| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
About 20,000 pro-Islamic Turks chanted "Down with Israel" to protest Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip yesterday, a day after the Turkish foreign minister called the offensive in response to the abduction of an Israeli soldier "horrifying."...An estimated 20,000 angry protesters gathered on Istanbul's Caglayan square, where banners read: "Don't remain a spectator to oppression." The demonstrators, including hundreds of people who travelled to Istanbul from other cities, shouted anti-Israeli slogans.... – from this news item
Which Turkey is it to be then? Erdogan's Turkey, Abdullah Gul's Turkey, the Turkey of "Mein Kampf" as a best-seller, the Turkey that refuses completely to discuss the Armenian genocide, the Turkey of "Valley of the Wolves," a box-office hit? (It even came to Paris, where Alain Finkielkraut went to see it, and came out horrified.) Is it to be the Turkey that not only cannot be admitted to the EU (that can't happen no matter what), but a Turkey where piece by piece the Kemalist constraints on Islam will be undone, first by changing attitudes (check), then by changing laws (check), and finally, much later, by chipping away at the cult of Ataturk himelf, for the Ataturk-cult gets in the way, obviously, with the cult of that other Perfect Man, Muhammad?
Sabanci and the other industrialists and entrepreneurs, the rectors and professors in the universities, the generals and other officers in Ankara, the journalists and writers whether Pamukian in their fame or not, owe whatever mental freedoms they possess not to Islam, but to Kemalism and its constraints on Islam. They should take stock of what it is in their daily lives that they do now, and wish to continue doing, that could not have been done had Islam still governed the acts, and presumed to govern the minds, as it once did, and as it still does all over the Lands of Islam.
Think, for example, of the books available along that street of largely Islamic bookstores -- those endless rows of dull Muslim texts. And imagine that that was all that Turkey had, and not, say, the bookstores of Istiqlal Caddesi or some of the upper-class areas, with real books on all sorts of subjects, not to mention those used bookstores where one can almost sniff the atmosphere of some German Jewish scholar who either passed through Turkey (Erich Auerbach, Leo Spitzer, Herbert Dieckmann), on his way from hell to America -- or perhaps he was much younger when he arrived and decided to stay in Turkey, and recently died, and now his fabulous scholarly library is slowly being sold off to discerning visitors to one of these fascinating rare-and-used bookstores were serendipity is the stock in trade. Why, just look at this first edition of Minorsky! and here is a copy, inscribed by the author, of "Osmanische Numismatik" by Anton Schaendlinger, mit 17 Mutztafeln, and over here, behind the glass, is an early edition of Busbecq. Was this previous polymathic owner the gentle though formidable Professor Frankel? Or was it possibly the slightly less gentle and less formidable Professor Nissenbaum? Whoever he was, he did not, fortunately, live long enough to see the resurgence of Islam in the Turkey that he had grown to love.
A few years ago (2000?), the Turkish government mounted an exhibition devoted to paintings of the Padishahin. A fat catalogue accompanied the exhibit. Such paintings, of course, violate the prohibition on depictions of humans, and in other countries -- in Pakistan, say, or the Arab countries, or the Islamic Republic of Iran -- such an officially-sponsored exhibition would be unthinkable. It was only because of the attitudinal and ideological change among possibly one-quarter of the Turkish population (the part that thinks) that such an exhibit could take place.
But the attacks on the United States for soldiers who are "worse than Nazis," and the obvious rise in antisemitism do not bode well. Remember all that nonsense about how Israel's help to Turkey after the Istanbul earthquake would "permanently" change Turkish attitudes? Just the way America's help after the tsunami would "permanently" change attitudes in Aceh? The only thing "permanent" in Muslim countries is Islam, and the only question for the secularists within Dar al-Islam is how to constrain and tame it, in order to allow the development of a sufficient number of secularists who will then continue to constrain and tame Islam. The only question for Infidels in Dar al-Harb is how to minimize the presence and power of Islam, and hence Jihad, within their countries, and how best to divide, demoralize, and weaken the Camp of Islam, and hence the Camp of Jihad, consisting as it does of Believers both in Dar al-Islam and Dar al-harb.
20,000 protestors, marching along. The advanced part of Turkish society must do something about the attitudes that prompt such protests. How many Arabs are in Turkey now? How many are hanging around this or that seedy "Hotel Palestine," plotting to deliver Turkey into the hands of Islam, just the way Arafat and the PLO helped so much in delivering up Iran into the hands of Khomeini?
Posted by Hugh at July 10, 2006 10:43 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Our adventure in Iraq has cost dearly, in Turkey as well as all over the world. When Bush won the 2004 election, he very revealingly said that he had earned political capital by his victory and intended to spend it. In much the same way the US held unique political capital in the wake of 9/11. Afghanistan was a necessary evil, but Iraq was not. Perhaps if we had avoided this entanglement Iran would not have been so aggressive with its nuclear program, but I do not see why they would stand down. We would have had to expend what we had against them and not Iraq. And Iran is ready for restraints on Islam, restraints that might be even more permanent than those of Ataturk. Who knows, when Iranians finally shake off the clerical dictatorship, Islam might wither there completely. But it is not to be, or not any time soon.
Without the Iraq war, there would have been no "Valley of the Wolves". The Turks are wrong about American troops, and wrong about a lot of things, but what did we expect to be the result of conquering a nation with no hope of stable existence without a sadistic tyrant to keep it together?
To the extent that there is planning and forethought regarding our foreign policy, which is questionable since the 2001 election, the value of the restraints Hugh is talking about should be given consideration. Restraints break. They are breaking everywhere. They exist to a lesser degree in many Muslim-majority countries, but now their adherents cannot sustain themselves without joining the chorus of America-haters. Thinking people born into Islamic tyranny have become like "Islamochristians". Yet hating America means hating liberty, hating our ideals, the only real ideals in the world today. The only alternative to solving the problems caused by Islam, and blamed on America and the west, is instead to be treated with an even larger dose of Islam, a medicine celebrated for its ability to kill the patient.
Posted by: Quijybo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://swap.stanford.edu/was/20100322163935im_/http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 10, 2006 11:16 AM
How the hell do you know there would be no Valley of the Wolves if no Iraq war? I suppose Mein Kampf wouldnt have been a best seller as well. And I guess no priest stabbings too.
Posted by: Elric66 at July 10, 2006 11:36 AM
The growing influence of Islamists in Turkey should be a major concern. Turkey is probably the strongest Muslim country in terms of military power and industrial might. A militant Islamic Turkey, given it's power and very strategic position between Europe and Asia would be a grave threat indeed.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at July 10, 2006 12:12 PM
Sadly, Turkey is not a supporter of the war on terror, but is more likely a supporter of the terrorists.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 10, 2006 12:29 PM
Ataturk must be rolling in his grave. He tried his best to stem jihad and show that Muslims can have a secular society.
Posted by: Elric66 at July 10, 2006 12:36 PM
Turkey, like Islam itself and the Islamosphere that springs from it, is evil.
That is all we can ever expect from it. And that is all we are ever likely to get from it (evil).
Sorry. But that is the reality--and that is the Turkey it is going to be.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 10, 2006 12:36 PM
Turkey, like Islam itself and the Islamosphere that springs from it, is evil.
That is all we can ever expect from it. And that is all we are ever likely to get from it (evil).
Sorry. But that is the reality--and that is the Turkey it is going to be.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 10, 2006 12:37 PM
Elric66,
Pardon me, I was not clear; the movie is called "Valley of the Wolves - Iraq". If we did not invade Iraq I sincerely doubt it would have been made. Maybe it would have been called "Valley of the Wolves - Afghanistan" though. I did not say there would be no priest stabbings (part and parcel of the Islamization which has been going on for 1300 years in Anatolia), or anything about Mein Kampf - maybe if Israel pulled out...oh wait they already tried that in Gaza...
My point was if we engage militarily in a Muslim country we should be sure we can win, and also be prepared for the blowback. This dragged out misery in Iraq is exacerbating all kinds of problems and hiding from us the real enemy, which is an ideology rather than a nation or particular political system (except maybe Sharia). Maybe a stable country will emerge from it, and all these angry Muslims will have to eat crow, of just retreat into fantasy and conspiracy (hell, most are there already). The invasion of Iraq probably accellerated the degradation of Turkish secularism. Which is worth more to the west, getting rid of Saddam or Turkish secularism? Really I am not sure, because secular Turkey had a chance of getting into the EU, whereas de-secularizing Turkey stands no chance at all. Europe is worth more than secular Turkey and Iraq combined.
In the end it is a war of ideas and can only be won on the front of ideas. It seems to me the forces of Islam thrive on violence but wither under criticism, exposure and scrutiny. Cartoons are a bigger threat to them than 130,000 American troops.
Posted by: Quijybo at July 10, 2006 12:41 PM
Turkey was allready on the decline and perhaps its good that its happening before it was accepted into the EU. A blessing I would say. And the real enemy is being drawn into Iraq which is another blessing. Plus the Shia and Sunnis are killing each other, which Im not complaining. If they dont want democracy in Iraq, I rather have them kill each other in Iraq, not here. Turkey was a lost cause before Iraq. The Islamist party was elected before the Iraq war.
Posted by: Elric66 at July 10, 2006 12:57 PM
The Muslum Turkey ofcourse.Since this is the makeup of Turk society.Muslum populous and Western elite leaning rulers.But this cant hold for ever.Not with Islamic ideals on the spread nearly everywere.Turkeys an example of end of ww2 alliences.Yes id prefere Turkey as a member of the western allience genrally.But its society will alltamently progress in the course of its basic values.Islam in one form or another.And as far as the radicals in the streets protesting Isreal well da Isreal is always the enemy in the mideast.Why would we think this Muslum nation would except Isreal.Its nearly condamable by death as far as Islamic history and polcie if one would even do so.Atleast with no double speak.
Posted by: Rench at July 10, 2006 1:02 PM
Elric66,
You are right on the money about Turkey sliding on its own. It seems everywhere, the Islamic movement always shows its teeth too soon. They'll not get their chance to destroy Europe through the EU now, but then again the Europeans have messed up the continent but good already and it might not require the Turks to finish the job. I hope not. I go back and forth between hope and hopelessness about Europe.
I don't think the Sunni/Shia violence in Iraq is a good thing, because it is coming under the US aegis of conquest and occupation, which serves the paranoia/conspiracy mill so very well. That conflict and violence was already there before we showed up, and now in retrospect we would probably be better off just letting them suffer together without putting your soldiers in the middle. I can't stomach young Americans dying because Sunnis and Shias fail to recognize their shared humanity. We all know why that is happening...
Of course I am torn about the idea of withdrawing from Iraq because there are a lot of good, thinking people there who stand with us, who will probably stand no chance if we leave, but the million dollar question is, when will they be strong enough to stand on their own? Can reason stand against the tide of Islam, particularly in an Arab country? I have my doubts. Although, it is true what Bush and Cheney say, that if we leave Iraq the Jihadis will also follow us. There is no good answer to this problem.
Posted by: Quijybo at July 10, 2006 1:26 PM
"I am torn about the idea of withdrawing from Iraq because there are a lot of good, thinking people there who stand with us, who will probably stand no chance if we leave..."
-- from a posting above
The Kurds can be helped with military equipment. Christians who wish to leave to live with co-religionists in the Middle East (in Lebanon, in Syria, possibly in the "West Bank" in a one-for-one exchange with local Muslim Arabs) can be helped. Where, among the others, is that bunch of "good, thinking people there who stand with us"? How many are they? Are they as numerous as Chalabi and Allawi think or wanted us to think? Are they 90% of the Arab Muslim population, or 50%, or 5%, or less? And why will they "stand no chance" if we leave -- will they all be killed overnight, the Sunnis by Shi'a and Shi'a by Sunnis? Is it a certainty that the forces of Al-Qaeda will prevail? Why? Why not simply low-level political disarray and violence, without any gigantic cataclysm? And why should we make policy on the basis of tender feelings toward a few in the Muslim world -- don't we have to worry about ourselves, and about the instruments of Jihad that are being overlooked altogether, and doesn't our presence in Iraq make people think that this is "a war on terror" and this war is "winnable" (i.e., finite), and that furthermore, "if we leave the terrorists will have won"(why? will the Shi'a suddenly surrender to the Sunni insurgents who have been most reponsible, along with the outside volunteers for Zarqawi, for terrorist attacks? Why is it assumed, just because Al-Qaeda calls Iraq a disaster, and no doubt would crow over an American withdrawal, that a withdrawal is necessarily a victory for the forces of Islam? Why does the Administration allow the enemy to define what "victory" would be?
I claim that withdrawal of American forces will ensure a "victory" in Iraq, and is indeed the only way to achieve it, if by victory one means: an outcome that significantly weakens the cohesion, and damages the image, of Islam. What better way to raise the issue of Arab supremacism than to have the Kurds fight for independence from Arabs, and what better way to divide and demoralize the camp of Islam than to have the Sunnis and Shi'a go at it, without the Americans there to hold them back, with our Marquess of Queensberry rules?
Posted by: Hugh at July 10, 2006 1:35 PM
Sunni/Shia violence is good for us. Better they kill each other than killing us. Plus it shows how evil Islam truly is if they even kill each other in the name of Islam.
Posted by: Elric66 at July 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Quijyabo:
Muslims are commanded by the Kuran to stalk all non-Muslims everywhere they are found and subdue them by means of violence (aka jihad). Islam encase you didn't know is a global empire built upon invasions and violent conquests of non-Muslim lands across the globe (in the Indian subcontinent more than 90 million Hindus were murdered by invading jihadists since the 8th century. Islamic doctrine teaches that this must continue indefinitely. We are stuck with this very serious problem.
As for the Valley of the Wolves, Turkey may have found plenty of ammunition in Iraq. But you know what, the Jews in 1930s Germany were largely innocent of violence and other crimes. Did that that stop the Nazis from making propaganda films about them?? NO!! If the Turks hadn't found suitable material about Americans available they would have invented lies to film (and oops! they sure did that witht he film, didn't they?). One way or another The Valley of the Wolves would definitely have been made. Iran had been producing propaganda against the US long before the Iraqi War.
You have fallen into the trap of thinking that most other people are at the same level of thinking you are. The Jews in the 1920s made the same mistake, as did the Hindus of India in the 8th century, and countless others. A very dangerous mistake.
You are apparently unaware that Islamic governments are arming themselves for jihad warfare against democratic and other infidel nations (loom at Sudan or the southern Philippines or southern Thailand). We face this partly because for too long the western democracies ignored this developing threat. Did it ever occur to you that Islamic governments could militarily engage the west at some point in the future? If they become powerful enough, they will--that is what the world should have learned from 9-11.
It is interesting that you mention America has conquered and occupied Iraq. You may not know Turkey itself was formerly GREECE. Muslim Turks invaded Greece, slaughtered millions of Greek people and stole their land. Turkey invaded and occupied Greece and the Greek civilization was diminished. Such is the fate of nations that do not take jihad warfare seriously and lose to Islam. They become Islamic. The beginnings of this may be seen in the terrorism networks in operation throughout the non-Islamic countries which are falling into the same trap the Greeks fell into. They did too little too late.
By the way, the presence of terrorist sleeper cells in the non-Islamic countries can be seen as an invasion and an occupation---they were not invited to these countries. They were planted with the blessings of national governments in the Middle East and their goal is jihadi violence. Did it ever cross your mind that many more such cells would have attacked and killed civilians in the western nations if the US hadn't destroyed Saddam Hussein's government (Hussein financed islamic terror networks and provded logistical support for them too)?
America did nothing during the 1990s under the Clinton Administration, and there was blowback for that too. It's called 9-11. If Islamic terrorists think you're weak, they will attack. And they did.
You also do not appreciate fully how much the Sunni and Shia conflict in Iraq does not come under "the aegis of US conquest and occupation" as you have commented and I do not believe you know why. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and the ensuing war between the Shia Iranians and Sunni Iraqis resulted in the deaths of approximately 1 million people. Saddam Hussein's regime killed more than 2 million Iraqi people, many of them Shia. What is transpiring in Iraq had been going on at a lower intensity for a very long time, but was destined to resurface in a much more heated conflict--and did.
But you are right about one thing: with Islam, there are never any attractive options. If only you understood that Islam is a problem that has historically precluded attractive solutions.
at July 10, 2006 2:40 PM
when dealing with The Peaceful Religion of Islam and the war on terror, There are no "rules" if you expect to win. Right now we are not really winning, but we sure are stirring things up and creating havoc with Al-Qaeda. We are causing them a great deal of concern and forcing them to spend large amounts of money just to maintain the status quo.
Now only if some of the Euroweenies would provide sizeable military contribution to the war on terror, things might swing towards victory. but don't count on them, they are scared to death, and death is at their doorstep.
at July 10, 2006 3:08 PM
Turkey has always been islamic finatical country Turk muslims have killed more christians then any other muslim nation has, to say that ataturk was secular is not true attaturk was a osama bin laden without the beard and stinky rag on his head infact ataturk has killed more christians then osmama bin ladan has so who is more finatical? just becuase ataturk banned the headscarf doest make him secular he used to kill christian greeks and armenians according to how the koran says to behead infidels
maybe ataturk banned the headscarf to fool the west into thinking they where not finatical muslims so the west could except turkey into europe like what is happening now some leaders are saying turkey should be excepted in europe becasue they are not finatical muslims
Posted by: Greek Gurl at July 11, 2006 9:08 AM
greek gurl: We remember the fate of Smyrna at the hands of Turkic jihadists in 1922 very well. Turkey used to be Greece--and should serve as a reminder to the world of what Islam can mete out to nations unwilling or unprepared to combat it decisively and effectively.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 11, 2006 10:47 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)