Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

More Turkish Taffy: Germany, the U.S. and the Neo-Ottoman Empire (Doin’ the Earth Island Boogie, Part 2)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

Updat­ed on 5/31/2013.

COMMENT: “Van­field” gives us a very impor­tant post that dis­tills a line of inquiry we’ve been pur­su­ing for years. Cor­nell Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor Robert Kaplan notes that U.S. mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in the Mus­lim world occurs in for­mer ter­ri­to­ries of the Ottoman Empire and results in Islamists com­ing to pow­er for the ulti­mate ben­e­fit of–Germany!

In FTR #‘s 710, 720, 723 we not­ed that the GOP/Underground Reich fac­tion of the U.S. intel­li­gence estab­lish­ment was pur­su­ing covert oper­a­tions in the Earth Island, par­tic­u­lar­ly in parts of Rus­sia and Chi­na. Part­nered in this is the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and irre­den­tist Turk­ish ele­ments seek­ing a return to the glo­ry days of the Ottoman Empire.

Fol­low­ing the turn to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood (for­mal­ized dur­ing Bush’s sec­ond admin­is­tra­tion grow­ing out of the pro­found GOP links to the Broth­er­hood and the al-Taqwa milieu) we wit­nessed the cen­ter piece of this oper­a­tion–the so-called Arab Spring. The Boston Marathon bomb­ing appears to be “blow­back” from this oper­a­tion, with FBI appar­ent­ly hav­ing cut across ele­ments of the covert oper­a­tion men­tioned above. 

The Fetul­lah Gulen orga­ni­za­tion appears to be an out­crop­ping of this mas­sive Earth Island “op.”

Before return­ing to the sub­ject of the “Mus­lim Broth­er­hood Spring,” let’s high­light a key para­graph of the Kaplan essay, sum­ming up an all-too famil­iar pat­tern in the oper­a­tions that are bring­ing to pow­er the Ger­man Hand in the Ottoman/Islamist glove:

. . . . Each U. S. mil­i­tary action in Europe and the Mid­dle East since 1990, how­ev­er, with the excep­tion of Iraq, has fol­lowed an overt pat­tern: First there is an armed con­flict with­in the coun­try where the inter­ven­tion will take place. Amer­i­can news media heav­i­ly report this con­flict. The “good guys” in the sto­ry are the rebels. The “bad guys,” to be attacked by Amer­i­can mil­i­tary force, are bru­tal­ly anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic, and com­mit­ters of war crimes, crimes against human­i­ty, and geno­cide. Pres­ti­gious pub­lic fig­ures, NGOs, judi­cial and qua­si-judi­cial bod­ies and inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions call for sup­port­ing the rebels and attack­ing the regime. Next, the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders Amer­i­can logis­ti­cal sup­port and arms sup­plies for the rebels. Final­ly the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders mil­i­tary attack under the aus­pices of NATO in sup­port of the rebels. The attack usu­al­ly con­sists of aer­i­al bomb­ing, today’s equiv­a­lent of the nine­teenth and twen­ti­eth cen­turies’ gun­boat which could attack coastal cities of mil­i­tar­i­ly weak coun­tries with­out fear of retal­i­a­tion. The ulti­mate out­come of each Amer­i­can inter­ven­tion is the replace­ment of a sec­u­lar gov­ern­ment with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. . . .

Anoth­er fas­ci­nat­ing and very impor­tant part of the arti­cle con­cerns the ICC, much-bal­ly­hooed by the so-called pro­gres­sive sec­tor in this and oth­er coun­tries:

. . . . From that arti­cle, “A Law­less Glob­al Court” by John Rosen­thal (Pol­i­cy Review Feb. 1. 2004 No.123), one learns that the ICC is a project ini­ti­at­ed, pro­mot­ed and, to a con­sid­er­able extent, fund­ed by Ger­many. Giv­en this, the idea that the ICC serves Ger­many’s pur­pos­es is com­mon sense. Through the ICC con­nec­tion, Ger­many’s pro­mo­tion of the “Arab Spring” is clear. Yet it is nev­er or almost nev­er men­tioned. This silence calls for expla­na­tion. . . .

Amen! That silence does indeed call for an expla­na­tion.

Notice, also, the Ger­man method­ol­o­gy here. Under­scor­ing Ger­man pow­er-polit­i­cal method­ol­o­gy pri­or to, and dur­ing, World War I, Kaplan’s analy­sis applies equal­ly well to Nazi Ger­man’s geo-polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion. It applies equal­ly well to that of the Fed­er­al Repub­lic, which, like the GOP and a dis­turbing­ly large part of the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment, is con­trolled by Ger­many:

. . . . In the view of the lead­ers of Ger­many, Turkey was con­trol­lable through a com­bi­na­tion of eco­nom­ic inter­course, gifts of edu­ca­tion­al oppor­tu­ni­ties, pro­vi­sion of tech­ni­cal exper­tise and admin­is­tra­tive aid, as well as bribes to Turk­ish offi­cials. Ger­many saw influ­ence over Turkey as a means of influ­enc­ing Moslems world­wide for its own inter­ests. . . .

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

  • Wik­iLeaks appears to have played a role 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, Nazi-influ­enced pro­pa­gan­da and data min­ing oper­a­tion.
  • Karl Rove’s dom­i­nant pres­ence in Swe­den 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 and con­tin­ued under Oba­ma’s tenure. (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, 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”–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.
  • Loom­ing large in the unfold­ing sce­nario are the the­o­ries of non-vio­lent the­o­reti­cian Gene Sharp, who held posi­tions asso­ci­at­ed with the “lib­er­al” ele­ment of the U.S. intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus.
  • Sharp’s activ­i­ties have been under­writ­ten 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, an agency of the U.S. gov­ern­ment.
  • The Unit­ed States Insti­tute of Peace’s Mus­lim World Ini­tia­tive–charged by crit­ics with legit­imiz­ing jihadists–may well have been the ini­ti­at­ing ele­ment in these devel­op­ments.
  • High tech firms with links to the U.S. intel­li­gence estab­lish­ment appear to have facil­i­tat­ed the Pig­gy-Back Coup.
  • The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s free-mar­ket eco­nom­ic per­spec­tive 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 the most from the unfold­ing events in the Mid­dle East.
  • The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood-con­trolled Al Jazeera 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 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 as a proxy force against Rus­sia and Chi­na. The goal, ulti­mate­ly, is to peel away strate­gic, resource-rich areas such, as the petro­le­um-rich areas of the Cau­ca­sus and Xin­jiang province.

The Robert E. Kaplan post epit­o­mizes the argu­ments I’ve been advanc­ing for many years. Please digest it and dis­sem­i­nate the infor­ma­tion to oth­ers. Although he does not men­tion it, vet­er­an lis­ten­ers and read­ers will no doubt rec­og­nize the pres­ence of the Under­ground Reich in the con­cate­na­tion that Kaplan presents. Detail­ing the evo­lu­tion of the Under­ground Reich is beyond the scope of this post.

The wealth of infor­ma­tion con­tained on this web­site will pro­vide the nec­es­sary intel­lec­tu­al under­pin­ning for inter­est­ed and curi­ous readers/listeners.

Suf­fice it to say here, that the proxy war­riors of the neo-Ottoman caliphate will, ulti­mate­ly, be used to destroy the U.S. and the U.K., as well as Israel.

With Oba­ma respond­ing to his long-fore­cast (in these quar­ters) desta­bi­liza­tion by con­tin­u­ing to build bi-par­ti­san bridges and com­mit­ting polit­i­cal sui­cide in the process, this should be rel­a­tive­ly easy to accom­plish. 

We also note that Ger­many is using “soft pow­er” to pro­mote Islamists in Syr­ia (sur­prise, sur­prise).

“The U.S. Helps Recon­struct the Ottoman Empire” by Robert E. Kaplan; The Gate­stone Insti­tute; 5/29/2013.

Since the mid-1990s the Unit­ed States has inter­vened mil­i­tar­i­ly in sev­er­al inter­nal armed con­flicts in Europe and the Mid­dle East: bomb­ing Serbs and Ser­bia in sup­port of Izetbe­gov­ic’s Moslem Regime in Bosnia in 1995, bomb­ing Serbs and Ser­bia in sup­port of KLA Moslems of Koso­vo in 1999, bomb­ing Libya’s Gaddafi regime in sup­port of rebels in 2010. Each inter­ven­tion was jus­ti­fied to Amer­i­cans as moti­vat­ed by human­i­tar­i­an con­cerns: to pro­tect Bosn­ian Moslems from geno­ci­dal Serbs, to pro­tect Koso­vo Moslems from geno­ci­dal Serbs, and to pro­tect Libyans from their mur­der­ous dic­ta­tor Muam­mar Gaddafi.

Oth­er rea­sons for these inter­ven­tions were also offered: to gain for the Unit­ed States a strate­gic foothold in the Balka­ns, to defeat com­mu­nism in Yugoslavia, to demon­strate to the world’s Moslems that the Unit­ed States is not anti-Moslem, to rede­fine the role of NATO in the post-Cold War era, among oth­ers.

Each of these Unit­ed States mil­i­tary inter­ven­tions occurred in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. In each, a sec­u­lar regime was ulti­mate­ly replaced by an Islamist one favor­ing sharia law and the cre­ation of a world-wide Caliphate. The coun­tries that expe­ri­enced the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s with­out the help of Amer­i­can mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion, Tunisia and Egypt, had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, and also end­ed up with Islamist regimes.

In the Unit­ed States most dis­cus­sions of the mil­i­tary con­flicts of the 1990s in the Balka­ns and the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s do not men­tion that the areas involved had been part of the Ottoman Empire; these includ­ed Turkey, the Moslem-pop­u­lat­ed areas around the Mediter­ranean, Iraq, the coastal regions of the Ara­bi­an Penin­su­la and parts of the Balka­ns. In the areas that expe­ri­enced the Arab Spring Turkey’s role in every instance has been to sup­port the rebels and quick­ly rec­og­nize them as the legit­i­mate gov­ern­ment of the coun­try in upheaval.

Turk­ish lead­ers do make the con­nec­tion between the con­flicts in the Bosnia, the “Arab Spring” and the Ottoman Empire. Harold Rhode, an Amer­i­can expert on Turkey, has report­ed:

[Pres­i­dent of Turkey] Erdo­gan’s recent [2011] elec­toral vic­to­ry speech puts his true inten­tions regard­ing Turkey’s for­eign pol­i­cy goals in per­spec­tive. He said that this vic­to­ry is as impor­tant in Ankara as it is in the cap­i­tal of Bosnia-Herze­gov­ina, Sara­je­vo, under Ottoman times, an impor­tant Ottoman city; that his par­ty’s vic­to­ry was as impor­tant in a large Turk­ish city Izmir, on the West­ern Ana­to­lian coast, as it is in Dam­as­cus, and as impor­tant in Istan­bul as it is in Jerusalem….

In say­ing that this vic­to­ry is as impor­tant in all of these for­mer Ottoman cities, Erdo­gan appar­ent­ly sees him­self as try­ing to reclaim Turkey’s full Ottoman past.

The occur­rence that since 1990 each Euro­pean and Mid­dle East­ern coun­try that expe­ri­enced Amer­i­can mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in an inter­nal mil­i­tary con­flict or an “Arab Spring” has end­ed up with a gov­ern­ment dom­i­nat­ed by Islamists of the Moslem Broth­er­hood or al-Qae­da vari­ety fits nice­ly with the idea that these events rep­re­sent a return to Ottoman rule. Besides being a polit­i­cal empire rul­ing a ter­ri­to­ry and its pop­u­la­tion, the Ottoman Empire claimed to be a Caliphate with spir­i­tu­al suzerain­ty over all Moslems – those with­in its bor­ders and those beyond. Though it might seem strange at first, the idea of advanc­ing the renew­al of the Ottoman Empire on two tracks – break­ing down the post-Ottoman polit­i­cal struc­ture and pro­mot­ing a Caliphate which Islamists say they long for – is real­ly quite rea­son­able.

Just as the Balkan con­flicts of the 1990s and the “Arab Spring” of the 2010s con­sid­ered in his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive sug­gests that Turkey might be attempt­ing to recre­ate its for­mer empire, con­sid­er­a­tion of the Turk­ish Empire in his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive sug­gests the pos­si­ble part­ner­ship of Ger­many with Turkey in the project giv­en that, from its cre­ation in 1870, Ger­many viewed Turkey with its empire as a most valu­able client and ally. In the view of the lead­ers of Ger­many, Turkey was con­trol­lable through a com­bi­na­tion of eco­nom­ic inter­course, gifts of edu­ca­tion­al oppor­tu­ni­ties, pro­vi­sion of tech­ni­cal exper­tise and admin­is­tra­tive aid, as well as bribes to Turk­ish offi­cials. Ger­many saw influ­ence over Turkey as a means of influ­enc­ing Moslems world­wide for its own inter­ests. Thus as the Ger­man schol­ar Wolf­gang Schwanitz has shown, dur­ing World War I Ger­many employed the Turk­ish Caliphate to pro­mote jihad – riot and rebel­lion – in areas where Moslem pop­u­la­tions were ruled by its ene­mies Rus­sia, France, Britain and Ser­bia.

Yet in the 50-odd arti­cles col­lect­ed in an explo­ration of the aware­ness on the part of Amer­i­cans of a pos­si­ble Turk­ish con­nec­tion with the “Arab Spring,” I found not a sin­gle men­tion of “Ger­many.” Only from a link in one of those arti­cles – to an arti­cle on the Inter­na­tion­al Crim­i­nal Court (ICC) which, with its indict­ment of Muam­mar Gaddafi and issue of a war­rant for his arrest, pro­vid­ed the “legal” basis legit­imiz­ing NATO’s bomb­ing of Libya — which gave the rebels their vic­to­ry and end­ed the Gaddafi regime – did I find men­tion of Ger­many. From that arti­cle, “A Law­less Glob­al Court” by John Rosen­thal (Pol­i­cy Review Feb. 1. 2004 No.123), one learns that the ICC is a project ini­ti­at­ed, pro­mot­ed and, to a con­sid­er­able extent, fund­ed by Ger­many. Giv­en this, the idea that the ICC serves Ger­many’s pur­pos­es is com­mon sense. Through the ICC con­nec­tion, Ger­many’s pro­mo­tion of the “Arab Spring” is clear. Yet it is nev­er or almost nev­er men­tioned. This silence calls for expla­na­tion.

Lat­er, I did come across an explic­it ref­er­ence to Ger­many’s role in it — specif­i­cal­ly in the war against the Assad regime in Syr­ia — in John Rosen­thal’s arti­cle “Ger­man Intel­li­gence: al-Qae­da all over Syr­ia” in the online Asia Times ­­­­­­­­­­­­ — which reports that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment sup­ports the rebels and their polit­i­cal arm, the Syr­i­an Nation­al Coun­cil (SNC), against Assad; that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment clas­si­fied [made secret] “by rea­son of nation­al inter­est” the con­tents of sev­er­al BND (Ger­man for­eign intel­li­gence) reports that the May 25, 2012 mas­sacre of civil­ians in the Syr­i­an town of Houla, for which Assad has been blamed, was in fact per­pe­trat­ed by rebel forces; and that “the Ger­man for­eign office is work­ing with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Syr­i­an oppo­si­tion to devel­op ‘con­crete plans’ for a ‘polit­i­cal tran­si­tion’ in Syr­ia after the fall of Assad.” So far the Ger­man pol­i­cy of keep­ing hid­den its lead­er­ship role in the attempt to recon­sti­tute the Ottoman Empire seems to have suc­ceed­ed.

Each U. S. mil­i­tary action in Europe and the Mid­dle East since 1990, how­ev­er, with the excep­tion of Iraq, has fol­lowed an overt pat­tern: First there is an armed con­flict with­in the coun­try where the inter­ven­tion will take place. Amer­i­can news media heav­i­ly report this con­flict. The “good guys” in the sto­ry are the rebels. The “bad guys,” to be attacked by Amer­i­can mil­i­tary force, are bru­tal­ly anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic, and com­mit­ters of war crimes, crimes against human­i­ty, and geno­cide. Pres­ti­gious pub­lic fig­ures, NGOs, judi­cial and qua­si-judi­cial bod­ies and inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions call for sup­port­ing the rebels and attack­ing the regime. Next, the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders Amer­i­can logis­ti­cal sup­port and arms sup­plies for the rebels. Final­ly the Amer­i­can pres­i­dent orders mil­i­tary attack under the aus­pices of NATO in sup­port of the rebels. The attack usu­al­ly con­sists of aer­i­al bomb­ing, today’s equiv­a­lent of the nine­teenth and twen­ti­eth cen­turies’ gun­boat which could attack coastal cities of mil­i­tar­i­ly weak coun­tries with­out fear of retal­i­a­tion. The ulti­mate out­come of each Amer­i­can inter­ven­tion is the replace­ment of a sec­u­lar gov­ern­ment with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

Why the gov­ern­ment of the Unit­ed States would active­ly pro­mote Ger­man aims — the destruc­tion of Yugoslavia (both World Wars I and II saw Ger­many invade Ser­bia) and the re-cre­ation of the Ottoman Empire — is a ques­tion that needs to be answered.

“In Rebel Ter­ri­to­ry (IV)”; german-foreign-policy.com; 5/23/2013.

In light of the recent Syr­i­an gov­ern­men­t’s mil­i­tary suc­cess­es, the Ger­man gov­ern­ment seeks to sta­bi­lize rebel con­trolled areas in north­ern Syr­ia. While demands for a com­pre­hen­sive arms buildup for rebel mili­tias are becom­ing loud­er, the Ger­man Min­istry of For­eign Affairs is posi­tion­ing aid orga­ni­za­tions to inter­vene. Aid orga­ni­za­tions, such as the Ger­man Agro Action, are — in prin­ci­ple — sworn to neu­tral­i­ty and non-par­ti­san­ship, how­ev­er, at the demand of the Ger­man gov­ern­ment, they are tak­ing up activ­i­ties in regions under rebel con­trol, aimed at “win­ning hearts and minds” in favor of the rebels. Because this is in clear vio­la­tion of Syr­i­a’s sov­er­eign­ty, an influ­en­tial Ger­man dai­ly has char­ac­ter­ized this mis­sion as “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion with­out a UN man­date” — “not with tanks and infantry but with trucks and devel­op­ment aid work­ers.” Ger­many is pro­mot­ing insur­gents also in areas under Islamist con­trol. . . .

. . . . Nev­er­the­less, to assure Ger­man pres­ence on Syr­i­an ter­ri­to­ry, accord­ing to the report, in late sum­mer 2012, the Ger­man For­eign Min­istry turned to var­i­ous devel­op­ment aid orga­ni­za­tions — at first dur­ing the reg­u­lar meet­ings of the Coor­di­nat­ing Com­mit­tee of Human­i­tar­i­an Aid. It is report­ed that, regard­less of the absence of Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment per­mis­sion, these aid orga­ni­za­tions were “asked to become active in insur­gent-con­trolled areas — in spite of inter­na­tion­al law.”[7] In fact, at the for­eign min­istry’s request, sev­er­al Ger­man devel­op­ment aid orga­ni­za­tions are now ille­gal­ly active on the ground in rebel-con­trolled areas of Syr­ia — from Berlin’s per­spec­tive — car­ry­ing out par­ti­san activ­i­ties in sup­port of the insur­gents. Gov­ern­ment func­tionar­ies, such as the GIZ rep­re­sen­ta­tive, sta­tioned in Gaziantep, are not per­mit­ted to car­ry out these activ­i­ties, due to qualms about their ille­gal­i­ty. The Ger­man gov­ern­ment is tol­er­at­ing the even­tu­al­i­ty of long-term loss­es, these devel­op­ment aid orga­ni­za­tions could suf­fer, due to the breach of their oblig­a­tions to neu­tral­i­ty and non-par­ti­san­ship. This vio­la­tion of Syr­i­a’s ter­ri­to­r­i­al sov­er­eign­ty by the aid orga­ni­za­tions’ activ­i­ties is apt­ly described in the report: “What is cur­rent­ly tak­ing place in the bor­der areas, is (...) a human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion with­out a UN man­date: not with tanks and infantry, but with trucks and devel­op­ment work­ers.”

The Islamiza­tion of Syr­ia

Ger­man “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion” in favor of insur­gents in the Syr­i­an civ­il war is also being car­ried out in areas under the con­trol of Islamist mili­tias. In the sum­mer of 2012, the Ger­man “Green Hel­met” orga­ni­za­tion, for exam­ple, ini­ti­at­ed its sup­port activ­i­ties in the small town of Azaz, in north­ern Syr­ia. It is usu­al­ly claimed that this town is under the con­trol of the “Free Syr­i­an Army,” which serves as the umbrel­la label for var­i­ous groups. How­ev­er, crit­i­cal reports soon exposed that Azaz is, in fact, ruled by “Jihadists and oth­er (...) armed Islamists.” Azaz serves “as a tran­sit hub for armed fight­ers, from var­i­ous coun­tries, seek­ing to wage a ‘holy war’ against infi­dels.” They aggres­sive­ly attack those of a dif­fer­ent faith, includ­ing Yazi­di, liv­ing near Azaz.[8] Recent reports have con­firmed that the Jab­hat al Nus­ra ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion is active in that town. The same report points to the pres­ence of Ger­man Salafists in Azaz.[9] From the per­spec­tive of the Ger­man gov­ern­ment, Ger­many’s “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion” in favor of the insur­gents of the Syr­i­an civ­il war — moti­vat­ed by geostrate­gic hege­mon­ic inter­ests (german-foreign-policy.com report­ed [10]) — is con­tribut­ing, in cas­es such as Azaz, to the con­sol­i­da­tion of fanat­i­cal Islamist hege­mo­ny.

Discussion

7 comments for “More Turkish Taffy: Germany, the U.S. and the Neo-Ottoman Empire (Doin’ the Earth Island Boogie, Part 2)”

  1. This arti­cle Van­field researched may be one of the most impor­tant arti­cle so far this year.

    It seems to me that when George Bush Sr. com­ment­ed about “The New World Order”, he was refer­ing to a re-struc­tur­ing to “The Old World Order”, right down to the Ottoman Empire.

    What was old is new again...

    Posted by Swamp | May 30, 2013, 7:44 pm
  2. Here’s some­thing worth not­ing regard­ing the dynam­ic between Erdo­gan’s gov­ern­ment and the police:

    TPM Edi­tor’s blog
    Who Are The Turk­ish Police?
    Josh Mar­shall June 3, 2013, 3:40 PM

    I got in touch with my cor­re­spon­dent on things Turk­ish and my main ques­tion — in addi­tion to where is this going? — is who are the police?

    I asked for this rea­son. The police in Turkey were always part of Turkey’s so-called ‘deep state’ — the mix of for­mal and infor­mal orga­ni­za­tions, fac­tions and gov­ern­ment bod­ies who depend­ing on your point of view were either the guardians of Kemal­ism or the shad­owy forces who real­ly ran Turkey beneath the veneer of elec­toral democ­ra­cy. Broad­ly speak­ing, that would mean they were a deeply Kemal­ist insti­tu­tion. But with the nation­al police now strik­ing so hard against the anti-Erdo­gan demon­stra­tors, who are the police at this point? Have they been trans­formed over the decade of Erdogan’s time in pow­er? Who are the lead­ers? Who are the rank and file?

    Here’s what our cor­re­spon­dent told me …

    Sup­pos­ed­ly the police are the biggest arm of the state that’s been “infil­trat­ed” by the Gülenists. Many peo­ple are con­vinced that the police is a large­ly Gülenist orga­ni­za­tion, if not at the absolute lead­er­ship lev­els then cer­tain­ly among the rank and file of the police force. Pret­ty much every­one in the police does a stint in the South­east where they spend a few years beat­ing the crap out of Kur­dish pro­test­ers, so this is not a new change of tac­tics for them; sad­ly, this is the same play­book they’ve always used against Kurds, but now that it’s against mid­dle class and elite pro­test­ers it’s get­ting more media atten­tion out­side of the coun­try. I won­der if someone’s giv­en the police orders to be this bru­tal, or if it’s just the nat­ur­al reac­tion of the Turk­ish police to fight back against pro­test­ers. I think the latter’s more like­ly. Regard­less, I assume some­one in the Inte­ri­or Min­istry will have to resign at some point or anoth­er over this, but I doubt it will go much high­er than that unless it gets much worse in the next few days.

    I don’t know how this will end up; I think it depends on what hap­pens while Erdo­gan is out of the coun­try. The out­come I find most like­ly is that the pro­posed strike tomor­row fiz­zles and that peo­ple just angri­ly go back to work in a few days. Erdo­gan holds on, and things con­tin­ue as they were. It’s pos­si­ble an inter­nal AKP oppo­si­tion fac­tion could force Erdo­gan to back down, though I don’t know who would lead that. (Could be Gül, which would be inter­pret­ed as a Gülen pow­er play, could be some­one else.) No mat­ter how much the CHP crit­i­cizes, they just don’t have the pub­lic sup­port, charis­ma, or expe­ri­ence to form a gov­ern­ment of their own, and they won’t get in bed with either of the oth­er two par­ties either. Even if all three were to come togeth­er, they can’t beat the AKP’s num­bers. Yes, it’s been a while since the elec­tion in 2011, but the AKP’s fun­da­men­tal sup­port hasn’t changed all that much. On the flip side, the cov­er­age that’s final­ly get­ting out of the police vio­lence seems to be shock­ing many run-of-the-mill Turks. If the AKP/Erdogan get the blame for that, it could hurt their num­bers.

    The next elec­tion is sched­uled ten­ta­tive­ly for the sum­mer of 2015, and at some point the Par­lia­ment (TBMM) is sup­posed to release a draft con­sti­tu­tion for ref­er­en­dum that will pre­sum­ably pro­pose a switch to a pres­i­den­tial (instead of par­lia­men­tary) sys­tem. Erdo­gan wants to be the head of state in 2023, for the cen­ten­ni­al of the coun­try. I doubt he’ll do any­thing to seri­ous­ly jeop­ar­dize his future elec­toral suc­cess­es. He’s a smart politi­cian — one of the smartest I’ve ever seen. He’s not out of the pic­ture yet, not by any stretch. I would argue that this event is no more author­i­tar­i­an (though cer­tain­ly more provoca­tive) than any of his oth­er ridicu­lous plans to con­sol­i­date pow­er, such as the Ergenekon/Balyoz tri­als that have dec­i­mat­ed the offi­cer corps in the mil­i­tary. Those are actu­al­ly much more cor­ro­sive, but because they are per­ver­sions of the judi­cia­ry and not bla­tant, tele­vised vio­lence, they didn’t attract as much pop­u­lar dis­gust.

    So part of the larg­er con­text over the grow­ing nation­al freak­out over Erdo­gan’s regime includes a planned con­sti­tu­tion­al over­haul that will allow him to become pres­i­dent in 2023. That does­n’t exact­ly sound like the kind of sce­nario that’s going to make anti-Mus­lim Broth­er­hood move­ment go away.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 3, 2013, 6:34 pm
  3. @Pterrafractyl–

    Sounds very much like Mor­si’s pow­er grab in Egypt.

    Which should come as no sur­prise what­so­ev­er.

    Posted by Dave Emory | June 3, 2013, 8:57 pm
  4. I’m try­ing to wrap my head around this cur­rent protest in Turkey and I’m stock­ing up on the Turk­ish Taffy home­work shows/articles.

    I did find this essay very inter­est­ing, and the 187 com­ments reflect a vari­ety of views from peo­ple in Istan­bul and else­where. I’ll include a cou­ple for exam­ple-

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/06/talking-turkey/

    Talk­ing Turkey
    by craig on June 2, 2013 6:24 am in Uncat­e­go­rized

    To sim­ply say “pro­tes­tors good, gov­ern­ment bad” in Turkey is a symp­tom of the Blair delu­sion, that in civ­il con­flicts there are guys with white hats and guys with black hats, and that the West’s role is to ride into town and kill the guys in the black hats. That is what “lib­er­al inter­ven­tion” means. The main aim of my sec­ond auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal book, “The Catholic Orange­men of Togo”, was to explain through the truth of the Sier­ra Leone expe­ri­ence how very, very wrong this is.

    In fact civ­il con­flicts are usu­al­ly hor­ri­bly com­plex, anent a vari­ety of very bad peo­ple all try­ing to gain or retain pow­er, none of them from an altru­is­tic desire to make the world a bet­ter place. There may be ordi­nary peo­ple on the streets with that altru­is­tic desire, being used and manip­u­lat­ed by these men; but it is not the ordi­nary altru­is­tic peo­ple on the streets who ever come to pow­er. Ever.

    In Turkey the heavy crush­ing of a rain­bow of protests in Istan­bul has been going on for at least a month now. A week ago I was dis­cussing it with my pub­lish­er, whose son lives in the city. A fort­night ago I was in Istan­bul myself.

    The Turk­ish peo­ple I was with were nat­ur­al Erdo­gan sup­port­ers, and what struck me very forcibly was the fact that he has sick­ened many of his own nat­ur­al allies by the ram­pant cor­rup­tion in Turkey at present. Almost every­one I met spoke to me about cor­rup­tion, and Turkey being Turkey, every­one seemed to know a very great deal of detail about how cor­rup­tion was organ­ised in var­i­ous build­ing and devel­op­ment projects and who was get­ting what. It there­fore is hard­ly sur­pris­ing that the spark which caused this con­flict to flare to a new lev­el was ignit­ed by a cor­rupt deal to build a shop­ping cen­tre on a park. The des­e­cra­tion of some­thing love­ly for mon­ey could be a metaphor for late Erdo­gan gov­ern­ment.

    The park is very small beer com­pared to the mas­sive cor­rup­tion involved in the appalling and mega­lo­ma­ni­ac Bospho­rus canal project. Every­one talked to me about that one. The main­stream media, who nev­er seem to know what is hap­pen­ing any­where, seem to have missed that a major cause of the under­ly­ing unrest in Istan­bul was the government’s announce­ment eight weeks ago that the Bospho­rus canal is going ahead.

    Peo­ple are also incensed by the new pro­pos­al that would ban the sale of alco­hol with­in 100 metres of any mosque or holy site, ie any­where with­in cen­tral Istan­bul. That would throw thou­sands of peo­ple out of work, dam­age the cru­cial tourist trade and is right­ly seen as a symp­tom of rep­re­hen­si­ble mount­ing reli­gious intol­er­ance that endan­gers Turk­ish soci­ety.

    So there are plen­ty of legit­i­mate rea­sons to protest, and the appalling crush­ing of protest is the best of them

    But – and this is what it is nev­er in the inter­est of West­ern politi­cians to under­stand – Gov­ern­ment bad does not equal pro­tes­tors good. A very high pro­por­tion – more than the British pub­lic realise by a very long way – of those protest­ing in the streets are off the scale far right nation­al­ists of a kind that make the BNP look cud­dly and Nigel Farage look like Tony Benn. Kemal­ism – the wor­ship of Ataturk and a very unpleas­ant form of mil­i­tary dom­i­nat­ed nation­al­ism – remains very strong indeed in Istan­bul. Ataturk has a very strong claim, ahead of Mus­soli­ni, to be viewed as the inven­tor of mod­ern fas­cism

    For every sec­u­lar lib­er­al in Istan­bul there are two sec­u­lar ultra-nation­al­ist mil­i­tarists. To west­ern­ers they stress the sec­u­lar bit and try to hide the rest, and this works on the uncu­ri­ous (being uncu­ri­ous is a required attribute to get employed by the main­stream media). Of course there are decent, lib­er­al, envi­ron­men­tal­ist pro­tes­tors and the media will have no dif­fi­cul­ty, now they have final­ly noticed some­thing is hap­pen­ing, in fill­ing our screens with beau­ti­ful young women who fit that descrip­tion, to inter­view. But that is not all of what is going on here.

    There cer­tain­ly was no more free­dom in Turkey before the AKP came to pow­er. Gov­ern­ment for decades had been either by the Kemal­ist mil­i­tary in dic­ta­tor­ship or occa­sion­al­ly by civil­ian gov­ern­ments they tol­er­at­ed and con­trolled. Peo­ple sud­den­ly have short mem­o­ries if they think protest was gen­er­al­ly tol­er­at­ed pre-Erdo­gan, and pol­i­cy towards the Kurds was mas­sive­ly more vicious.

    The mil­i­tary elite dom­i­nat­ed soci­ety and through cor­rup­tion they dom­i­nat­ed com­merce and the econ­o­my. The inter­ests of a pro­tect­ed and gen­er­al­ly fas­cist urban upper mid­dle class were the only inter­ests that count­ed at all. The slight­est threat to those inter­ests brought a mil­i­tary coup – again, and again, and again. Reli­gion was bare­ly tol­er­at­ed, and they allied close­ly with Israel and the Unit­ed States.

    When Erdo­gan first came to pow­er it was the best thing that had hap­pened to Turkey for decades. The for­got­ten peo­ple of the Ana­to­lian vil­lages, and the low­er mid­dle class of the cities, had a voice and a posi­tion in the state for the first time. In indi­vid­ual towns and vil­lages, the mil­i­tary and their clients who had exer­cised absolute author­i­ty had their pow­er sud­den­ly dimin­ished. I wit­nessed this and it was a new dawn, and it felt joy­ous.

    Then of course Erdo­gan grad­u­al­ly got sucked in to pow­er, to mon­ey, to NATO, to the cor­rup­tion of his Black Sea mafia and to arro­gance. It all went very wrong, as it always seems to. That is where we are now.

    Yes of course I want those pret­ty, gen­uine­ly lib­er­al envi­ron­men­tal­ist girls in the park to take pow­er. But they won’t. Look at the hard-eyed fas­cists behind them. Look at the west­ern politi­cians lick­ing their lips think­ing about the chance to get a nice very right wing, anti-Mus­lim and pro-Israel gov­ern­ment into pow­er.

    We should all be con­cerned at what is hap­pen­ing in Turkey. We should all call for an end to vio­lent repres­sion. But to wish the over­throw of a demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed gov­ern­ment, and its replace­ment – by what exact­ly? – is a very, very fool­ish reac­tion.
    ——-
    Sam­ple com­ments:

    “This is the best Eng­lish-lan­guage arti­cle about this event so far. I hope it’s read by many peo­ple. It’s pret­ty close to what I think as a lib­er­al Turk­ish cit­i­zen.”
    ——–
    “This is the only sen­si­ble and true com­men­tary I’ve seen on recent events in Turkey. I’ve been liv­ing in Istan­bul for 2 years now, and have always been amazed at the fact that it is vir­tu­al­ly impos­si­ble to meet any­body with a sane grasp of Turk­ish his­to­ry, or a gen­uine­ly pro­gres­sive out­look on equal rights for minori­ties. The gov­ern­ment has brought exact­ly the ben­e­fits and trou­bles you men­tion, but the pro­test­ers have no clear vision, and bring with them dis­turb­ing ide­o­log­i­cal bag­gage of their own. It is all very well to try to save a park, but the pro­test­ers them­selves would all tell you that their goal is much more sweep­ing than that. They are against the rul­ing party’s cor­rup­tion, but blind to the faults of the oth­er par­ty, which are mired in nation­al­ist excep­tion­al­ism and a Dis­ney ver­sion of his­to­ry.”
    ————
    “I think you’ve mis­judged the geopol­i­tics here. Erdo­gan is a NATO pup­pet of the Fethul­lah Gullen school of Islamiza­tion that allows the CIA to con­trol client states like Turkey much as the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is a CIA out­fit to con­trol Egypt after the syn­thet­i­cal­ly trig­gered Arab Spring (A CIA colour rev­o­lu­tion).

    All of this is detailed on FBI whistle­blow­er Sibel Edmonds site or her inter­views with James Cor­bett. It takes a day or two to digest all the infor­ma­tion that pre­sent­ed but after that there’s no ques­tion how the region oper­ates.”
    —————–
    “‘Look at the west­ern politi­cians lick­ing their lips think­ing about the chance to get a nice very right wing, anti-Mus­lim and pro-Israel gov­ern­ment into pow­er.’

    I don’t believe this is at at all what West­ern pow­ers want. It increas­ing­ly appears to me they want Arab states to come under the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood umbrel­la. Once they do, all pol­i­cy can be con­trolled from the top by either Turkey or Qatar and will con­form to West­ern needs. Mus­lim Brotherhood’s agen­da looks demo­c­ra­t­ic but then once in pow­er step by step this changes. In Libya the insta­bil­i­ty at the moment is caused by the under­hand machi­na­tions of the Broth­er­hood.”

    Posted by Swamp | June 4, 2013, 8:21 am
  5. @Dave: You have to won­der if Mor­si’s behav­ior or the behav­ior of any of the oth­er new Mus­lim Broth­er­hood lead­ers in the region has any­thing to do with shift­ing atti­tudes in Turkey. After all, Turkey’s youth saw the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood pro­ceed to first hijack and one protest move­ment after anoth­er and they took over the entire nations in a giant pow­er grab. What impact could that have had on atti­tudes towards the AKP because it was the AKP’s “broth­ers” that were doing all of that? Mor­si’s behav­ior sym­bol­i­cal­ly under­scores what the pro­tes­tors appear to hate about Erdo­gan so who know, maybe he played a role. Heh.

    Hav­ing the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood con­trol so much of the region at once might have its advan­tages, but we could be see­ing emer­gence of an inter­est­ing cross-bor­der polit­i­cal dynam­ic that will only grow stronger as Mus­lim Broth­er­hood gov­ern­ments con­tin­ue run roughshod over civ­il soci­ety. Even if Mor­si’s antics played absolute­ly no role in shift­ing Turk­ish atti­tudes, the fact that we have the same crazy cult run­ning so many neigh­bor­ing coun­tries all at once dur­ing inter­net era when we can all observe cross-bor­der shenani­gans rais­es the fas­ci­nat­ing pos­si­bil­i­ty that we’re even­tu­al­ly going to see all sorts of new cross-bor­der polit­i­cal vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties for the Mus­lim Broth­ers. At least one can hope. There are many obvi­ous strengths to hav­ing your crazy cult take over a region. But there might be a few addi­tion­al vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties too.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 4, 2013, 7:58 pm
  6. Its inter­est­ing to note, that check­ing out Yahoo news, The Inde­pen­dent, Wash­ing­ton Post, & Chica­go Times, none men­tion that these atroc­i­ties were com­mit­ted by Ger­mans.

    V

    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/German-jihadis-kill-Syrian-Christians-325495

    Ger­man jihadis kill Syr­i­an Chris­tians
    By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
    09/08/2013 01:59

    Expert says the num­ber of Ger­man Islamists in Syr­ia has increased from 60 to 150 in the last six months.

    BERLIN – Rad­i­cal Ger­man Islamists par­tic­i­pat­ed in the mur­ders of Syr­i­an Chris­tians in an ear­ly August attack on the Turk­ish-Syr­i­an bor­der, accord­ing to a report in the Ger­man mag­a­zine FOCUS.

    The mag­a­zine report­ed last week the involve­ment of near­ly 100 “fanat­i­cal” Ger­man Mus­lims, includ­ing Ger­mans who con­vert­ed to Islam, in the Syr­i­an civ­il war.

    Two West­ern intel­li­gence agen­cies pro­vid­ed the infor­ma­tion to FOCUS about the role of Ger­man Islamists in the August mas­sacre.

    A Ger­man police offi­cial told the mag­a­zine that “the com­plic­i­ty of Ger­mans in the exter­mi­na­tion and eth­nic cleans­ing in Syr­ia is a sheer intol­er­a­ble con­di­tion.”

    Pros­e­cu­tors are exam­in­ing whether the Ger­man Mus­lims can be charged with par­tic­i­pa­tion in a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion.

    The grow­ing pres­ence of Ger­man Islamists in Syr­ia prompt­ed the Fed­er­al Republic’s inte­ri­or min­is­ter Hans-Peter Friedrich to issue a warn­ing in April about the “calls for those Euro­peans who have been trained in bat­tle [in Syr­ia] to return home and pur­sue jihad.”

    The Sun­ni Salafist move­ment in Ger­many has pro­vid­ed the main com­bat­ants for the con­flict against Syr­i­an Pres­i­dent Bashar Assad’s regime. Dirk Baehr, a Ger­man polit­i­cal sci­en­tist who has writ­ten about Euro­pean and Ger­man jiha­di groups, told The Jerusalem Post on Tues­day that six months ago there were 60 Ger­man Islamists in Syr­ia and now the num­ber has climbed to 150. Many of the jihadis fight­ing in Syr­ia are from Bel­gium, Baehr added.

    In a video cit­ed in the FOCUS report, which appears in Ger­man and Ara­bic, Ger­man jihadists praise the expul­sion of Chris­tians from the Syr­i­an vil­lages. The video shows between nine and 10 jihadis walk­ing by dead peo­ple. Baehr said it is dif­fi­cult to ascer­tain if the dead indi­vid­u­als are Chris­tians.

    One Islam­ic com­bat­ant strikes the head of a dead Syr­i­an sol­dier in the video.

    For­mer gang­ster rap­per from Berlin, Denis Cus­pert (a.k.a Deso Dogg), is believed to be fight­ing with the al-Qai­da-linked al-Nus­ra Front. Ger­man counter-ter­ror­ism offi­cials view Cus­pert as a pow­er­ful recruit­ment tool. He made a video before his depar­ture to Syr­ia, urg­ing Mus­lims to join the jihad in Syr­ia.

    Posted by Vanfield | September 7, 2013, 10:12 pm
  7. Sor­ry Dave, this sto­ry should be on Curve­ball II.

    I was­n’t aware of that post, when I post­ed this.

    Posted by Vanfield | September 8, 2013, 3:30 pm

Post a comment