This seems to be a highly politically motivated verdict. The government of Tayyip Erdogan has been moving steadily towards and Islamist state and away from the secular ideals of Turkey's founder Ataturk for quite some time. Ataturk was a staunch secularist and is rolling over in his grave at what is happening to the country he was instrumental in founding. It has also been extremely evident that Erdogan plans to maintain his power by imprisoning any opposition members who start gaining too much popularity. The idea of democracy in Turkey has been eroding for a while and it is now pretty apparent that the elections are merely for show. The opposition to this Islamist shift is prevented from gaining any real power through the imprisonment of it's leaders. They allow only enough opposition candidates to win seats in parliament to make it look like there is still a democracy while the Islamists maintain a sufficiently large majority so that they can dictate policy and ensure implementation of their agenda. I think that Turkey's continuing membership in NATO should be predicated on reforms and an end to these politically motivated trials and verdicts.

we should all be scared when a government is led by those who "know" the "true path" that God wants us to follow. It is the reason for all bad wars, from the Crusades, to Iraq and Afghanistan.

What occurred in Afghanistan was the result of 4 planes being hijacked and nearly three thousand innocent people losing their lives. Nothing to do with "God".

Iraq also had nothing to do with "God".

The Crusades had more to do with muslim aggression than "God".

Practically all wars are waged for control of resources. Religion is merely a rallying cry.

The "Sledgehammer" conspiracy is alleged to have included plans to bomb historic mosques in Istanbul and trigger conflict with Greece to pave the way for an army takeover.

Sounds a lot like our Presidential campaign and Congressional procedures.

Do something IRRATIONAL then blame the other side.

From the article:

The "Sledgehammer" conspiracy is alleged to have included plans to bomb historic mosques in Istanbul

This shows the utter fabrication of the charges against all these former military men. Why on earth would the military plan to bomb historic mosques in Istanbul? They wouldn't. It's a BIG lie designed to inflame the public against the defendants. The Islamists in Turkey have now consolidated their power and we will see their true face in the coming years.

Right on the money! Erdogan and his party are simply settling old

scores with opponents and those who did not support them early on.

This shows the utter fabrication of the charges against all these former military men.

Here is a good article from a trukish news paper.

When staging a show trial, it's best to rehearse, and double check your sources. So when it's presented, it at least looks correct. We know the verdict already, but try to preserve a legitimate pretence.

Not just make ship up out of thin air. Try to use real places and ships that had been built within the time frame of the narrative. Don't get sloppy just because you can. Image is everything.

Inconsistencies However, the case included a number of apparent inconsistencies. For instance, it is claimed that SAT commander Capt. Ali Türkşen saved a certain document in his computer on a certain date, but it was revealed that the captain attended a T.V. program about diving at the same time. In addition, some videos that were detected were recorded at the same time he is know to have been diving. “How can I save a document while I am under the sea?” Türkşen asked. He has been under arrest for 1.5 years. It is also alleged that an appointment was made on the TCG Alanya ship in 2003. However, the ship in question was not constructed until 2005.In addition, a number of street names that are stated in the gendarmerie plans were different in 2003 and only had their names changed after that date.

You could have changed the names of the streets to the proper names in the indictment documentation well before Hand. Should have studied Stalin man, he had his "@!$%# tight", no half steppin yo. You'll is amateur's

POLITICS - Court hits ex-top soldiers hard (A Turkish court comes down hard on several high-ranking generals)

Article Source: hurriyet daily news

RAH13; NO, THE RADICAL ISLAM GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY , believed they could take over the secular society of Turkey in spite of the army, the army opposes them, so they are now cleaning house, just as the Ayatollah did when they took over Iran.

Indeed, and just as the newly elected Islamists are now doing in Egypt, purging the old guard and replacing them with alled political officers.

The Brotherhood marches on to total domination. Turkey is the root of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of world conquest for Muslims....again. They use th word "democracy" much like they use the words love and mercy. It is totally devoid of truth as they have no concept of the real meanings. To them, the love of Allah is to slit a person's throat instead of stoning them to death.

Death equals love because after death is the promise of riches and happiness.

The religion of peace: Qu'ran- Sura's

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege
them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world].
But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

Lazarus

A theocracy is a dictatorship.

@conservative;

Yes in a way, just that the Ayotollah has the last word, not the President.

NO ONE elected the Ayatolla.

(thinking) where do you nitwits come from?

A theocracy is a dictatorship, not "in a way", in the real world.

What I mean is that it is not the same as Castro,Ghadafi, etc,it is not a dictatorship in that sense. There is a succession and they do choose the President. The rules are based on religion and the secular, not just ran by one who took over in a coup and runs the people with an iron fist.

Get it now Mcfly?Nobody said the Ayotolllah was elected? What are you talking about?

Yup, and now the Prime Minister of Pakistan is making a public appeal for the U.N. and other trans-national organizations (world court?) to pass law banning "hate" speech aiming to sow discord. The so-called "blasphemy" laws that are already a part of Islamic Sharia Law.

So go live in China then.

These so called trials are a shambled show-case for the Benefit of the present despicable Erdogan and his government. They are bent over backward to destroy Ataturk`s Secularism!! Turkey ..today has lost its will to live!! Coward and the silenced folk...in the face of injustice...!! You bloody deserve the YOKES any time by any nation from now on!!

You access the EDIT feature by pressing alt-F4.

What democratic sivil government???Erdogan and his cahoots!!! Which planet are you in MATE??? They are the American spies and the torturers!! That`s all!! You don`t seem to like our army....without them you will all be in @!$%#...very deep soon!!

Armenians killed us more then we killed them... Do not change the subject mate...That was the act of defence on our part!! But the Armenias with the encouragement of the West and the Russians...killed us in thousands...so we had to eliminate them!! Will do the same thing if it happens again!!

Muslim Brotherhood was a always a secret organization, and what you see is the tip of the iceburg. For example what is happening in Egypt is that since 1971 when Sadat let them out of prisons, they infiltrated all branches of government, the military, the police, Unions, the Judicial system, everything. So when they got rid of the military leaders, they have many MB in the ranks to fill their position, if you take your case to court, you will have MB Judges ruling against you and so on. Infiltrating a Union, or even a non Government organization is not that difficult, you have enough MB joining in, and you have them all as a voting block for your ticket. That's how you can manipulate the system. I want to add that if everything fails they can bring in their thugs to rough up the opposition which they did in Egypt.

In Turkey, they are on their way to remove the western facade that remained from Kamal Ataturk revolution. The military was the last hurdle preventing Islamists from controling the country.

So in summary MB will win under the democratic rules, and their triumph will be as democratic and as disastrous as Hitler winnings in Germany.

Coptic Christian

Ok Coptic, so according to you the MB has in Turkey infiltrated the military, the political and the judicial system, has instigated massive voter manipulation to get themselves in charge (without anybody noticing) and are now systematically neutering the military so that it cannot regain control of the country all for an end goal of what? Turning a Muslim majority state into a Muslim state? Instituting Islamic law into a country with an Islamic cultural heritage? What in your opinion is the end goal of the MB here exactly?

Here's the goals of MB in Arabic as stated by its founder Al Banna and repeated until today. You can ask anyone who understand Arabic to translate it for you, but in summary they have sequence of steps starting with

A Muslim individual -> House -> people -> Government -> Muslim Nation that leads other Muslim Nations until it liberate all the oppressed Muslims and carry the Jihad banner until the whole world is blessed by the Islamic rules. Today they dream about an Islamic Caliphate to bring back the last Golden age of the Ottoman Empire, that's why Turkey has a special place in this pipe dream, but who knows with the cluelessness of the West it may happen. BTW the video gives the summary I posted then expand on each item

نحن نريد الفرد المسلم
والبيت المسلم
والشعب المسلم
والحكومة المسلمة
والدولة التي تقود الدول الاسلامية
وتضم شتات المسلمين وبلادهم المغصوبة
وتحمل علم الجهاد
ولواء الدعوة الى الله تعالى
حتى يسعد العالم بتعاليم الاسلام

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPEJooz5L-w

So global domination is their ultimate goal huh? Oh I see, in that case I’m not worried at all, as no empire in the history of the planet has achieved global domination, they always get to a specific size and then either get destroyed from without or collapse from within, now I can understand that with America being the current global leader s they don’t like the idea of being kicked off their top spot, but personally I couldn’t care less.

If Hitler had One Billion Three Hundred Million people to draw from, instead of 60-70 million then he would in all likelihood have acheived world domination.

Committed Nazis were only a small fraction of the total German population, just as committed Islamo-Nazis are only a small fraction of today's Muslim population (about 10% in both cases I would argue), yet they are the drivers and vanguard for positioning the larger uncommitted population behind their agenda, or at least not actively opposing them (can be done with carrot or stick as situations require).

Look at how far Hitler and approx. 6 to 7 million Nazis got in WWII. Now imagine a neo-Hitlerian Muslim leader (not yet emerged) of today or tomorrow and how far he could get with 130 Million Islamo-Nazis driving relentlessly toward world domination.

"Und Morgan Die Ganze Welt" was not idle talk. That was the goal. Yes they were defeated but at a terrible cost, and there really weren't that many of them to begin with. "Population is only one factor at play" you might say, and you would be right, but population (pool for soldiers and support) is one of the most important factors in war.

Adam44

“If Hitler had One Billion Three Hundred Million people to draw from, instead of 60-70 million then he would in all likelihood have acheived world domination.”

Well that’s a simple way of looking at it, and in all fairness is really unrealistic after all if Germany had had that many people then the rest of the world would have had more as by 1941 (when America finally entered) the Allied nations had a huge population advantage over them. In all though I think your post has just over-simplified things after all in regards to the Muslim world I’m sure you know how fractured that is (which may explain why we are only attacked by fringe elements) also you seem to be assuming that a Muslim drive to global supremacy would not be resisted by other nations (remember it was the United nations of the world that beat Hitler not just one nation) which would obviously not be the case. Now I know people perceive the west as being slow in “waking up” to the Muslim threat but then again it could be that the west doesn’t and hasn’t the reason to view the Muslim world as a threat. After all the western world is far more unified (through our treaties, trade and culture) then the Muslim one and the wider secular world (so including Russia, and China here) is also better unified then the Muslim world too (after all you honestly think the Chinese, Russians and Japanese would willing go Islamic?) at this point I know it sounds like I’m resolved to a bloody world war (although in all fairness I think that such a result is more likely to come about due to the word and actions of those who say Islam is our enemy then people like me who say terrorists are the enemy) I don’t think such a result would happen either as the wests current conventional military edge makes any conventional war for the Islamic world pointless which leads to either terrorism (which can be endured and dealt with) or nuclear war which right now is un-likely especially since NATO will most likely be “dis-arming” Iran early next year.

So in all what we are left with is political infiltration by groups like the MB which may have successes in the ME (as they share a cultural history with the MB) but would never work in the west as tolerance can only be pushed so far before you have a backlash and I for one do believe that the people of the west if push can to shove would oppose any attempt to introduce a culturally foreign theocracy on us.

Well that's a simple way of looking at it, and in all fairness is really unrealistic after all if Germany had had that many people then the rest of the world would have had more as by 1941 (when America finally entered) the Allied nations had a huge population advantage over them.

Well, you took that a little too literally. My point was to look at how far Nazi Germany got with such an enormous disadvantage in population compared to the Allied countries. Imagine if Hitler had double, triple, or quadruple the population to work with, with all the force multiplication that entails. As it was the Nazis basically conquered and/or controlled all of Europe except for GB.

In all though I think your post has just over-simplified things after all in regards to the Muslim world I'm sure you know how fractured that is (which may explain why we are only attacked by fringe elements)

For now, yes, but that could change except that the Sunni/Shia rift would probably remain. So I am positing a neo-Hitlerian charismatic Sunni figure that unifies the Sunnis into an outright or semi-Caliphate, leading to unification and a burning desire to expand and conquer. After all, those "artificial" boundaries that split up the Islamic middle east were never of their own making. It wouldn't be too difficult to persuade the various leading players, under the right conditions, to reject those (mostly-British) colonial creations in favor of something more powerful and divine. Again, it would take a very charasmatic figure like, say, a Muslim Hitler to carry it off. You're right that today it doesn't seem like a strong possibility, but things change in history, often more quickly than anyone expects. Plus there's historical precedent for an Islamic Caliphate and many Muslims romanticize that history and dream about a new one. Sometimes such dreams and nightmares come to pass. Just because, as yet, no empire has succeeded in world domination doesn't mean that one can't or won't.

also you seem to be assuming that a Muslim drive to global supremacy would not be resisted by other nations (remember it was the United nations of the world that beat Hitler not just one nation) which would obviously not be the case.

I'm not assuming no resistance, I'm hypothesizing resistance overcome by overwhelming numbers, fanaticism, and a push by many in the west to try accommodating to the aggression instead of resisting too much, lest WWIII occur with all the death and destruction that would entail. Sort of the inverse of the old cold war slogan "Better Dead than Red."

Now I know people perceive the west as being slow in "waking up" to the Muslim threat but then again it could be that the west doesn't and hasn't the reason to view the Muslim world as a threat.

The threat that Islam poses, yes, not the "Muslim threat." As you know, I condemn the "ism," or in this case the "islam," not the poor people unlucky enough to be born into and controlled by it (see the other post I replied to of your's today). Muslims are some of Islam's biggest victims imo.

After all the western world is far more unified (through our treaties, trade and culture) then the Muslim one and the wider secular world (so including Russia, and China here) is also better unified then the Muslim world too

The "wider secular world" as you put it, doesn't seem very unified to me at all. True, there are still some cold war treaties like NATO in place, which allowed for the bombing of Libya for example, but those treaties are quite anachronistic today. I suppose they could be revived to meet the threat of a new, aggressive Caliphate, but that assumes that the west will awaken to Islam's threat in time and be strong enough to resist effectively. The way Europe is going (no disrespect intended) I am very dubious that it would/could offer much resistance if/when the time comes.

...at this point I know it sounds like I'm resolved to a bloody world war (although in all fairness I think that such a result is more likely to come about due to the word and actions of those who say Islam is our enemy then people like me who say terrorists are the enemy)

Okay, well "Islam is our enemy" is not really the point. Islam inspires -- and provides the blueprint for -- our enemy, how is that? Yes we're fighting the terrorists who kill in the name of Islam. So you prefer "The War on Terror?" Or "War on Terrorists?" When will we, or should we, honestly identify the actual problem? Islam. Of course one can't wage physical war on "Islam," but we can stop kowtowing to its self-righteousness, its intimidation, its violence, its culture of victimhood, and its hair-trigger offense and rage response.

I don't think such a result would happen either as the wests current conventional military edge makes any conventional war for the Islamic world pointless which leads to either terrorism (which can be endured and dealt with) or nuclear war which right now is un-likely especially since NATO will most likely be "dis-arming" Iran early next year.

Okay, well you're all about today and I'm looking down the road some years. As history teaches time and again, situations change and power shifts. p.s. I hope that you're right about NATO disarming Iran next year. I'll believe it when I see it. Yes they made the overthrow of Gadhafi possible (would not have happened otherwise), but Iran is a much more difficult operation.

So in all what we are left with is political infiltration by groups like the MB which may have successes in the ME (as they share a cultural history with the MB) but would never work in the west as tolerance can only be pushed so far before you have a backlash

Possibly, hopefully, or you have the "boil the frog slowly" phenomenon where it never jumps out of the water because it doesn't realize in time that it is gradually dying until it's too late.

and I for one do believe that the people of the west if push can to shove would oppose any attempt to introduce a culturally foreign theocracy on us.

But you don't seem too worried about the Islamization of Europe even though there have been horrific terrorist attacks there (including London) and proliferating zones of Islamic radicalization within many major European cities including London, Manchester, and others. So it's hard for me to share in your sanguinity that the west will wake up in time. After all, given another decade or two in Europe, it won't seem "culturally foreign" any longer. It (Islamism) will, though, in all likelihood have the increasing attraction of offering strength and certainty as Europe continues to weaken and decline. Or do you reject my premise that Europe is in decline?

Interesting exchange though. I hope to continue as time allows.

edit: p.s I've come up with just the right slogan for those preferring to live under Islam instead of engaging in WWIII:

"Better Islamic than Atomic!" lol

p.s. if there is going to be some version of WWIII then probably better for all concerned to get it over with sooner than later while one side still has the means to decisively win it / end it quickly before there is even greater loss of life and destruction to the planet. That's one reason i say that we should contront Islam's radical agency soon and with resolute force. The weaker we are and/or appear, the more they are energized and radicalized to win eventual world supremacy for Allah and Allah's Law.

Adam44

You're right this is interesting and yes I do disagree that Europe is in decline, it's simply changing, for some the change is bad as it's resulting in a loss of identity, to others is great as it's resulting in a generation of opportunity. So that depends on people point of view, personally I'm dubious of those reports that claim entire neighbourhoods are run by Muslims and you cannot go there unless you are Muslim, most because most of the newspapers that report such are incredibly right wing and are often going on about the loss of "traditional" conservative values in western countries (in short they I think they are scare mongering or preaching to their own choir) than anything else.

Also from the sounds of things your scenario of a "Hitler" Muslim (super charismatic personality) sounds a bit fanciful, after all you'd be asking these people to put aside very strong concepts such as nationalism (something that the conservatives of the west are having a problem with today in regards to globalisation) ethnicity and even in some cases tribalism too. Personally I don't think even Hitler would have had the charisma to do that (indeed it'd be like him going to Dark Age Europe) as there'd be far too many rivalries. Furthermore if such a thing was to happen (and that's a huge if) again I think it would be opposed by the rest of the non-Islamic world very rapidly, after all Hitler never thought that Britain would ally with the US (indeed in the 1930s it looked like a war was going to happen between the US and the UK) and yet we did. So odds are if it came down to it I bet a new alliance would take place to keep those nations that didn't want to be Islamic non-Islamic.

The numbers argument depends on what kind of conflict is being fought, after all in Vietnam and in the Israeli war of independence the US and Arab states had much greater numbers (in terms of population) then North Vietnam and Israel yet both Israel and North Vietnam won, and I for one again find it hard to believe that a population of 1 billion (well around that mark) Muslims could all be unified by one man (or group) and convinced to wage war on the west, especially when many of those Muslims consider themselves western and kind of like that they don't have to live under strict Shia law. In all I'd say that unless we are going to A be fighting a war with Muslims and that such war will be a total war (like WW1 and 2) then numbers won't count and even then since the passion of Nukes means that any total war (of the style of WW2) would bring about the end of human civilization all together I doubt even fanatical Muslims would want to try it (after all I bet a lot of them like having lots of power more than dying)

Finally with the war on terror thing I admit I used to criticise, but having done some more research into it, I have altered my thinking a little bit (I'd recommend Terror and Consent by Phillip Bobbitt for a good definition of the war on terror) and whilst I still think it's a crap designation and very miss-leading to the general public, I do admit that from my new perspective it appears to me that this war on Terror (in the west) is a conflict between Liberal globalisation (so nations that believe and practice human rights, equal democracy and free market capitalism) vs Conservative nation states (nations that want traditional "values" instead of human rights, limited democracy at best and controlled capitalism) which for me means that the best way the west can win maybe to have an integrated US/EU political, economic, legal, intelligence and military system. I'd also say that as for saying Islam is the problem, that it's a bad Idea, now don't get me wrong I don't think we should apologise for western culture and do a lot of the other things that have been happening, but by saying Islam is the root of the problem you indirectly say that Muslims are the problem as you cannot be a Muslim without practicing the Islamic faith.

Ps just read your PS and ironically that's what the American govenment said at the start of the Korean war, which did alarm European leaders as they were quick to point out that whilst a soviet nuke may not go off over Washington, one may go off over London or Paris

PPs you seem to be assuming that an Islamic rule would be permanent, which would never be the case human nature wouldn't allow it.

I only have time for a quick reply since I need to go run an errand, but...

you wrote:

your scenario of a "Hitler" Muslim (super charismatic personality) sounds a bit fanciful, after all you'd be asking these people to put aside very strong concepts such as nationalism (something that the conservatives of the west are having a problem with today in regards to globalisation) ethnicity and even in some cases tribalism too.

Islam trumps nationalism, ethnicity, and tribalism, by a long shot. Not even close. You're talking Divine competing with lesser identity affiliations. Islam wins that allegiance choice in a rout.

Adam

Was going to wait for a reply from you in depth but since I cannot sleep I’ll reply to this (and then go play video games lol) anyway you said

“Islam trumps nationalism, ethnicity, and tribalism, by a long shot. Not even close. You're talking Divine competing with lesser identity affiliations. Islam wins that allegiance choice in a rout.”

I’d say don’t be so sure on that, after all if religion had such a powerful hold on peoples mind then the Holy Roman Empire would never has disintegrated, furthermore some of these loyalties pre-date Islam (especially tribal) and let us not forget that in order for your charismatic leader idea to hold then he’d have to be the supreme leader of all Muslims which is where factors like ethnicity and nationalism would play a role after all I doubt the Saudi royals would want to give up their power to an Egyptian born ruler, just like I bet the Egyptian people would resent taking orders from a Libyan, especially if in order to enforce those orders he had to resort to force. So again I don’t think the scenario is that realistic.

Well, you make some good points. I am surprised thought that you are now endorsing not only a "War on Terror," but also a (universal) "Human Rights" agenda.

For my part I still need to clarify and explain better why I seem to be against democracy in the Middle East. Why is it good enough for us but not good enough for them? Frankly I've been expecting you to ask me that on numerous occasions but you never do.

I also need to better deliniate how being against Islam is different and/or better than being against Muslims. You are correct that for most Muslim faithful if someone is aginst Islam then they are going to take that as someone against Muslims. I still think that it's a perfectly valid and defensible argument to make but I do need to develop it in more depth.

None of which is going to happen tonight, however, because I am tired and need to get enough sleep for a change or tomorrow is just going to be even harder to get through.

Anyway, a good sparring match with you, as always. Much more substance and challenge than with most Vine encounters. Have a good day.

Adam44

Thank you, I do enjoy sparring with you to for similar reasons although I’d add that unlike many vine posters you do challenge me , which is good, and who knows maybe one day we may find a topic where we are on the same side. :)

Anyway I do endorse the war on terror these days because my understanding of it has now improved, I no longer see it as a series of military actions against terrorist groups or terror supporting states, instead I’m beginning to see this as a struggle between two constitutional systems (under the parameters laid out in post #17.9) which could end up decades if not generations and will have a massive effect on the societies of those involved too. As for universal human rights well, I like the idea as I think it’s pretty noble, but I do think it needs some work, after all if they are meant to be universal then why does the US have some that Europe don’t (and vice versa) also I think it does run the risk of becoming just another empty slogan if people are not careful.

Well that’s my rambling done so now lol. I will ask why are you against democracy in the ME? And why is it good enough for us and not them?

PS I’d like to hear your argument for how being against Islam is different than being against Muslims, so when you’re ready (since you said it needs some more work) by all means tell me.

Have a good day yourself :)

still thinking.... ;-)