30]of the U.S. intelligence apparatus [31].
  • Sharp’s activities have been underwritten [32] by junk bond king Michael Milken’s former right-hand man Peter Ackerman, who has served as an advisor to the United States Institute of Peace [33], an agency of the U.S. government.
  • The United States Institute of Peace’s Muslim World Initiative–charged by critics [34] with legitimizing jihadists–may well have been the initiating element in these developments.
  • High tech firms with links to the U.S. intelligence establishment [35] appear to have facilitated the Piggy-Back Coup.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s free-market economic perspective [36] has endeared it to laissez-faire theoreticians around the world. American University in Cairo, at which Brotherhood affiliated theoreticians hold forth, is an epicenter of the economic philosophy of Ibn Khaldun, the Ikhwan’s economic godfather.
  • Despite assurances from many “expert” sources, the Muslim Brotherhood seems poised to benefit [28] the most from the unfolding events in the Middle East.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Al Jazeera [37] network has also had much to do with the uprisings.
  • The youthful idealists of the Anonymous/Pirate Bay/Pirate Party milieu appear to have been cynically deceived [23] and manipulated into supporting an operation that figures to empower some truly dark forces. Those dark forces are fundamentally opposed to the Utopian values dear to the Anonymous/Pirate Bay folks.
  • Those same reassuring voices have told us that the Brotherhood aspires to a political agenda to the “moderate” agenda of the Turkish AK party. That party is closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The “moderation” of the AK Party may be weighed in the discussion below.
  • Precipitating the ascent of the fascist Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East may well be an attempt at using the Muslim population of the Earth Island [11] as a proxy force against Russia [38] and China [9]. The goal, ultimately, is to peel away strategic, resource-rich areas such, as the petroleum-rich areas of the Caucasus and Xinjiang province.
In FTR #’s 737 [21], 738 [39] and 739 [40], (Turkish Taffy, Parts 1, 2 and 3), we noted the Islamic fascist nature of Erdogan’s Turkey. That phenomenon is accelerating, as this program documents.
Program Highlights Include:
  • Erdogan’s proposed constitutional changes, giving his presidency greatly expanded [41] powers.
  • Erdogan’s citing of Hitler and Nazi Germany [41] as a “doable” historical precedent for his proposed agenda.
  • Erdogan’s suppression of the press [42] and silencing of critics.
  • The evolution of Erdogan’s AK Party [43] from the Refah Party of his political mentor Necmettin Erbakan.
  • The sponsorship [44] of al-Taqwa’s Achmed Huber by Erbakan and Erbakan/Refah’s elevation of Huber to his directorship of the Bank al-Taqwa.
  • Refah and AK Parties’ roles as Muslim Brotherhood [44] front organizations.
  • The close association [45] of the AK Party with the EU and Germany.
  • The praise heaped on ISIS by the chief of Turkish intelligence [46], a close ally of Erdogan.
  • Turkey’s dispatch of troops into Iraq [47], against the wishes of the Iraqi government.
  • Review of Hitler’s political last will and testament [48], envisioning Islamists as proxy warriors to finish his work.
  • Review [49] of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s view that the use of Islamists as proxy warriors would work to against Russia and China, just as it had against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
1a. Seeking to cement his political power and extend the undemocratic reach of his regime, Turkish president Erdogan compared his proposed constitutional changes to Hitler’s government.

“It’s No Surprise that Turkey’s Erdogan Likes Adolf Hitler’s Government” by John A. Tures; The Huffington Post; 1/2/2016. [41]

Late Friday afternoon, reports circulated that Erdogan expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler’s Nazi government. If it was a statement made by a democratic figure, it would be treated as a gaffe or bad joke in poor taste. But for the authoritarian Erdogan, it’s a rare instance of his honesty, showing how the strongman really feels.

Business Insider reported on the links Erdogan made between his vision of the new Turkish government that he is pushing for, and Hitler’s regime.

“Asked on his return from a visit to Saudi Arabia late on Thursday whether an executive presidential system was possible while maintaining the unitary structure of the state, he said: “There are already examples in the world. You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany. There are later examples in various other countries,” he told reporters, according to a recording broadcast by the Dogan news agency.”

According to Reuters, Erdogan’s government insisted that it’s remarks were misconstrued, after domestic and international condemnation.

“‘If the system is abused it may lead to bad management resulting in disasters as in Hitler’s Germany … The important thing is to pursue fair management that serves the nation,’ [Erdogan’s] statement said, adding it was unacceptable to suggest Erdogan was casting Hitler’s Germany in a positive light.”

Of course, in Erdogan’s Hitleresque state, it would be a crime to suggest that Erdogan admired Hitler. Ironically, you could even be marched off to prison, for suggesting that Erdogan is authoritarian.

In fact, Erdogan’s government has arrested many people, including journalists and law enforcement officials [accused] of uncovering evidence of corruption or accusing him of authoritarian actions. He even targeted people living in the USA who are critical of him. Erdogan’s excuse for such actions is that he claims his enemies are “terrorists.”

Turkey’s social media, one of the few unregulated sources of news in Erdogan’s government, immediately went into high gear, according to the New York Times:

“Let’s do a close comparison between Hitler and Erdogan,” one person wrote on Twitter. “The only difference is that Hitler was a bit shorter.” People also shared a Photoshopped picture of Hitler with Mr. Erdogan’s face superimposed on it.

On a visit to Turkey during their June election, I found that the overwhelming majority of people I met really like their democratic system. Many didn’t like Erdogan, but were afraid to say anything. Of those who did, half asked me to keep it anonymous, while the other half said they would be arrested anyway, and it didn’t matter if I used their names. . . .

1b. Erdo­gan brings up Hitler’s gov­ern­ment as an exam­ple of how his vision for a pow­er­ful pres­i­dency could oper­ate. And fol­low­ing the uproar, the gov­ern­ment issue state­ments about how Erdo­gan was actu­ally ref­er­enc­ing Nazi Ger­many as a warn­ing of the poten­tial abuses of power that could emerge from the con­sti­tu­tional changes Erdo­gan wants to happen.

So, at best, Erdogan’s Hitler ref­er­ence was an argu­ment against the con­sti­tu­tional over­haul he’s long cham­pi­oned. At, at worse (and more likely), Erdo­gan actu­ally thinks Hitler’s Ger­many is a great model to emu­late.

With that dis­turb­ing inci­dent of foot-in-mouth syn­drome in mind, it’s going to be inter­est­ing to see what hap­pens to the peo­ple who shared an ani­mated image of Mr. Erdogan’s face chang­ing into Hitler. After all, the trial of Bil­gin Çiftçi, the man who shared images com­par­ing Erdo­gan to Gol­lum from the Lord of the Rings, is cur­rently adjourned so experts to study whether or not being com­pared to Gol­lum actu­ally qual­i­fies as an insult [50] (it’s a sur­pris­ingly nuanced ques­tion [51]). So will the Hitler com­par­isons result in more tri­als for those that dare to insult Turkey’s wannabe Führer? Or, given Erdogan’s appar­ent atti­tudes towards Hitler’s Ger­many, would he even con­sider it an insult [42]?

“Turkey Says Hitler Com­ment by Pres­i­dent Erdo­gan Was ‘Distorted’” by Ceylan YeginsuThe New York Times [52]; 1/1/2016. [52]

Turkey issued a state­ment on Fri­day say­ing that com­ments by Pres­i­dent Recep Tayyip Erdo­gan — in which he cited Hitler in response to a ques­tion about whether a strong pres­i­dency was pos­si­ble in Turkey — had been misinterpreted.

Mr. Erdo­gan, who is push­ing to imbue the largely cer­e­mo­nial pres­i­dency with sweep­ing exec­u­tive pow­ers, told reporters late Thurs­day that “there are already exam­ples in the world.”

“You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Ger­many,” he said.

Mr. Erdo­gan did not elab­o­rate, but his com­par­i­son to Hitler drew imme­di­ate crit­i­cism because of what many view as his increas­ing authoritarianism. His com­ment also raised the issue of how the leader of one of the world’s most influ­en­tial coun­tries, an Amer­i­can ally and mem­ber of NATO, would men­tion Hitler in the con­text of his own tenure.

On Fri­day, the office of the pres­i­dency said that “Erdogan’s ‘Hitler’s Ger­many metaphor’ has been dis­torted by media out­lets and has been used in the oppo­site sense.”

It said Mr. Erdo­gan had used the exam­ple to demon­strate that an exec­u­tive pres­i­dency does not depend on a fed­eral sys­tem of government.

“If the sys­tem is abused, it may lead to bad man­age­ment result­ing in dis­as­ters as in Hitler’s Ger­many,” the state­ment said. “The impor­tant thing is to pur­sue fair man­age­ment that serves the nation.”

Mr. Erdo­gan became Turkey’s first pop­u­larly elected pres­i­dent in August 2014, hav­ing dom­i­nated Turk­ish pol­i­tics for more than a decade as prime min­is­ter. Since assum­ing the new post, he has aggres­sively cam­paigned to rewrite the Turk­ish Con­sti­tu­tion and estab­lish an exec­u­tive sys­tem of government.

His con­sol­i­da­tion of power has had a potent effect on Turk­ish soci­ety. Crit­ics say Mr. Erdogan’s divi­sive rhetoric, in which he has den­i­grated oppo­nents as ter­ror­ists or trai­tors, has helped polar­ize the country.

A gov­ern­ment crack­down on dis­sent — includ­ing a grow­ing cam­paign of intim­i­da­tion against the oppo­si­tion news media, with a mob of his sup­port­ers attack­ing news­pa­per offices ahead of the Novem­ber elec­tion — has raised con­cerns domes­ti­cally and abroad about Turkey’s com­mit­ment to democracy.

To change the Con­sti­tu­tion, Mr. Erdogan’s Jus­tice and Devel­op­ment Party, which regained its par­lia­men­tary major­ity in Novem­ber, needs sup­port from oppo­si­tion par­ties, who fear that such a sys­tem would con­sol­i­date too much power in Mr. Erdogan’s hands.

Prime Min­is­ter Ahmet Davu­to­glu told the leader of Turkey’s main oppo­si­tion party, Kemal Kil­ic­daroglu, that a pres­i­den­tial sys­tem would not lead to a dictatorship.

“What is right for Turkey is to adopt the pres­i­den­tial sys­tem in line with the demo­c­ra­tic spirit,” he said in a tele­vi­sion inter­view this week. “This sys­tem will not evolve into dic­ta­tor­ship, but if we do not have this spirit, even the par­lia­men­tary sys­tem can turn into this dictatorship.”

In Turkey, reac­tion to his remarks was strong on social media.

“now let’s do a close com­par­i­son of hitler and Erdo­gan,” one per­son wrote on Twit­ter. “The dif­fer­ence is that Hitler was a bit shorter.” That remark later appeared to have been deleted.

Peo­ple also shared an ani­mated image of Mr. Erdogan’s face chang­ing into Hitler’s.

1c. Further developing our analysis, we reference a Turkish journalist’s explicit analysis of Erdogan’s AK Party as an Islamic-fascist entity.

“AKP Attempt at an Islamist-Fascist Dictatorship” by Ihsan Yilmaz; Today’s Zaman; 10/28/2015. [42]

About two months ago, I published a piece here titled “Rise of fascism and Greenshirts in Turkey.”

Some of you might have found it a little bit exaggerated. After the unconstitutional conquest of İpek Media Group [53] TV stations and newspapers by Justice and Development Party (AKP [54]) figures, let me revisit my piece and elaborate on it further.

I gave a definition of fascism in the piece, and wrote that “fascism is a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints, goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

I then added that “…its a  type of a newly emerging Blackshirts (the paramilitary group of Mussolini) and Brownshirts (Hitler’s paramilitary mobs). The primary purposes of the Brownshirts were: ‘providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews.’ The AKP version should, of course, be called the Greenshirts!”

Then, I warned that “the opposition media has been threatened. Samanyolu TV, Zaman, Bugün TV and the Bugün daily could directly be seized on baseless grounds of terrorism. The AKP is calculating that not many people in Turkey and in the West would be bothered about it because of these media outlets’ affiliation with the Hizmet movement.” Well, I was wrong on one point: Despite my pessimistic expectation, the opposition in Turkey, which amounts to 60 percent of the vote, is up in arms and strongly behind the İpek Media Group. This may even be a first in Turkey and wonderful news for the consolidation of democracy in the medium run. But let me return to my warning that the AKP had been trying to establish an Islamist-fascist regime in Turkey. As you can see, it is trying to destroy all the opposition media outlets one by one, by sheer police force and by injuring journalists.

It is wrong to expect that whatever is happening in Turkey must be identical to 1930s Italy and Germany in order to describe what is happening in Turkey as the emergence and rise of fascism. There are, of course, spatial and temporal differences. Yet, the general expectations of fascists are similar: relying on popular support, trying to create a one-man regime and suppressing the opposition not just with punitive and ideological state apparatuses, but also para-militaristic, pseudo-civilian youth organizations. The fact that acting Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has been seen shoulder to shoulder with the chief of the AKP youth branch who raided the Hurriyet daily along with his comrades and caused physical harm is a testament to this phenomenon.

Does Turkey have a fascist regime now? Of course not. It is not so easy. We still have judges and prosecutors who do not succumb to the dictatorial desires of the AKP. The opposition is still alive and kicking. It is unfortunate to say this, but the army is widely seen to be a last brake against a full-fledged fascist regime. Yet, saying all these things do not negate the fact that AKP leaders are desperately trying to establish a bizarre Islamist-fascist regime in order to stay away from judicial, political and public scrutiny for corruption crimes.

The definition of the term dictatorship is given as: “a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity’s power remains strong. In dictatorships, politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of normal people. Dictatorships and totalitarianism generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems.”

If we combine this definition with my above analysis, we can conclude that the AKP is “trying” to establish an Islamist-fascist dictatorship. This, most probably, was not their original intention. But since they were caught red-handed by the judiciary on very serious corruption crimes, they thought that this was their only option. Now, they are trying to establish an Islamist-fascist dictatorship. The fact that Turkey is not and will never be such a dictatorship is another story. The only problem is, the AKP does not know this right now and it will only learn it by experience, which will be a very costly one for Turkey.

2a. Note that the Turkish AK Party is being seen as a role model for “moderate” Islamist parties being heralded as role models for the countries targeted by the so-called “Arab Spring.” We examine a German Islamist group affiliated with the Refah Party (the Turkish branch of the Muslim Brotherhood). The program highlights connections between that party and the AK party currently governing Turkey. The AK party appears to be little more than a “moderate” reworking of the Refah party, which is little more than a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. Erbakan of the Refah was the mentor of Erdogan, who presides over the “moderate” AK party.

“Turkey Offers Support for Controversial Islamic Group”; Deutsche Welle; 4/23/2003.  [43]

Milli Gorus, Germany’s largest Islamic association, recently gained the official support of the Turkish government, despite being watched by German intelligence services due to alleged extremist leanings. On April 19, Turkey’s religious-conservative government ordered its embassies to offer the Islamische Gemeinschaft Milli Gorus (IGMG) their support. The group, formed in 1985 in Cologne to support Turkish nationalism and oppose the separation of state and religion, has long been criticized by German officials as being anti-Semitic and against liberal Western values.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on Saturday refused to discuss his specific directions to diplomats regarding Milli Gorus, saying only the government ‘has for some time tried to strengthen the ties between our country and our citizens overseas.’ The decision comes only two weeks after an agreement between Germany and Turkey on combating organized crime incensed many members of Turkey’s ruling AK party because it included Milli Gorus with groups like the Kurdish terrorist outfit PKK. Since many AK members have ties to Islamic religious groups, Gul was compelled to say he did not consider Milli Gorus a terror organization.

. . . . Some observers say the attempt to reform its public image could be at least partly linked to the rise of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his AK party. Coming to power in a landslide victory last year, Erdogan styles his party as a modern conservative group based on Muslim values. He has distanced himself from former mentor Necmettin Erbakan, who founded the Islamic-influenced Welfare Party. . . .

2b. Recapping discussion of Necmettin Erbakan, his Refah party and the Muslim Brotherhood, the program highlights Erbakan’s relationship with Ahmed Huber and the manner in which that relationship precipitated Huber’s ascension to his position as a director of Al Taqwa.

Closely associated with the AK Party’s predecessor Refah organization, Huber’s concept of “moderation” might be gleaned from the photographs of some of the “moderates” he admires. (The AK Party is Erdogan’s party–evolved directly from the Refah Party.)

Speaking of the décor of Huber’s residence:

Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copyright 2000 [SC]; Algora Publishing; ISBN 1-892941-06-6; p. 142. [44]

. . . . A second photograph, in which Hitler is talking with Himmler, hangs next to those of Necmettin Erbakan and Jean-Marie Le Pen [leader of the fascist National Front]. Erbakan, head of the Turkish Islamist party, Refah, turned to Achmed Huber for an introduction to the chief of the French party of the far right. Exiting from the meeting (which took place in September 1995) Huber’s two friends supposedly stated that they ‘share the same view of the world’ and expressed ‘their common desire to work together to remove the last racist obstacles that still prevent the union of the Islamist movement with the national right of Europe.’

Lastly, above the desk is displayed a poster of the imam Khomeini; the meeting ‘changed my life,’ Huber says, with stars in his eyes. For years, after the Federal Palace in Bern, Ahmed Huber published a European press review for the Iranian leaders, then for the Turkish Refah. Since the former lacked financial means, Huber chose to put his efforts to the service of the latter. An outpost of the Turkish Muslim Brothers, Refah thus became Huber’s principal employer; and it was through the intermediary of the Turkish Islamist party that this former parliamentary correspondent became a shareholder in the bank Al Taqwa. . . .

3. The Turkish AK Party (touted as a role model for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) has a strong economic relationship with Germany and other European economic players.

“The Turkish Model”; german-foreign-policy.com; 2/18/2011. [45]

. . . . The focus is on two particular aspects of Turkish policy. The first is that over the past few years, political Islam in Turkey has proven to be very cooperative with the EU. This is due to the economic rise of the conservative sectors of the Anatolian hinterland, which is organized within the Adelet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), the party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and ruling party in Ankara since 2002. The AKP has a clearly Islamic orientation. The Anatolian enterprises forming the backbone of the party have close economic ties in EU countries. It is on this basis that the AKP has established intensive ties to Western Europe, and incorporated into its brand of political Islam a reorientation favorable to the EU. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[2]) The party has since stood as a model for the possibility of Islamism having a pro-western character. In fact, over the past few years, several North African Islamic forces – including sectors of the influential Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood – have been orienting themselves on the AKP. According to a recent study, co-financed by the SPD-affiliated Friedrich Ebert Foundation, nearly two-thirds of the populations in seven Arab nations, including Egypt, would be in favor of their countries’ adopting the Turkish model.[3] A pro-western orientation of the Muslim Brotherhood, implicit in such a model, would be appreciated in western capitals. . . .

4a. Dur­ing a Skype inter­view back in Octo­ber, Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkey’s intel­i­gence service, railed against Rus­sia try­ing to sup­press Syria’s Islamist rev­o­lu­tion and asserted that “ISIS is a real­ity and we have to accept that we can­not erad­i­cate a well-organized and pop­u­lar estab­lish­ment such as the Islamic State; there­fore I urge my west­ern col­leagues to revise their mind­set about Islamic polit­i­cal cur­rents, put aside their cyn­i­cal men­tal­ité and thwart Vladimir Putin’s plans to crush Syr­ian Islamist rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies.”

“Turk­ish Intel­li­gence Chief: Putin’s Inter­ven­tion in Syria Is Against Islam and Inter­na­tional Law, ISIS Is a Real­ity and We Are Opti­mistic about the Future”; AWD News [46]; 10/18/2015. [46]

Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkey’s National Intel­li­gence Orga­ni­za­tion, known by the MIT acronym, has drawn a lot of atten­tion and crit­i­cism for his con­tro­ver­sial com­ments about ISIS.

Mr. Hakan Fidan, Turk­ish President’s staunchest ally, con­demned Russ­ian mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in Syria, accus­ing Moscow of try­ing to ‘smother’ Syria’s Islamist rev­o­lu­tion and seri­ous breach of United Nations law.

“ISIS is a real­ity and we have to accept that we can­not erad­i­cate a well-organized and pop­u­lar estab­lish­ment such as the Islamic State; there­fore I urge my west­ern col­leagues to revise their mind­set about Islamic polit­i­cal cur­rents, put aside their cyn­i­cal men­tal­ité and thwart Vladimir Putin’s plans to crush Syr­ian Islamist rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies,” Anadolu News Agency quoted Mr. Fidan as say­ing on Sunday.

Fidan fur­ther added that in order to deal with the vast num­ber of for­eign Jihadists crav­ing to travel to Syria, it is imper­a­tive that ISIS must set up a con­sulate or at least a polit­i­cal office in Istan­bul. He under­lined that it is Turkey’s firm belief to pro­vide med­ical care for all injured peo­ple flee­ing Russ­ian ruth­less airstrikes regard­less of their polit­i­cal or reli­gious affiliation.

Recently as the fierce clashes between Russ­ian army and ISIS ter­ror­ists rag­ing across the war-torn Syria, count­less num­ber of ISIS injured fight­ers enter the Turk­ish ter­ri­tory and are being admit­ted in the mil­i­tary hos­pi­tals namely those in Hatay Province. Over the last few days, the Syr­ian army with the sup­port of Russ­ian air cover could fend off ISIS forces in strate­gic provinces of Homs and Hama.

Emile Hokayem, a Washington-based Mid­dle East ana­lyst said that Turkey’s Erdo­gan and his oil-rich Arab allies have dual agen­das in the war on ter­ror and as a mat­ter of fact they are sup­ply­ing the Islamist mil­i­tants with weapons and money, thus Russ­ian inter­ven­tion is con­sid­ered a dev­as­tat­ing set­back for their efforts to over­throw Syr­ian sec­u­lar Pres­i­dent Assad.

Hokayem who was speak­ing via Skype from Wash­ing­ton, D.C. high­lighted the dan­ger of Turkish-backed ter­ror­ist groups and added that what is hap­pen­ing in Syria can­not be cat­e­go­rized as a gen­uine and pop­u­lar rev­o­lu­tion against dic­ta­tor­ship but rather it is a chaos orches­trated by Erdo­gan who is dream­ing to revive this ancestor’s infa­mous Ottoman Empire.

4b. Further illustrating his true political nataure, Erdogan has invaded the autonomous Kurdish section of Iraq and defied the Iraqi gofernment’s request to leave. Bagh­dad just issued the threat of mil­i­tary action if Turkey doesn’t remove its troops from Kurd-controlled ter­ri­to­ries in North­ern Iraq. And Ankara’s response was basi­cally, ‘we respect your sov­er­eignty, but no, we aren’t leav­ing. And any­way, you don’t cur­rently con­trol this ter­ri­tory’. As far as ten­sions between neigh­bors go, the unwel­come pres­ence of for­eign troops along with taunts of ‘we’ll respect you’re sov­er­eignty once you actu­ally con­trol this ter­ri­tory’ is quite a doozy [47]:

“Iraqi PM Says Turkey Not Respect­ing Agree­ment to With­draw Troops” [47] by Saif Hameed and Ece Toksabay; Reuters [47]; 12/30/2015. [47]

Iraq’s prime min­is­ter accused Turkey on Wednes­day of fail­ing to respect an agree­ment to with­draw its troops from the country’s north and its for­eign min­is­ter said if forced, Iraq could resort to mil­i­tary action to defend its sovereignty.

The diplo­matic dis­pute flared after Turkey deployed a force pro­tec­tion unit of around 150 troops ear­lier this month, cit­ing height­ened secu­rity risks near Bashiqa mil­i­tary base where its troops were train­ing an Iraqi mili­tia to fight Islamic State insur­gents in nearby Mosul.

Iraqi secu­rity forces have had only a lim­ited pres­ence in Nin­eveh province, where the camp is located, since col­laps­ing in June 2014 in the face of a light­ning advance by Islamic State.

Iraqi Prime Min­is­ter Haider al-Abadi told his Turk­ish coun­ter­part in a call on Wednes­day that a Turk­ish del­e­ga­tion had promised to with­draw its troops, accord­ing to a state­ment from his media office.

“But the Turk­ish gov­ern­ment has not respected the agree­ment and we request that the Turk­ish gov­ern­ment announce imme­di­ately that it will with­draw from Iraqi ter­ri­tory”, he said.

Ankara has acknowl­edged there was a “mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tion” with Bagh­dad over the deploy­ment. It later with­drew some troops to another base inside the nearby autonomous Kur­dis­tan region and said it would con­tinue to pull out of Nin­eveh province, where Bashiqa is located.

But Turk­ish Pres­i­dent Tayyip Erdo­gan has said a total with­drawal is out of the ques­tion, and Abadi repeated to Turk­ish Prime Min­is­ter Ahmet Davu­to­glu on Wednes­day that Bagh­dad had not approved the deployment.

Speak­ing on Wednes­day night, Davu­to­glu said Ankara respected Iraqi sov­er­eignty, but that Bagh­dad had no con­trol over a third of its own ter­ri­tory. “If Bagh­dad wants to use force, they should use it against Daesh,” Davu­to­glu added, using an Ara­bic name for Islamic State.

Abadi said there was no rea­son for Turkey to expose its train­ers to dan­ger by send­ing them “deep inside Iraqi bor­ders”, and that Islamic State posed no dan­ger to Turkey from inside Iraqi ter­ri­tory. Bashiqa is about 90 km (55 miles) from the Turk­ish border.

Davu­to­glu also con­grat­u­lated Abadi after Iraqi forces retook the cen­ter of the city of Ramadi this week, a vic­tory that could help vin­di­cate the Iraqi leader’s strat­egy for rebuild­ing the mil­i­tary after stun­ning defeats.

MILITARY ACTION

Iraqi For­eign Min­is­ter Ibrahim al-Jaafari said ear­lier in the day that his gov­ern­ment was com­mit­ted to exhaust­ing peace­ful diplo­matic avenues to avoid a cri­sis with Turkey, its north­ern neigh­bor, but insisted that all options remained open.

“If we are forced to fight and defend our sov­er­eignty and riches, we will be forced to fight,” he told reporters in Baghdad.

U.S. Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden, in a phone call with Davu­to­glu ear­lier this month, wel­comed the Turk­ish troops’ with­drawal and urged Ankara to con­tinue try­ing to coop­er­ate with Baghdad.

After the diplo­matic row began, the Bashiqa base came under fire from Islamic State when mil­i­tants fired rock­ets in an attack on Kur­dish Pesh­merga forces in the area. The Turk­ish mil­i­tary said its sol­diers returned fire and four had been lightly wounded in the incident.

6. In his last will and testament, Hitler saw alliance with the Muslim world as a key to future Nazi world domination. It is against the background of this that much of the subsequent discussion should be evaluated. Note also that this political will and testament was bequeathed to Francois Genoud. Although he died in 1996, Genoud’s name crops up significantly in a number of important respects in the context of the events of 9/11. For an overview of Genoud’s career, see FTR#453 [55]. For more information about Genoud and 9/11, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 343 [56]354 [57]371 [58]456 [59]498 [60]499 [61]. We examined Genoud’s links to the milieu of Al Taqwa and the Muslim Brotherhood in FTR #537. For a contemporary interpretation of Hitler’s words, substitute the United States for Britain in the following context:

Testament of Hitler, Headquarters of the Fuhrer, February 4 to April 2, 1945, preface by Francois Genoud; noted as Footnote #8 in: “The Reds, The Browns and the Greens” by Alexandre Del Valle; Occidentalis; 12/13/04; p. 10. [48]

. . . . Adolf Hitler declared in his ‘Testament,’ reported by Martin Bormann: ‘All of Islam vibrates at announcement of our victories….. What can we do to help them…, how can it be to our interest and’ our duty? The presence next to us of the Italians… creates a malaise among our friends of Islam,… it hinders us from playing one of our better cards: to support the countries oppressed by the British. Such a policy would excite enthusiasm throughout Islam. It is, in effect, a particularity of the Muslim world that what touches one, whether good or ill, is felt by all the others…. The people ruled by Islam will always be nearer to us than France, in spite of the kinship of blood’ . . . .

 

6. In his last will and testament, Hitler saw alliance with the Muslim world as a key to future Nazi world domination. It is against the background of this that much of the subsequent discussion should be evaluated. Note also that this political will and testament was bequeathed to Francois Genoud. Although he died in 1996, Genoud’s name crops up significantly in a number of important respects in the context of the events of 9/11. For an overview of Genoud’s career, see FTR#453 [55]. For more information about Genoud and 9/11, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 343 [56]354 [57]371 [58]456 [59]498 [60]499 [61]. We examined Genoud’s links to the milieu of Al Taqwa and the Muslim Brotherhood in FTR #537 [62]. For a contemporary interpretation of Hitler’s words, substitute the United States for Britain in the following context:

Testament of Hitler, Headquarters of the Fuhrer, February 4 to April 2, 1945, preface by Francois Genoud; noted as Footnote #8 in: “The Reds, The Browns and the Greens” by Alexandre Del Valle; Occidentalis; 12/13/04; p. 10. [48]

. . . . Adolf Hitler declared in his ‘Testament,’ reported by Martin Bormann: ‘All of Islam vibrates at announcement of our victories….. What can we do to help them…, how can it be to our interest and’ our duty? The presence next to us of the Italians… creates a malaise among our friends of Islam,… it hinders us from playing one of our better cards: to support the countries oppressed by the British. Such a policy would excite enthusiasm throughout Islam. It is, in effect, a particularity of the Muslim world that what touches one, whether good or ill, is felt by all the others…. The people ruled by Islam will always be nearer to us than France, in spite of the kinship of blood’ . . . .