ATLASOFCREATION.COM - Articles - Recently AddedenCopyright (C) 1994 1ATLASOFCREATION.COMhttp://atlasofcreation.com an important alliance

The Erdogan-Putin meeting, which took place in early May, was the fifth meeting between the two leaders after the plane crisis on November 24, 2015. While this meeting was an important step in the improvement of relations in many respects, the decisions taken regarding Syria have led to the emergence of a new solution plan for the region. 

While the sides of the conflict declared a ceasefire in Syria, it was also decided that four security zones will be established around Syria. The actual boundaries will be determined at the next Astana talks; but in principle these regions are expected to be established in Idlib province, north of Humus, east Guta and south of Syria. 

With this decision, there are two important points that should be addressed. The first is that this decision was also outlined briefly to Trump during the previous Putin-Trump meeting, and the plan is also supported by the US administration. The second is Russia’s statement that every necessary measure, including military intervention, will be taken against any parties that break the agreement. Although we do not approve of the possibility of military intervention, it is clear from Putin’s statement that he absolutely supports this plan. 

This meeting marks a new era, which is why it is called a “strategic partnership”. Thus, Putin’s statement, “we have left behind the normalisation process in Turkish-Russian relations. We are going back to normal partnership”, corroborates this. In fact, the three leaders who can take the most effective steps in Syria, making decisions that will ensure the establishment of de-escalation zones, does point to an important strategic partnership. 

It should be noted that the claim that the plan in question will come to mean the division of Syria made by some European media outlets, which are opposed to the Turkish-Russian convergence and cannot tolerate Trump’s participation in this alliance, is only a provocation. The safe zones within Syria, called de-escalation zones, do not divide Syria on the map. These zones are designated areas intended to pave the way for peace and for the establishment of a ceasefire, even if it is regional, in Syria. All three leaders have agreed and insisted on the preservation of Syria’s territorial integrity since the beginning of the talks. Changing the subject to the division of Syria is an attempt at manipulation by a number of power groups which desire the projects in question to fail. 

Even though US support for the PYD, which is an extension of the terrorist organisation PKK, continues in Syria, the progress made with Russia regarding the issue produced positive results. Indeed, Putin’s assertion that Russian troops will not support the PYD is an important guarantee for Turkey. At the same time, Putin made it clear that he would not allow any PYD deployment in northern Syria. We hope that the US will soon see the error of its ways and strengthen its alliance with Turkey in this regard. 

This alliance is important for the region, because the Syrian issue is becoming increasingly insoluble. But the participation of the countries in the region and coherent and strong alliances can lead to a solution. Indeed, for a real solution to be found, it is important that the solution is really desired by all parties. Right now, the parties who desire the solution are in control instead of the parties whose interest lies in the division of Syria. 

The fact that the Sochi decisions are made in a critical and specific time is important. Putin’s talks with both Trump and Merkel before Sochi remind us that the plans have largely become global in scale. After the Sochi negotiations, talks were held in China, between Russia, China and Turkey, and right after that the Trump-Erdogan meeting took place. On May 24-25 there is a Nato summit in Brussels. It seems that the decisions regarding Syria will not remain on the table in Sochi. They will be approved by both the East and Nato. 

Analysis made after the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s decision to put Turkey “under observation” indicated that this decision would bring Turkey and Russia closer. Turkey and Russia are now strengthening their relations as two friendly countries that have been allies for years. But it is no secret that Europe’s biased attitude has further strengthened the ties between Turkey and Russia. However, Turkey’s approach is based on friendship rather than classic politics.

Hence, establishing ties with one side doesn’t mean burning bridges with the other. Turkey is still a European country; it has strong ties with many European countries and is still a candidate for EU membership. Turkey is also a Nato country; its alliance with the US is still strong. Neither will being close to Russia adversely affect Turkey’s alliance with Nato, nor will being a Nato member affect the alliance with Russia. Especially when the issue is to find a solution to stop the bloodshed in a country, the artificial issues between the parties should be forgotten. The Middle East needs a solution more than ever.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Gulf Times:

]]>, 24 May 2017 21:20:18 +0300
The Technics & Science Research Foundation Held the 2nd International Conference on The Origin of Life and The Universe at the Istanbul Ritz-Carlton Hotel

The Technics & Science Research Foundation, the Honorary President of which is Mr. Adnan Oktar, has once again brought together world-renowned scientists to realize another important project on recent scientific developments.

At the 2nd International Conference on The Origin of Life and The Universe, held on May 21, 2017 at the Istanbul Ritz-Carlton Hotel and attended by approximately 500 participants, messages of friendship were given along with wishes for the continuation of this cooperation aimed at the development of better scientific understanding that will benefit all of humanity.

The most striking detail at the entrance of the conference hall was the exhibition consisting of fossils dating back millions of years.

The moderator of the session was the Chairwoman of DEIK (Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey), Ms Zuhal Mansfield.

In addition to coffee breaks with refreshments and a luncheon, the Percussion Performance and Istanbul Dance Factory’s show received great interest and a big applause from the audience.

The conference demonstrated that the question “What is the origin of life?” was answered with “Creation” by scientists in fields including genetics, biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry and astrophysics. 


Prof. Dr. Fazale Rana

An expert in biochemistry, Prof. Dr. Fazale Rana is working in the field of biochemistry, genetics, and synthetic biology. With two books, many articles, a document and a podcast on the scientific evidence of Creation to his credit, Rana has given various television and radio interviews along with more than 500 speeches in universities, conferences and churches around the world.

After graduating from West Virginia State College with a BS degree in chemistry, he earned a PhD in chemistry at Ohio University and was also granted the Donald Clippinger Research Award two times. Prof. Rana wrote a PhD thesis on the structure of cell membranes in Virginia and Georgia Universities. 

The articles he wrote were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Biochemistry, Applied Spectroscopy, FEBS Letters, Journal of Microbiological Methods and Journal of Chemical Education. While studying biochemistry, he realized that evolutionary scenarios cannot explain how life began and life must have been originated by a Creator. After this awareness, Rana devoted himself to explaining this fact to people. 

Prof Dr. Anjeanette "AJ" Roberts

Prof. Dr. Roberts has PhD’s in chemistry from Tulsa University and in the fields of molecular biology and cell biology from Pennsylvania University. Between 1997-2001, Roberts carried out studies on viral pathogens and inoculation at Yale University. Between 2006-2013, she was an Assistant Professor at Virginia University, Department of Microbiology and head of the Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases Program. Between 2013 and 2015, she continued her studies as a guest researcher at the Rivendell Institute at Yale University. 

Roberts has published more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and participated in many national and international scientific conferences all around the world. She was granted the NIH Award of Merit for her studies on infectious diseases. Currently, she carries out studies on subjects such as harmony between science and faith, and the evidence of Creation on the biochemical level. 

Jeff Gardner - Founder and Manager of The Picture Christians Project

In 2007, he co-founded International Catholic Media, a global humanitarian, media and communications company, and became the Board Chairman.  In 2013, he launched The Picture Christians Project, which aims to educate society about the lives of Christians around the world and to find solutions to their unique conditions. Jeff Gardner is one of the few photographers and media specialists who frequently travel to the Middle East and document the experiences of Christians, refugees and terror victims in countries like Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt by talking to them.

Gardner's writings and photographs have been published in numerous national and international media outlets and publications, and he is frequently featured as a Middle East specialist in various media organs and publications such as EWTN, Relevant Radio, National Catholic Register, Aletia, Conservative Review, Newsmax, Fox News and Sean Hannity

Dr. Carlo Alberto Cossano

Carlo Alberto Cossano is a Health Informatics Project Manager, who is also an expert in clinical pathology analysis laboratory and pathological anatomy laboratory information systems. He works in Dedalus Healthcare Systems Group in Italy.

Psychiatrist Dr. Paolo Cioni

Paolo Cioni is an Italian psychiatrist with long-term hospital and academic experience. He has written many publications in cooperation with leading Italian editors in the field of psychiatry.  His latest work, published in English, is Paranoia: Between Leadership and Failure (CreateSpace, 2015) where he initially examined paranoia at a personal psychiatric level and continued his examination at sociological and political levels.

Dr. Fabrizio Fratus

Italian Sociologist. His doctoral thesis was on "Scientific Creationism" and "New scientific discoveries about the origin of life and men". At the moment, his activities include raising public awareness about moral corruption in society, the family institution becoming increasingly degraded, and the increasing loneliness of the people.  He carries out these activities with a team of young people. 

He founded the Anti-Evolutionist committee in Italy.  He has five books on this subject, the names of which are as follows: 

• God or Darwin?

• Myth or Real?  The Lie of Evolution

• Science and Faith 

]]>, 23 May 2017 22:40:47 +0300
DNA: A Glorious Marvel of Creation

Each person has an average of 100 trillion cells, each of which contains a DNA molecule. Just one of these contains information regarding 3 billion different subjects, enough information to fill approximately 1,000 volumes of books, each one containing 1 million pages. If we were to lay these pages out side by side, they would stretch from the North Pole to the Equator. If we were to read it 24 hours a day, it would take 100 years to finish it. This glorious information belongs to a single DNA molecule, which exists everywhere in our body, such as in a single fingernail or a single hair.

How could such an incredible library have been squeezed into a minute hair too small to be seen with the naked eye? How could it have been packed into all of the cells that constitute that hair and all of the other cells that make up our body? How could so much information, which we could never carry on our own, have been installed in our bodies 100 trillion times? Could human beings manage to do this themselves? Can any known technology achieve such an amazing feat? Could this glorious information be present in the cells by chance?

Clearly, random events, human beings, and technology cannot produce such an astonishing work. This fact has been scientifically proven. This amazing work in our bodies belongs to Allah, Whose might makes all things according to His will:

We created humanity from a mingled drop to test him, and We made him hearing and seeing. We guided him on the Way, whether he is thankful or unthankful. (Surat al-Insan, 2-3)

]]>, 16 May 2017 14:09:15 +0300
Turkey under European observation

Over the last two years Turkey has experienced some hectic periods in terms of both domestic and foreign politics. Operation "Euphrates Shield" that launched in Syria, the developments in the fight against the PKK, the July 15 coup attempt and the subsequent state of emergency all caused significant changes people’s views of Turkey, both from the perspective of those within it and those in other countries. While progress was made in relations with Russia, American support for PYD in Syria had a relatively negative impact on relations with the US, and all these developments dragged EU relations into abeyance.

Without a doubt, it is not merely due because of Turkey's politics that the relations with the EU have become problematic. The extreme right-wing leaders who have effectively emerged in the European Parliament in recent years have strongly raised their voices against both foreign and Muslim communities. The anti-foreigner rhetoric that borders racism seems to have long ago hampered the essential presence of the EU, which is supposed to be inclusive and unifying.

The decision about Turkey that was made as a result of the vote of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe last week serves as the latest point reached by Turkey and the European Union. According to this decision, Turkey, one of the founding members of the European Commission, will be under its observation.

The aforementioned watch list was initially intended to accustom Eastern European countries ruled by communist political parties following the dissolution of the Soviet Union to the level of democracy in Western Europe. Turkey was not a country under communist rule, but because it was a Muslim country at the gate of the Middle East it was put on the aforementioned watch list and then was removed from this list as a result of a series of reforms that were carried out after the AKP took power. One of the most remarkable of these reforms was the abolition of the death penalty. Turkey is currently the only country on the list that has come back to it despite being removed in 2004.

PACE is not an organ of the European Union but the decision has emphasized the way the EU looks at Turkey for a while now. The European Union is undoubtedly not in a position to assess the events in Turkey properly and make a fair deduction accordingly. Because Europe, unlike Turkey, is not face to face with a nuisance like the PKK, was not subjected to a coup attempt by an internally organized group, nor did it ever face unrelenting wars on its borders. It seems difficult for the European Union, which evaluates the countries that it will incorporate based on its own norms, to be able to see and evaluate Turkey's issues closely.

Indeed, within the scope of this decision, the EU's one-sided viewpoint, its racist leaders, and the hatred stemming from Islamophobia and xenophobia can justify the fact that blame falls largely on Europe. Yet such decisions should be transformed into a positive one for Turkey in many ways. It should not be forgotten that Turkey's request to join the EU, made many years ago, was a step taken in order to adopt the democracy and human rights of those countries. As a matter of fact, Turkey has made significant progress in terms of human rights with a series of reforms that took place immediately after its application for membership. It should be remembered that the steps in question are essentially the steps Turkey needs to take.

Europe is based on an elite model in which women are held in high esteem and are not oppressed, and in which science, art, aesthetics and quality are strongly emphasized. These are the aspects that are especially now urgently needed by Muslim countries. This is because some Muslim societies have been under the influence of superstitious mentalities for a long time, and they have either turned to false beliefs or remained passive in these issues. This passivity has hindered these societies not only in a social context, but also in the political arena, and have, to a large extent, prevented the formation of happy and creative societies. Because art, besides encouraging people to appreciate beauty, can help societies to develop skills and fend off pessimism. It is for this reason that societies that are removed from art and aesthetics are societies that can often easily sink into pessimism, lose their spiritual richness, and can get bored quickly. For this reason, aspects such as art, quality and aesthetics, which the EU holds in high esteem, are absolutely necessary to adapt.

Democracy is not only a system recommended by Europe, but a model that is essentially Islamic. Our religion, which does not allow for compulsion, gives us the perfect recipe for democracy. Logically, then, the main democratic societies should be the Islamic societies. Turkey undoubtedly is moving along on the way of democratization. This can indeed be fully achieved by developing a style of democracy superior to that of Europe.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Gulf Times & Eurasia Review & Riyadh Vision:

]]>, 09 May 2017 19:40:57 +0300
Much like chemical weapons, conventional arms kill innocent civilians

With the 20th century came many new wars and the destruc­tive mentalities of fascism and communism. The deception of the so-called lower races and the ridiculous claim they did not have a right to live were popularised. As these twisted ideologies were infused into people, it became easier for some to kill others. This mentality spelled disaster and the 20th century witnessed two horrible world wars.

The use of chemical weapons was one of the foulest legacies humans left behind in this era. Certain politicians deeply admired during war times, such as Winston Churchill, openly advocated the use of chemical weapons. Prisoners of war became test subjects for chemi­cal weapons and the first world war resulted in the death of more than 100,000 soldiers from chemical weapons.

During that war, 124,000 tonnes of chemical gas were used. In 1919, the British Royal Air Force deployed chemical bombs against Bolshevik revolutionaries during the Russian civil war and again against the Kurds in the region of Mosul, Iraq. During the same period, fascist Italy also used chemical weapons. As a result, more than 100,000 Abyssin­ians lost their lives.

During the second world war, it was the Japanese who resorted to using chemical weapons the most, carrying out chemical attacks against other Asian countries, par­ticularly the ones they regarded as lower races.

In 1988, the Iraqi regime un­leashed a chemical attack on the Kurdish population of Halabja, kill­ing 5,000 people within minutes.

As the production of chemical weapons went on, wars and skirmishes around the world continued with the relentless and ever-increasing use of conventional weapons, including napalm and barrel bombs.

While chemical bombs killed people in horrible ways, conven­tional weapons were just as bad. They destroyed people’s houses and blew their bodies to pieces. Just like chemical weapons, conventional weapons and bombs, which are also massacre machines, were used with insidiousness and perfidy, again mostly affecting civilians. Today, civilian casualties from convention­al weapons have reached dramatic proportions.

The international community’s strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons is praiseworthy. However, the reason many private and non-governmental organisa­tions remain silent when it comes to conventional weapons should be questioned.

We all saw how strongly the me­dia reacted to the recent chemical attack in Syria, with headlines nam­ing it a “crime against humanity.” Earlier, however, when civilians were killed in Damascus, Daraa and Idlib with conventional weapons, the world did not show the same indignation. While the UN Security Council quickly convened after the chemical attack, it did not take any action for the attacks that took place one week before.

It is certainly wrong to consider the loss of innocent lives to con­ventional weapons acceptable and dismiss it as “collateral damage.” If bloodshed–particularly the drop­ping of bombs on innocent people– is considered normal, should we not worry about the reign of such un­scrupulous people? Regarding kill­ing people with bombs and machine guns as acceptable while condemn­ing chemical weapons might pave the way for a major disaster.

Yet, sadly, that path has already been paved. The silence we witness while such a terrifying amount of blood is being shed is alarm­ing. This is a form of subliminal reconstruction imposed on society by certain war profiteers. It leads to people getting used to things they would have never otherwise got­ten used to and advocating things they would have never otherwise advocated. It is up to all of us to put an end to such an insidious perception.

The struggle we face is to avert any ideology that deems people worthless and war reasonable. Wars are cultivated by twisted ideologies; those same ideologies foster ruth­lessness. It falls upon us to thwart the schemes of those who present weapons of mass destruction as a lesser crime in their own ways and to refute the mentality of those who consider war a necessity.

Adnan Oktar's piece in The Arab Weekly:

]]>, 07 May 2017 17:27:51 +0300
Once more Iraq is on the brink of hard times

The news from Iraq these days is almost entirely about the ongoing military operation in Mosul. Reports about Mosul's cleansing from ISIS are prominent in the media. However, there are much bigger problems awaiting Iraq; in fact it seems that these problems might bring about new tragedies and disasters, or worse, a civil war. Among these, two in particular pose grave danger: The first is the likelihood of a new uprising that may occur in the post-ISIS period and the second is the ongoing power struggle between the Shiite groups.

First, let's focus on the possible developments in ISIS and its aftermath. Despite sustaining heavy losses, the Iraqi Army has already taken back a significant portion of the territory under ISIS control. However, in cities such as Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah, entire neighborhoods were razed to the ground, while houses were reduced to rubble, many vehicles became unusable. Thousands of innocent children, women, elderly and civilians have lost their lives. The bloody urban skirmishes in Mosul have also caused devastating losses.

Violent clashes are going on in the western side of Mosul between ISIS and the Iraqi Army and the international coalition forces led by the US. Brett McGurk, the US Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, summarizes the situation in Mosul in the following words: "Any of the fighters who are left in Mosul, they're going to die there, because they're trapped." Again according to the Special Envoy, the defeat of ISIS is “increasingly in sight.” But, will defeating ISIS solve the problem?

If Mr. McGurk thinks that a military victory over ISIS will provide a solution to the problem, then this would be a grave mistake. It is seemingly impossible to achieve permanent peace, tranquility, stability and prosperity unless the atmosphere and conditions that give rise to ISIS and similar radical organizations are completely eliminated. The recent history of Iraq is full of such examples that attest to this fact.

Let's remember the developments that led to the birth of ISIS after al-Qaeda, and their capturing Iraqi metropolises so easily. As is known, the strict military policies pursued by former US President George W. Bush in the 2000s largely brought about the collapse of   Al-Qaeda in Iraq and disrupted its terrorist network, or more precisely, they seemed to have done so. However, Sunni Muslims facing sectarian-based acts of revenge, persecution and exclusion as well as the Shiaization policies of the former Baghdad administration all gave rise to ISIS, an even more bloodthirsty terrorist organization.

It is for this reason that some experts and think-tanks are warning the world against a new revolt that might break out for similar reasons, yet under different names after ISIS. There are also some indications that justify the worries in this regard. First of all, security and peace have not been established in the areas that are said to be ISIS-free. Militants of the radical organizations who have gone underground, small groups pursuing blood vengeance, along with the Baghdad administration's poor relations with some of the local tribes all add to the magnitude of the danger. Economic crisis, corruption, unemployment and instability in almost all aspects of life are also among the factors that might pave the way for civil strife in Iraq.

ISIS or al-Qaeda is certainly not the real cause of the problem in Iraq. The real culprit of the fragmentation, turmoil and conflicts that beset Iraq is sectarianism. Denominational fanaticism has caused Muslims to wreak havoc on each other and brought untold misery; that being said, it has a simple solution.

First and foremost, if all Muslims, be they Sunni or Shiite, act in unity and solidarity, no terrorist organization or radical group can find a foothold. The natural thing for Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens, that comprise the majority of Iraq's population, is to cast aside their ethnic and denominational differences and act in concert. Those who consider it difficult or impossible should remember this:

Muslims believe in the same God, the same religion, the same Book, the same prophets, turn towards the same Qibla, perform prayers in the same mosques, and share a common culture and values.  In short, there are ample motives not for animosity and war, but for unity and solidarity. Furthermore, if the parties who have disagreements and disputes among each other can come together for a common purpose in the Mosul operation, then why can they not come together for love, friendship, brotherhood, peace and thus, a definitive solution?

The other danger looming large on the horizon is the political struggle, or in other words, the power struggle between some Iraqi Shiite groups, politicians and religious leaders. The local elections that will be held in September and the general elections slated for   next year may well fuel the flames of fierce competition in Iraq's internal politics. Four Shiite leaders are striving to grab a seat in the administration for the upcoming term. The two most prominent among these are the Prime Minister of Iraq since 2014, Mr. Haider al-Abadi, from the Dawa Party, and Nouri al-Maliki, the former Prime Minister. The remaining two are Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist Movement, and Ammar al-Hakim, who leads the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

It is important to note that nobody objects to competition between parties, so long as it remains within democratic boundaries without turning to violence. For this reason, it is necessary to exercise the utmost attention in order to not create turmoil, considering the fragile situation the country is in. Otherwise, it can lead to bloodshed, just like we witnessed last February in the protests staged by Sadr's supporters in Baghdad and various cities. As a matter of fact, Prime Minister Abadi was certainly not wrong when he warned his supporters of Sadr saying, "Do not incite civil war in the country" because the Shiite political parties in Iraq have their own affiliate militia groups; everyone is afraid that some of these groups might be tempted by provocations to take to the streets and turn to violence.

In short, division and polarization in Iraq is not limited to the classic dichotomy of Sunnis and Shiites; both Shiites and Sunnis are divided into factions within themselves. Parliament offers a fair representation opportunity in accordance with population rates, but as long as there is no political consensus, it seems impossible to solve the knotty problems of Iraq. The sine qua nons for Iraq are protecting the territorial integrity of the country, supporting the legitimate government, stabilizing its democratic system and all the parties acting as one.  The policies of the US and the policies of the countries of the region in particular should be aiming in this direction as well. Everyone who wants to avert new revolts and wars, and strives for peace and tranquility, should devote great care to this.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Al Bilad

]]>, 05 May 2017 16:22:02 +0300
No more cries in the Islamic world

Wherever we turn our attention it is almost inevitable that at some point we come face to face with some form of conflict in the Middle East. Even Turkey, which had adopted the policy of zero problems with its neighbors, ultimately has become entangled in disagreements with many of the countries nearby. Despite the fact that Turkey made agreements with some of them, the changing of the balances in Syria makes the ties with other countries not easy and virtually hang by a thread. To provide security and well being for the country, Turkey has completed the Euphrates Shield operation, which has been continuing for the last seven months with success. Up until now, the most prominent achievement has been retrieving the city of Al-Bab from ISIS.

The most effective solution in this area of conflict lies in the amicable relations between the countries. Russia, Turkey and Iran have been wise enough to realize this fact and formed an alliance to stop the bloodshed in Syria. Through this alliance, the first solid steps were taken concerning peace in the region. In the Moscow summit these three states realized that the solution in Syria could not be achieved through military means but rather by diplomacy and alliance. This outlook is not valid for only Syria but for all the ongoing wars since conflicts rise as a result of disputes between parties. Even though everyone knows that the disputes cannot be resolved militarily, some still resort to arms. Either by provocations of the West or by its direct involvement, Muslims are killing other Muslims with the pretense of war.

This ongoing violence reminds us of Samuel Huntington who is known for his theses "Clash of Civilizations" and "Age of Muslim Wars." The main aim of his arguments was to prevent the cooperation and unity among Islamic countries. According to Huntington, the wars in 21st century were the inescapable outcome of the dialectics of history and therefore, if war was a scientific inevitability, then nations should not try to prevent them, but rather benefit from them as much as possible. This view has lead to the death of millions of innocent people.

For example, the situation in Iraq is in at least the same as Syria, if not worse. It has been a battle zone since the US invasion in 2003 with the false presumption that Iraq had supplies of WMD and was an imminent global threat, an accusation later proven to be fabricated. This fake information was asserted by then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, based on so-called intelligence provided by the MI6, and was brought to light by the Chilcot Report recently issued by the official committee of inquiry assigned by the British Parliament. Only then did Tony Blair apologize for the wrong intelligence, after the release of this report. Yet, the damage was done and it was once more another Muslim population who suffered extensively. The ISIS threat, which has also extended over Iraq has been causing terror in the territory for a long time and to fight against this terrorist organization, the Iraqi Army initiated Mosul operation, which ended recently.

Another country in turmoil is Yemen, which turned out to be a forgotten state. The fact that the violence in Yemen does not hit the headlines often does not change what is going on there. The war in which seven ceasefire deals have failed, has left 10,000 people martyred and 40,000 injured. The latest UNICEF report informs that more than 400,000 children were at risk of starvation in Yemen with nearly 2.2 million in need of urgent care. War has changed everything in Yemen as one resident named Taha Raed states, "War was a lesson for us all that nothing remains the same . . . and no one knows when he is going to die."

All these conflicts brought with it the ultimate disastrous global issue of all time: the refugee crisis. While neighboring countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan embraced the refugees fleeing the warzones with open arms, some European countries blocked their entrances by erecting walls or barbed wire fences.  Today, in 65 countries, people are separated by high walls, which are as scary as the ones in John Carpenter's movie, "Escape from New York." However, there is an important difference between the imaginary walls of Carpenter's action movie and the actual walls of 2017: The people of the 21st century often confine innocent people rather than criminals behind walls.

The same Europe that denies refugees fleeing the havoc of the civil war in Syria should remember that not that long ago, the Europeans themselves were refugees, fleeing the destruction of WW2. This big war generated the worst humanitarian disaster in European history and it seems now that this sorrowful fact has been forgotten by more than a few. For example, rather than supplying aid to the refugees, the Hungary's government continued its inhuman treatment of the refugees by deploying border hunters and refugee detention containers.

The underlying reason of such negative outcomes which we have been describing here with only a few examples, is because of the fragmentation in the Islamic world. However, this negativity does not have to continue because this is the age of cooperation and we have witnessed how unity can resolve the most seemingly insolvable situations. Additionally, this unity will be different than the existing ones and not be based on only economics, military or national interests. The countries will meet in the least common denominator when taking a decision and one will prefer what the other party needs even if it conflicts with its own interest. Then the one making the sacrifice will soon realize the other will do the same treatment. In fact, peace is something that can be easily attained when the right kind of policy is adopted. The most important part is to have good will and not look after national interests because self-interest of two parties can never get along and one will swallow the other, eventually causing a fight. Therefore, the leaders should treat each other with respect, compassion, and sacrifice letting aside self-interest or egotism.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Kashmir Reader & Riyadh Vision:

]]>, 05 May 2017 15:29:20 +0300
NATO weapons on the Russian border

World War II marks one of the darkest periods in the history of mankind. It cost 70 million lives, 41 of whom were civilians. In a period of 4 years, Russian people sustained 23 million losses. During the invasion of Russia, Germany deployed a 4-million-strong army and utilized 600,000 motorized vehicles, along with 3500 tanks and 3000 warplanes. It took the deaths of millions of Russians to halt this fearsome force.

The above-mentioned information regarding the World War II are closely linked to the current developments. Expressing various reservations, NATO, which was founded in the wake of the World War II to prevent the world from facing such an atrocious picture again, has recently been engaged in a similar activity. This activity started on the eastern European borders six months ago and continues with an ever-expanding scale. New NATO troops are being deployed in the countries sharing a border with Russia almost every day. This situation is a cause for concern not only for Russia, which could only recently mend the wounds of the Cold War, but for the entire world.

Today, there are military bases established along the north-south line, in Estonia and Baltic countries, in Poland, Slovakia and Romania, which Russia finds quite troubling. These bases do not solely host infantry units; even anti-armor warplanes such as A-10 Thunderbolts that are intended for ground war are deployed in there as well. NATO does not even feel the need to conceal the fact that this activity is a strategy employed to gain the upper hand in the Black Sea. The power struggles of the past that led to the outbreak of the World War II are basically being waged once again.

The US and the NATO countries that dispatch troops and munitions to the region give Russia's potential aggressive and hostile attitude as a pretext for this military build-up. However, it was not the Russians who laid waste to the present-day Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria or Caucasus in the World War II. Even today, Russia's general stance is conspicuously to prioritze diplomacy over conflict. For that reason, turning the entire world into a military facility by hiding behind the excuse of "taking measures against Russia" is criticized by many strategy experts.

So, what is the actual reason behind this defensive military strategy that has been developed out of the blue?

At the root of the tension in the region lies certain think-tanks. Atlantic Council is the mastermind behind NATO's policy to impose a military blockade on Russia. Founded in 1961, the council is defined by political analysts as an institution where NATO ideologies are determined. And the Quantum Fund, the famous Hedge fund owned by George Soros, took the stage during the economic crises the countries of the region were faced with. It is also pointed out that the open society foundations administered by Soros played a provocative role in many cases ranging from colorful revolutions in various countries to the Arab Spring or self-contained movements such as Gezi Incidents in Turkey.

These think-tanks represent the ideologies called internationalist or globalist. Although these think tanks sometimes bring their aforementioned ideologies to the fore in good faith, their methods usually pose a threat to various countries and communities. So much so that, in less then a period of ten years, the said policies have polarized the world as it was during the Cold War era. As a result of these policies, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea have been overrun with battleships, despite the fact that no war, cold or hot, has taken place between the superpowers. The ancient regions of the world have become zones of heavy conflict. World War III is now being talked about more than ever. Of course, the aforementioned foundations are not directly responsible for this polarization. But the war, finance, natural resource and exploitation policies pursued worldwide are planting the seeds of hatred that drive societies into conflict. And its point of origin is largely the policies of the aforementioned think-tanks.

Surely, there are people in the world who promote polarization and hot war. These individuals grow richer while millions of people lose their lives. Therefore, when analyzing wars or crises around the world, one must also be closely acquainted with the policies of interest that will make a certain segment of society wealthier. From this point of view, the potential "Russian threat" has always been a crucial supply of excuse for the said interest groups. Seeing their plans frustrated by the ending of the Cold War, they have always needed "reasons" to ensure the armament of the superpowers. In today's world, where even the smallest of rumors can spark off rebellions, the "Russian threat" has been opted as an enticing subject that can muster up widespread support. According to these individuals, the existence of such a threat always spell new weapons, new ships, new fronts, and therefore new markets.

Right now, neither the US and Russia, nor the NATO countries are crazy enough to pursue rumors of war, bearing in mind the fact that, today, war is synonymous with nuclear warheads coming into play. Of course, no one would volunteer to go through or put others through such nightmare. When this is the case, rumors of preparation for war or border threats do not seem so realistic. One should realize that these rumors aim to keep some segments of society under constant threat while making certain groups wealthier.

What is needed is common sense. Everyone should have faith in the fact that the world is a place where all countries and ideas can live in harmony. It can be seen that the foreign policies developed under the influence of some think-tanks lead countries on a wrong path. These policies reflect neither the principles of NATO nor the fundamental values of humanity. Values of love and alliance are above all insidious plans. Holding fast on these values and ensuring peace, showing that people do not have to fight each other can change the world. When this happens, the world will achieve the prosperity it has always longed for; money will not fill the pockets of only certain groups, poverty and hunger will be utterly eliminated.

This should not be forgotten: A world ruled by war strategists is a world with a dark future. What will usher a resounding era of peace is the alliance of the good.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Pravda:

]]>, 03 May 2017 22:34:09 +0300
The end of "The Great Game"

In the early 19th century, the strategic location of the Middle East, sitting directly between the British Empire and her colony India, made the deep state of the British Empire focus their attention on the Middle East. Securing and obtaining the control of the routes to her colony with the hopes of establishing new colonial areas in the process, became a veritable obsession for it.

However, it wasn't only Ottoman Empire that became a target in the process due to her key territories like Egypt, Suez, Palestine, Iraq and Basra. Iran also had a very highly strategic position in the region.

As a part of its plan to secure the control of the region, British government at the time put into action what the historians now call the ‘the Great Game’ between 1830-1895 against the Russian Empire, which it considered as one of its biggest rivals to her colonial order in India.

The game was based on the idea of turning the Ottoman Empire, Iran and the Emirate of Bukhara into buffer states to stop the southward advance of Russia. This way, it had hoped, it could stop Russia from having land access to India and preventing it from gaining ports in the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean, which could pose a treat to the sea trade routes of the British.

During the process of great game, the British deep state surrounded Iran from the south and made it a half-colony, all the while robbing its natural resources and securing concessions in all industries.

In the meantime, in a bid to weaken the country, it used twisted movements like Babism, and Bahaism, which were created by the British deep state in the first place, to fuel sectarian clashes, for assassinations, riots, terror and unrest. The most prominent spies of the British deep state would be chosen amongst these perverted sects. Maneckji Limji Hataria, the emissary of the British India administration in Iran, led the mentioned project of creating unrest. [i]

The famine resulted in the death of some three million people between 1870-1871, wiping off almost one third of the country’s entire population. Ibrahim Kızılbas Zencani maintains that the England of the time deliberately caused the famine by gathering the food on the market and transferring it to India:

"Forget about donkeys and horses; people begun to eat dogs and cats in the cities. In some places, people would start eating human flesh… There were countless bodies strewn on the streets eaten by dogs. On the roads between villages, bodies of women, children, elderly and young people that had starved to death, were lined up...’

The discovery of oil in Iran in 1908 became the key factor in the 20th century Iran policy of the British deep state, which was marked by military campaigns, social-economic projects, political interventions and political coups.

In 1913, the British government secured a contract that practically made the entirety of Iranian oil British property. Only six years later, it imposed an agreement, which gave it control of the Iranian army and treasury.

Although Iran had declared its neutrality during WWI, the British invaded southern Iran. Capturing the region up to Kazvin, and gaining control of areas under the rule of the Qajar Dynasty, they became the sole power in the country and once again employed the method of causing famine to weaken it, all the while blocking the aid efforts of countries like the Ottoman Empire and the USA.

After two years of famine, the Iranian population, which was 20 million in 1917, dropped to 11 million in 1920. British journalist Donohoe wrote about the painful scenes during those years in his book “With the Persian Expedition":

"There are countless humans that fell on the ground on the side of the street… they are dead… they are rotten… between their dried fingers, pieces of grass stick out… they tried to beat their starvation with grass… their eyes have sunken back, they are only skin and bones… they don't really look like humans…They crawl on all fours on the side of the street…’

As the disaster was unfolding, the Bahai's, which the British deep state was using as killing machine, unleashed a fresh wave of terror in 1916.

Although Iran declared its neutrality once again during WWII, the troops of Great Britain didn't refrain from invading a large part of Iran and left in its wake a country struggling with poverty and starvation.

Even though the country was in the grips of famine and poverty, it was actually home to one of the world’s largest oil reserves. The reason behind this surprising dilemma was the British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AIOC), as it had been controlling the country’s oil since the beginning of the century. Known as BP today, AIOC managed to increase its annual profit in 1950 to 200 million pounds, while Iran was making only 16 million pounds in profits.

Since 1908, Britain had been considering Iranian oil its own property and was fiercely protective of it. It had been using the country’s oil to meet its energy needs for over half a century, while the Iranian people were struggling with hunger and death.

Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was elected as Prime Minister with massive popular support in May 1951, started the National Iranian Oil Company and transferred the entire oil industry, which was under British control, to its Iranian counterpart. The British immediately responded with a series of economic and political sanctions against Mosaddegh for landing a massive blow to their biggest source of income. Mohammad Reza Shah also began to pressure the Mosaddegh government. However, when these efforts failed, a military coup was planned to overthrow Mosaddegh.

Upon the request of the British, US President Eisenhower instructed the CIA to organize a coup. After having organized many anti-government rallies throughout the summer of 1953 by means of the month-long ‘Operation Ajax’, the CIA carried out the coup with General Fazlollah Zahedi as the coup's leader. 

The great game that the British deep state started in early 1800 continues even today for Iran, Turkey, the Middle East not to mention the Islamic geography in general. The method is invariably the same: Inciting conflicts by means of sectarian, ethnical, racial differences so that in the end Muslims begin fighting each other. The only thing that changes are the names and faces; in the past, the Bahais were used. Today, it is MI6 Shias, MI6 Sunnis and Salafists.

However, today the British deep state is completely exposed. Soon, Muslims will put and end to their separation and disagreements and join their forces around the unifying spirit of the Qur’an. When this happens, the great game of the British deep state will come to a definitive end and not only the Middle East but the entire world - including the British people - will then find peace and security.

[i] Şahbazi. Abdullah, ‘Manekci Hateria and Bahayigeri-e Avvaliye’, 29 Bahman 1388/18 February 2010 , ‘Bahayism’ p.22.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Tehran Times & Jefferson Corner:

]]>, 02 May 2017 20:08:35 +0300
Let’s alleviate the suffering of Rohingya

Known as the world’s most persecuted and friendliness people, the Rohingya are an ethnic group that has been a part of Myanmar for centuries. However, due to their ethnicity and faith, they were subjected to unimaginable horrors for decades. Their heart-wrenching plight has become intense, despite extreme measures taken by the Myanmar government to prevent the rest of the world from getting any hint of what is really going on; the mass slaughters, rape, arsons, torture were too much to be missed by the world. And after seven years, since the heightening of their plight in 2010, the situation doesn't seem to be improving. 

Although the Rohingya community has lived in Burma for centuries, - a historical fact substantiated by official documents- the Myanmar government refuses to acknowledge them and rather claims that they are illegal Bangladeshi refugees. For this reason, they avoid calling them “Rohingya”, so much so the government recently arrested five people because they printed a 2016 calendar that made references to the Rohingya as an ethnic group.

Today some 120,000 Rohingya are restricted to living in squalid camps in their own homeland, and they have been deprived of the most basic human rights as well as access to livelihoods. They even need to get permission to marry or travel outside their villages. Persecution and oppression at the hands of both the army and racist Buddhist groups has never been anything new to them, but since 2010 their ordeal has reached unbearable levels. They were hunted down, tortured, maimed, raped, burned and driven out of their homeland in makeshift boats only to be rejected by most neighboring countries. A Yale study claims that more than one million Rohingya have been abused so far, which amounts to genocide.

While those that made it to neighboring countries again face very difficult prospects, which would certainly require a completely separate article, we’re going to look into what’s been happening to the ones left behind. As mentioned, these downtrodden people, aside from being indiscriminately and violently targeted both by the military and violent Buddhist mobs, are deprived of most basic human rights, including medical treatment. These people are practically condemned to a slow death in front of the world. As Hollywood actor Matt Dillon remarked after his visit to the area: “They are being strangled slowly, they have no expectation from the future and nowhere to go.” Because of the atrocity of the situation, stories like the death of 14-year-old Mohammed due to tetanus, -an easily preventable disease in normal conditions-, or a 28-month-old toddler Hirol, now orphaned and dangerously thin, because he lost his mother to hepatitis A due to lack of medical treatment, are common sights in this part of the world.  

Most recently, a military crackdown in Rakhine state forced 70,000 Rohingya to leave for Bangladesh, even though the latter is known to be generally hostile to them. However, this time the military operation has been even more brutal than usual, because there has been systematic rape by Myanmar soldiers. In one story told by a victim, when a distraught father asked the soldiers to stop, they said, "We are not doing as much to you as we have been ordered to do in Oula Para". Matthew Smith, of the advocacy group Fortify Rights, points to this sinister trend and says, "This is not something that has happened by rogue soldiers... a crime that was committed spontaneously. It's very clear to us at this point that state security forces set out to systematically rape Rohingya women and girls".

Some members of the Myanmar's military have been known to use rape as a tactic against ethnic women, but especially in the past six months reports of rape have increased sharply and systematically. Smith continues: ‘There was an outburst of it, and particularly in November, that was unusual even by the Myanmar military's brutal standards’.

Once a hero of human rights groups around the world, Burma’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi has the following to say: "Military matters are to be left to the army."

This is especially unexpected considering ladies are naturally compassionate, loving individuals, particularly so when they are mothers. However, in a shocking volte-face on her former principles of human rights for the sake of politics, she denies that there is an ethnic cleansing in Myanmar and even claims that Rohingya are killing Rohingya. This scandalous stance was enough to unsettle and alienate the entire world, even her most loyal supporters. Unsurprisingly, the government doesn't want any UN investigation in the region.

The international response is regrettably lacking. Despite the eerie resemblance to the Srebrenica massacre of 1995, when some 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, who were ostensibly under the protection of the UN, were slaughtered in plain view, most countries simply choose to remain silent.

The terrorists that managed to infiltrate the peaceful Buddhist community, display a disturbing amount of hatred and violence towards Muslims, who have lived there as a peaceful and quiet community for centuries.

UN officials explicitly state that the ultimate goal of the Burmese government and military is ethnic cleansing. Phil Robertson of HRW wonders why no investigation is allowed in the country if the government is so sure that there is nothing wrong: "Our response to her would be that if there wasn't such a big problem then why not allow the U.N. Human Rights Council fact-finding mission into those areas, provide them with unfettered access."

As the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, the leader of a country that had shown a commendable approach to the influx of Rohingya refugees, eloquently put it: "The world cannot sit by and watch genocide taking place. The world cannot just say 'Look, it is not our problem'. It is our problem". 

Indeed, it is our problem. Every human being on this planet is responsible when a fellow human being is hurt. Let’s rise up to the task and do our part in alleviating the pain and suffering of innocent people.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Gulf Times & EKurd Daily:

]]>, 02 May 2017 19:33:38 +0300
How Should We Read the Referendum in Turkey?

On April 16th, the ratio of yes campaigners of the Turkish referendum which was held about the acceptance of the new Constitution was 51.4 %. Except for a few minor judicial cases, the referendum and the voting process were held without any incidents. 

Including the one in force, Turkey has been administered by four different constitutions so far. The constitutions of 1921, 1924, 1961 and 1982 were established under the influence of the army. The last two constitutions were the outright products of military coups and during their referendum processes, heavy propaganda limitations were imposed.

Although the new Constitution was accepted by a narrow margin, that this Constitution was - for the first time - established by the deputies elected by the people is a significant development for the Turkish democracy history.

The Turkish press covered the political surveys put out during the referendum process extensively. Their forecasts varied considerably; there were some that estimated the “yes” votes would reach up to 60 percent while others said the “no” votes would be around 60 percent. Public opinion polls that foresaw a referendum result almost in half were very few. Thus it is possible to say that polling companies were among the losers of this referendum.

Given the results of the last general election of November 2015, the yes votes were far below anticipated. Yet the new constitution was drafted by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in collaboration with Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) that possessed 65 percent of the votes together.  Yet the referendum results delivered almost 15 percent loss in these votes from which we infer that both among the AKP and the MHP voters, there were some who disapproved of the new Constitution.

What essentially underlay this loss of votes was a view expressed by some AKP members and the President’s advisors; bringing a federal system to Turkey. The MHP is a party that has advocated for the unity and integrity of Turkey against the PKK for many years. Although the President and the Prime Minister refuted these statements about the federal system, they seem to have startled both the AKP and the MHP voters. 

Another issue about the MHP is the emergence of an opposing group within the party during the constitution draft negotiations and their efforts to change the party administration. This group later severed its relations with the MHP and conducted a very stern “no” campaign. Another striking consequence of the referendum was the no campaign’s success in Thrace, Aegean and Mediterranean regions, despite the AKP’s sporadic dominance in these regions during the last general elections. The secular lifestyle widely adopted by the local communities is the shared trait of these regions. Assessing the results of the referendum, political analysts state that people of the coastal regions, where significant tourism centers are located, express more concerns about interference in lifestyles or the curbing of freedoms. Indeed, eventhe AKP’s investments and development plans in these regions do not seem to eliminate these concerns. Apparently for the AKP to be successful in these regions, it must turn to a new tone embracing freedoms and the prevalent lifestyle in these regions. Other regions revealing striking results are the East and Southeast of Anatolia, where Kurdish citizens make up the majority. In these regions the influence of the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), backed by the PKK organization, seems to have diminished. The main reason for this outcome is the Turkish state’s struggle against the PKK in these regions. Now that the PKK can no longer threaten the local people with weapons, the Turkish citizens could better exercise their free will in the ballot boxes.

In their own way, both the yes and no campaigners of the referendum harbor legitimate concerns, for which reason we need to respect the opinions of both sides. No matter which Constitution becomes instrumental for it, what Turkey needs to do is to demonstrate that an Islamic country can indeed safeguard its democracy.

Adnan Oktar's piece in American Herald Tribune:

]]>, 30 Apr 2017 17:58:52 +0300
The Balkans Need Reconciliation instead of Tension

The year 2017 brought some developments that threaten the peace, tranquility and stability of the Balkans. These developments can immediately bring back the memories of painful days from the 1990's and might thus be extremely dangerous for the region. The main reason is that tensions, conflicts and disagreements among the countries of the region have resurfaced in various forms. Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia and Croatia in particular, are among the countries that need to be monitored carefully.

One of the worrying issues about the region is the latest state of the ongoing controversy between Bosnians and Bosnian Serbs. Contrary to expectations, even though the Dayton Agreement in 1995 succeeded in ending the war, it failed to eliminate the underlying tensions that led to the war. The long-awaited political stability in Bosnia has never been achieved. The latest development that increased the tensions was a referendum held in Republika Srpska, one of two political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnian Serbs thus approved the celebration of January 9th as "Republika Srpska Day" and the celebrations were carried out with ceremonies that looked like a show of strength even though they were fully aware of the fact that all these are in conflict with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and are thus illegal.

If Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik maintains his irreconcilable stance, undoubtedly, the tension will keep raising. The most dangerous possibility is that the recent referendum was just a rehearsal, in other words, a rehearsal of a referendum for outright independence to be held in 2018. In preventing this conflict, a great responsibility falls on two politicians in particular: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Serbia's newly elected president Aleksandar Vucic, who clearly stated that he doesn't support the last referendum.

On the other hand, the autonomy efforts of Bosnian Croatians, which make up about 15% of the population, are another factor that can disturb the peace in region. The attempt to establish a Mostar-based Croatian Republic will only fuel further disputes. 

Again in the last few months, Serbia and Kosovo came to the forefront with their very tense bilateral relations. There are many disagreements between these two neighboring countries. At the root of the problem lies the fact that Serbia does not recognize Kosovo and still regards it as its own soil. Nowadays, the unrest in Mitrovica, the north of Kosovo, in the region where the Serb minority -which accounts for only 3% of the general population- lives, is attention grabbing. The impact of the new crisis that occurred in January because of writings on the Belgrade-Mitrovica train, which said "Kosovo is Serbia," is still ongoing. Another danger signal is the fact that high-ranking government officials in both countries publicly expressed the possibility of war. After these developments, EU officials felt the need to state that there is no alternative to the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo, and that they will be guarantors in the implementation of the agreements.

Another critical point in the Balkans is the Republic of Macedonia. One of the main reasons is the recently intensified ethnic tension between Muslim Albanians and Orthodox Macedonians, who make up the majority in the country. Armed conflicts, ongoing political crisis and corruption make the situation even more difficult to resolve. If the neighboring support of Serbia for Macedonians and the support of Albania and Kosovo for Albanians cause this confrontation to intensify, the problem can become even more complex.

Relations between Catholic Croatia and Orthodox Serbia are also worsening. There are various reasons for the dispute between the two neighbors. The primary reasons are Serbia-EU negotiations which were deadlocked last December after the Croatian block; the Croatians' celebration of Operation Storm, which they carried out against the Serbs in 1995, as a victory for their war of independence; difficulties faced by Serb minorities in Croatia and Croatian minorities in Serbia.  An even more alarming fact is the ability of ultra-nationalists on both sides to turn even the most ordinary events into a crisis.

Nearly every country in the Balkans has problems and unsettled disputes with each other from the past. We wish that the people of Balkans will not repeat their past mistakes. It is absolutely impossible to gain any benefits from war, conflict and tension. Such attempts will bring new irreparable damages and losses to the region. The new US administration, the European Union and Russia should determine their foreign policies for the Balkans in line with these clear facts; they should encourage diplomacy and reconciliation.

Solving these seemingly intractable problems is possible as long as the people of the Balkans leave the past in the past and look towards the future.  There is no resentment, anger, hatred and blood revenge, neither in the Qur’an nor in the Bible; there is only forgiveness, love, friendship, compassion and tolerance. They can build a bright future by putting ethnic and religious differences aside and preserving their national characters. They already share similar lifestyles, cultures and habits. They should put an end to the historical problems, conflicts and disagreements between them and approach each other with tolerance and love. They have to work together for the real prosperity, stability, peace and happiness of the beautiful Balkan lands since they all need one another. Only if they act in cooperation in all areas of life, such as the economy, commerce, science, education, culture and art can they attain the high living standards they long for.

Adnan Oktar's piece in American Herald Tribune & News Rescue:

]]>, 30 Apr 2017 14:33:50 +0300
What Turkey should do now? The need for stability


Adnan Oktar's piece in The Daily Star:

]]>, 28 Apr 2017 13:17:41 +0300
Referendum Evaluation

On April 16, Turkey went to the polls for a referendum for an amendment to its constitution, including the new administration system.

In this election, where the turnout rate reached a high level of 85%, "yes" votes took the majority with 51.4%, hence the "Party-Affiliated Presidential System" was approved.

Indeed, voter turnout rates are extremely important in terms of democracy and the ability for people to voice their opinions. In this regard, Turkey is among the top countries in the world. Turkey was ranked 44th in the world according to the International Democracy and Election Assistance Institute's survey on average participation rates for the parliamentary elections from 1945 to 2001, with a turnout rate of 81.3%. Turkey ranked second among OECD countries according to the turnout numbers for elections held in 2011 reported by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.

However, election turnout rates are very low in many of the Western countries. For example, in the most recent US elections, in which Donald Trump was elected as president, the turnout rate was 54.9%. Europe also has low election turnout rates. For example, in the 2014 European Parliament elections, the turnout remained at 43%. While voter turnout in the elections in Germany where Angela Merkel won was recorded at 73%, for the elections held in Britain in 2011 the turnout rate remained at 41%. Meanwhile, voter turnout for the Brexit referendum in Britain was 72.2%, while the turnout rate in Scotland's independence referendum was 84.59%, a number closer to the turnout rate of the recent referendum held in Turkey. In the Netherlands, the 2016 referendum resulting with the cancellation of the trade agreement signed between the EU and Ukraine only had a voter turnout rate of 32%.

Therefore, when voter turnout is taken into consideration, it can be clearly seen that the will of the people in Turkey is strongly and directly reflected in the number of votes cast. 

Referendums, by nature, are democratic choices in which many technical details are discussed in the light of different views and different perspectives, many points are examined at length, and finally, conscientious evaluations are reflected in the vote.

It is known that in these "crucial decision" elections, many people who share numerous common values vote for different outcomes and people may vote differently even though they share common ideals. So in these yes/no elections, voters who vote yes or no have in fact very significant common ideals, such as making the best decision for their country. In the end, even though the result of the election may be determined by just one vote to make a majority, the separation or division of the country over the results is out of the question. 

On the other hand, it is also very important for everyone to respect the outcome of the ballot box after referendums where direct democracy is exercised. Again, when we look at other examples, such as in 2016 with the British referendum for a decision to leave or stay in the European Union, perhaps the most important referendum in world history, it resulted with majority voting to withdraw from the EU by a very small margin of votes. Only 51.89% was needed to withdraw from EU. In the referendum, on which 34 million British citizens voted, 17.4 million voted for withdrawal while 16.1 million voted to stay. As with all the referendums and elections held in Europe and America, democracy was put into process and this decision came into force after passing through certain stages. All British citizens who voted to stay only did so to make the future of Britain better. As a result, this decision did not lead to the polarization of the British people among themselves, nor to the division of society. The same is true for other referendums and elections in Europe.

When compared to the last election, it can also be seen that 10% of the voter base under the AK Party and MHP, who were advocating to vote yes, voted no. So it seems that this is not a polarization, but a difference of opinion specific to this referendum.

Even though the votes differed in the referendum for the new administration system in Turkey, in reality, the main point of view has been the same for the AK Party, MHP, and CHP. If we are to express this point of view as a common discourse, it would be: "The governance of Turkey with a stronger, more democratic and better system." These three big political parties all wish for Turkey's inseparable unity, and its citizens to live in the best, the most free, and the most beautiful conditions. 

As a matter of fact, the inclusive speech made by Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım when the results of the referendum were announced is a confirmation of all these statements. In his speech, Mr. Yıldırım emphasized the solidarity and unity of our nation with the following words: "We will have different opinions and solutions, but in the end we will protect our unity and solidarity with everything we have. This is the beauty of democracy. Having different opinions does not mean having superiority over each other in any way. We said different things on public squares, we explained different things to the people. But the last word belonged to the people, they said yes and ended the discussion. We said whatever the people's will, we would hold it in high esteem. Our people have chosen, and they approved the presidential system... This election showed the level of maturity of Turkish democracy to the whole world. We are first-degree equal citizens of the Republic of Turkey. The competition in the political arena will not break our unity and solidarity. We will build the future with confidence in the direction of the choice of our citizens. There is no loser in this referendum, but the winner is Turkey and its beloved people".

Of course it is our greatest desire for politicians to use statements that embrace all people and invite them to love much more intensely and frequently. It is our primary wish of all politicians and administrators that "love, compassion, tolerance and inclusiveness" are prioritized in politics not only in Turkey, but in all democratic countries .


Adnan Oktar's piece in Geopolitica & Jefferson Corner:

]]>, 28 Apr 2017 12:08:38 +0300
Turkey is on the Verge of a New Age...

According to unofficial results, with a turnout rate over 85% and a 51.4% vote share, the Turkish people voted "YES" for the new constitution in the referendum held on Sunday April 16th. With this result, the amendments to 18 articles of the current constitution were approved.

Some of the important amendments are as follows:

Removal of the current parliamentary system and the introduction of the "Party-Affiliated Presidency" system and removal of the office of the Prime Minister.

The President is given the title "Head of State" and is given extensive authorities, including  executive authority.

Parliamentary and Presidential elections will be held every five years instead of four.

The age to stand for office is lowered to 18 from the current 25.

New regulations on the structure and assignments of the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors.

During the referendum process, the biggest debate was on the widespread concern over the fact that the new constitution could cause a nationwide risk of division  in the future by paving the way for a federal system in Turkey. President Erdogan and Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım often made statements pointing out that such concerns are irrelevant and no one can attempt to dismantle the unity and integrity of the country. However, after the increased criticisms indicating that a mere verbal assurance was not enough, the articles carrying the risk of division  were revised and overhauled.

One of the biggest surprises of this process was that the MHP, one of the most adamant opponents of the AKP, supported the ruling party. Thus, the new Constitution was approved by the Parliament by achieving the necessary vote majority thanks to the MHP's support.

Since the April 16 referendum was ultimately a vote for constitutional and systemic change, it would not be an accurate assessment to dedicate the results to the ruling or the opposition party, or personally to Erdogan. On the other hand, we shouldn't ignore some important factors that contributed to the distribution of votes in the campaign process.

For example, many voters who were indecisive or even initially determined to vote "NO",  gravitated towards "YES" as a reaction to the rallying of certain circles, who are radically against the texture of Turkish society, their standards of judgment and national sensitivities, around the slogan "NO". The most important ones among these circles, who were despised by the great majority of the Turkish population, are:  A number of communist organizations, members of the PKK terrorist organization, homosexual support groups, members and the supporters of the terrorist organization FETO, a number of traitors who revealed state secrets to the media, fled abroad and still cooperate with various Western governments, some artists, journalists and writers who, at every opportunity, complain about Turkey to foreign countries and institutions.

Moreover, the persistent "NO" campaigns of the mainstream media groups, think tanks and NGOs and their especially appointed writers and propagandists operating under the Western umbrella have also caused serious deviations towards "YES", because these circles are famous for their unjust attacks, hatred and humiliation campaigns directed towards Turkey, Muslims and elected legitimate government and politicians in Turkey for years.

Assuming the role of apostle of democracy at every opportunity, as a matter of fact these circles have maintained their usual policies rather than respecting the democratic decision of the people at the end of the referendum: For example, in an article published after the referendum by Foreign Affairs, the media outlet of the Britain-driven CFR think tank of the US, it is emphasized that Turkey is headed into division by comparing the results to the darkness before the midnight.

The article titled "Analysis of Turkey" by Steven A. Cook of  Foreign Policy, included the accusations that the results of the referendum closed a chapter of the modern history of Turkey, and that the Turks who voted YES, intentionally or unintentionally, damaged the Turkey that Atatürk established.

In their extensive report on referendum, the British Times claimed, "Erdogan's victory left a divided Turkey behind".

Martin Chulov, the Middle East correspondent of the British The Guardian, has commented on the referendum result as "Erdoğan getting backing to strengthen his autocratic grip on Turkey" in his opinion piece that he wrote in Istanbul.

Similar reports and commentaries about the referendum in Turkey even preceded the Easter celebrations in some of the Western media. The live broadcasts and the headlines of the newspapers gave immediate priority to the referendum and the results were reported concurrently.

On the other hand, the various factors that triggered an increase in NO votes signaled that there are important issues that need to be considered urgently by the AKP and the Government. NO votes dominated within the intellectual circles who attach great importance to modernity, art, aesthetics and quality and who are seriously disturbed by any intervention in women's freedom in style of dress, lifestyle and behavior, as well as in the coastal regions and the big cities of the country. This suggests that the government should place more emphasis on these issues or should emphasize that it does so.

The fact that these issues are not handled as competently and that some people and sections of the ruling base are following an exact opposite attitude towards these vital issues have caused NO votes to be the majority in the regions we talked about. Even though Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister are personally paying particular attention to vital issues such as quality, modernity and the comfort and freedom of women, it is certain that the necessary emphasis should be placed on these issues and special policies should be followed in order to eliminate these concerns.

In the end, anyone who cast YES or NO is still one of the precious children of this country, except for some small groups we mentioned above. The result could have been NO instead of YES; in that case Turkey would have continued on its path of peace, democracy and brotherhood, as it does right now. The important thing is to never forget that respecting the results is a requirement of democracy and to never appease  provocateurs who are trying to extract provocative material from both situations.


Adnan Oktar's piece in The Jakarta Post & Eurasia Review & Jefferson Corner:

]]>, 24 Apr 2017 22:48:43 +0300
Everyone wins in Turk referendum

THE Turkish nation was once again at the ballot box on April 16 to vote for a constitutional change. The turnout was high and the country was tranquil on the election day, which says a lot about the nation’s viewpoint of democracy. The entire world was watching the election from the campaign period by holding their breaths. Many in the West were evaluating the referendum as if the country was approaching an autocratic system with President Erdogan. Yet, their concern is baseless.

Why President Erdogan is not a dictator 

The Turkish nation has witnessed President Erdogan’s services since he came to power in 2002 and even before then while he was the mayor of Istanbul. He has been the means to construct many highways, bridges, subways in Turkey which better facilitated transportation in many parts of Turkey. Yet, his local opponents and many in the West are accusing of him to be the “one man”. Let us not forget that it is reasonable to have one wise man to be in charge to lead a country than twenty who would ruin it by being at odds with each other. The nation has tried President Erdogan on many occasions for years and they have seen that he has not done anything wrong, but devoted himself completely to his country and brought wealth and benefits instead. During his incumbency, along with constructing new ways of transportation, not only did he beautify the cities by furnishing most of the streets with flowers and trees, but also transformed them into modern metropolitans using state of the art technologies. It is important that he liberated Turkey from being dependent on the IMF by paying off all its debt and forming a stable economy even though there was intense pressure both from inside and abroad. Most importantly, it is an unignorable fact that AK Party’s policy while setting off gave the devout people in the country a breathing space.  He also proved that he is consistent in his service as he has been exposed to many difficulties but always found a way to overcome them.

Why I said “yes”

I have made a thorough investigation on the altering articles of the constitution and evaluated them in depth and spoke with experts on constitution. Those saying “no” have their own just viewpoints but it is not hard to see that Turkey is going through a very difficult phase. It is recovering from a bloody coup attempt like it has never experienced before. The tanks were driving over the civilians in cold blood and we gave many martyrs and veterans. Moreover, the government is waging a tough war on terror against the PKK in the eastern and southeastern part of Turkey. Additionally, there are conflicts on the neighboring countries such as Syria in which Turkey was involved via a cross-border operation. The same goes for Iraq where the world sees almost daily bombings and military operations leaving many casualties. Not to mention that there is an on and off clash between Ukraine and Russia. Therefore, it is as clear as day that there needs to be a ‘stable Turkey’ in the region. While Turkey was amidst such pressure both inside and out, I decided to vote ‘yes’ in order to say ‘no’ to more turmoil. It’s not right to be a hardliner in such a difficult environment and people should seek for what is right for Turkey and the Turkish nation.

A federative system is our red-line

Recently, President Erdogan had come up with other types of presidential systems which I strongly declined.  It was because they were all open to a federative system that would consist of small federal states which would eventually lead to the fragmentation of Turkey, may God forbid. The AKP first put forth an American model of a presidential system, then a Mexican model and many more. I declined each one of them because a federal system was our nation’s redline; then they came up with a system that guaranteed the unitary structure of our country called an executive presidency with more powers. MHP leader Devlet Bahceli’s being supportive of this new system is also crucial since he is a very honest political leader and very meticulous in protecting the unity of Turkey. He has never been supportive of any notion that may be a threat to Turkey’s integration and he has shown his determined stance against terrorist organization PKK.

What awaits Turkey after the referendum

I am optimistic about the future of Turkey and believe Turkey will continue to grow despite plots, pressures and enmities from around the world. Turkey will be a spiritual leader and a role model for the entire Islamic world. Under the leadership of Turkey Islamic countries will embrace an understanding of Islam that will give utmost worth to women and also to high-quality, science, aesthetics and beauty in all aspects of life. In Turkey, our people are practicing a peaceful Islam based on love, friendship and altruism devoid of violence and hate. I will continue to intellectually struggle against the model non-existent in the Qur’an.

I congratulate my nation that once again passed the test of democracy by being a role model to many of the nations in the world. There is no defeated side in this referendum; the entire nation is victorious no matter what they voted for, as Binali Yildirim stated during his post-election address: “We are all brothers and sisters in a single body.. Thank you Turkey, thank you my holy nation… The nation said the last word, and said ‘Yes’.”

Adnan Oktar's piece in Arab Times & Riyadh Vision:

]]>, 22 Apr 2017 16:18:27 +0300
Terror Activities of the YPG/PYD in Northern Syria

YPG/PYD and PJAK are not separate organizations, but simply different names of the PKK terrorist organization when they operate in various countries such as Syria, Iraq and Iran. The acts of terror and violence and the human rights violations carried out in the region by the PKK's Northern Syria extension the PYD, and its militia, the YPG, are the most concrete evidence of this fact.

The YPG, which occupied a large number of villages, towns and cities in the northern part of the country and put them under armed oppression by taking advantage of the Syrian civil war, continues to carry out a comprehensive ethnic cleansing strategy against the local people. The region's long-standing residents such as Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Armenians and Assyrians are being exiled from their homes through threats, oppression, terror and violence. Those who resist this oppression, including Kurds, are suppressed and condemned by methods such as prison, torture, death threats, shooting and burning of their homes. The aim is to make the demographic structure of the region suitable for the "Communist Kurdistan" state, which they aim to establish, by placing its own militants and supporters in the region instead of the native population they have been driven from their homeland. However, it should be noted that the people who are subjected to the most severe persecution of the YPG are the Kurds, their own kin. Kurds who do not accept the communist ideology of the YPG and want to live in harmony with other people constitute the vast majority of the Kurdish population, and therefore have been the primary target of the YPG. As a matter of fact, the first refugees who took shelter in Iraq and Turkey when the Syrian civil war broke out were Kurds who escaped from the YPG’s repression. 

The YPG militia often resorts to rather savage and inhumane solutions; burning down the villages and towns they have captured completely to evacuate them. The human rights organization, Amnesty International, reports that the activities carried out by the PYD/YPG, such as forcibly driving people out from where they live and eradicating whole settlement areas off the map in the autonomous region controlled by them in the northern part of Syria, amounts to war crimes.

Supported by documents and witnesses, Amnesty reveals in its report that the YPG is deliberately destroying civilian homes in non-war zones, and in some cases, burning and destroying whole cities. The report emphasizes that this destruction is not the result of the fight against the ISIS but it is the direct result of systematic operations aimed at forcibly causing the civilian population of the region to emigrate.

Satellite photographs of the town of Husseiniyah in Tell Hamis obtained by Amnesty International reveal one of the obvious examples of YPG violence. The photographs show that only 14 houses remained in the town in June 2015 out of 225, which was the initial number counted in June 2014.

Some of the horrifying statements of the local witnesses interviewed by Amnesty observers, who examined 14 cities in the Al-Hasakah and Raqqa regions, are as follows:

“They pulled us out of our homes and began burning the home… They brought the bulldozers... They demolished home after home until the entire village was destroyed... They started pouring fuel in my in-laws’ house. My mother-in-law was there refusing to leave and they just poured it around her…

The YPG also threatens the civilians refusing to leave their villages with aerial bombing by sending the coordinates of their hometowns as an ISIS target to the coalition forces led by US. Amnesty International, the Syrian Human Rights Organization and many eyewitnesses say that the YPG has repeatedly driven Arabs, the opposition Kurds, Assyrians, etc. out from their homelands by means of this vile method.

" They told us we had to leave or they would tell the US coalition that we were terrorists and their planes would hit us and our families."

Last February The Nation, one of the oldest political journals in the US, also published a very detailed study about the recent terrorist acts and human rights violations carried out by the PYD/YPG in the region. 

According to the information reported in the study, Kurds are one of the most persecuted people by the YPG/PYD, which supposedly establishes itself as a Kurdish freedom movement and a representative and advocate of the Kurdish people. The YPG militia imprisons, tortures and drives out their Kurdish political opponents from the region in order to suppress them. They oppress the independent media, threatening journalists with death. Syrian Kurdish youth and children under the age of 18 are forcibly recruited into military service.

According to a report titled "Kurdish Forces Violating Child Soldier Ban" of Human Rights Watch (HRW) dated July 15, 2015, the armed forces of the PYD, YPG and the YPJ (women's units) continues to recruit and arm boys and girls younger than 18 years old. The vast majority of YPG funerals belong to these 16 to 17 year old children who died in combat.

According to The Nation's research, at least 300,000 Syrian Kurds have taken refuge in neighboring Iraqi Kurdistan and 200,000 in Turkey to escape repression and fighting on the YPG side. 

Some of the striking information provided by The Nation on ethnic cleansing in the areas under YPG control are as follows:

- The YPG claims that it is necessary to burn Arab villages while trying to save them from ISIS. But according to the findings of The Nation, the YPG still burns and completely destroys the villages even if they capture it without any conflict with ISIS.

- According to research conducted by the Syrian Network For Human Rights, 26 villages were completely destroyed, 40 villages were partially destroyed and 48 villages were completely evacuated. A high-level official in the former Obama administration calls the YPG control zone a mini-totalitarian state. 

- A PKK militant and defector, nicknamed 'Mohar', specifically remembers the village of Tell Brak in northern Syria, and says:  “Karayilan decided to destroy the place, not to allow even a chicken to come out alive.”

- According to Sa’ad Shwish, head of the local governing council in Raqqa, the YPG seized Tell Abyad on the Turkish border in the middle of 2015, but 60,000 Arabs were not allowed to come back.

- The YPG told the residents of Bir Mahli village in the northeastern part of Aleppo that they should either leave their homes or their coordinates would be given to the US-led coalition. On April 30, 2015, the YPG really called in an air strike, and according to Airwars, a UK-based group observing the bombings of civilians, 64 villagers were martyred after the bombing, all of them civilians.

- Another example is Arbid, a Bedouin village. After the capture of Tell Abyad in June 2015 by YPG, the 500 residents of the village refused to abandon their village. The YPG gave the coordinates of the village to the American Air Force. When Apache helicopters flew over the village at low altitude, the residents of the village escaped to other villages and never came back.

- The evacuation of the villages usually takes place as follows: At midnight, masked and armed men come to the village, force the village residents out of their homes, followed by organized looters stealing and confiscating everything. 

To sum up, the YPG/PYD, which relies on the US and coalition forces, carries out acts of limitless oppression, cruelty and torture against the local people while laying the foundations of a supposed satellite communist terrorist state which will be the forward base of the US in the Middle East. 

The YPG/PYD Terror Is Spreading Destruction to the Local Christian Population

In the regions occupied by the YPG/PYD, not only Arab and Muslim populations, but also local Christian people are cruelly oppressed. Owing to increased subjugation, the Assyrian and Armenian institutions in Syria felt compelled to issue a joint statement. In the statement, the PYD and YPG were accused of violating human rights, seizing private property, forcing people into military service, imposing unjust taxes, and interfering with the curriculum of parish schools.

Intimidating Christians by shooting up their houses and when those innocent people run out to save their lives, looting their homes is a typical YPG terror tactic. In a similar YPG attack in last September, Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo's house was riddled with bullets in Al-Hasakah, Syria. The Archbishop, who barely escaped death, said, “In many cases they expelled the Christians from their homes under the threat of Kalashnikovs. And where they enter, they loot everything.”

The BREIBART news site, where President Trump's adviser Steve Bannon is the chief executive, also notes that news about YPG terror attacks, including reports that the YPG militia, who terrorizes Northern Syria, attacked Assyrian Christians and many lost their lives, are conveyed from a multitude of sources.  BREIBART reports interesting information about the YPG/PKK terror and their relationship:

"The YPG is so tightly aligned with the terrorist group, the Kurdish Workers’ Party or the PKK, that some say they are one in the same. The YPG and PKK are hard-core Marxist organizations with long histories of terror and brutality, and they already declared a de facto Marxist-Kurdish State in Syria, calling it Rojava. These groups routinely terrorize the populace of the region, especially the Christians, extorting money from business and kidnapping young men for forced service in their ranks... When the war in Syria is resolved (and it will be), and when there are national elections held, the YPG/PKK Kurds in the North show no willingness to give up the power they seized, which will certainly ignite a second war with the Arab South and/or the Assyrians in the North.”

The USA's Policy To Ignore YPG/PYD Terror Is Faulty and Dangerous 

The current information, countless documents, evidence, observations, reports, testimonies and witnesses publicly reveal that the YPG/PYD is, in fact, part of the PKK terrorist organization. Thousands of inhumane acts, murder, oppression, violence and practices of cruelty, forced migration and the ethnic cleansing policies that we have mentioned a very small fraction of, clearly show that the YPG/PYD is a bloody terrorist organization in every aspect.

In the autumn of 2015, Amnesty International and SNHR also published comprehensive reports on the YPG's human rights violations. Nevertheless, at the beginning of last year, the US Department of State devoted only a single line in the annual human rights report to this grave concern.

What is even stranger is that the US officially lists the PKK as a terrorist organization, yet does not see any harm in acting in concert with the YPG/PYD, an extension of the same organization. This is one of the most erroneous Middle East policies of the USA introduced and developed during the Obama administration. The new president, Donald Trump, needs to realize this mistake and keep the necessary distance from the YPG, which aims to destroy the territorial integrity of Syria by founding what amounts to a communist terrorist state in the region. Turning a blind eye to the crimes against humanity systematically committed by the YPG in the region, and even becoming an accomplice to these crimes by providing all sorts of financial, military and logistical support to this terrorist organization, would not befit the Christian America that Trump wishes to rebuild. Because according to the international human rights law, unjust, widespread and systematical displacement of the civilian population is considered a crime against humanity.  Those who aid and abet in such a crime are also held accountable to the same degree.

In fact, according to The Nation report, as the US substantially increased its support to and cooperation with the YPG/PYD in 2015, so did equally intensified and gathered momentum the ethnic cleansing activities of the YPG in the region.

The same report explains the reason behind this misleading double standard adopted by the Obama administration despite the undeniable fact that the YPG is a terrorist organization as follows:

"The YPG is the Syrian wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has fought a long, off-and-on guerrilla insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984… The Obama administration insisted that the PKK, listed by the United States as a terrorist group, is separate from the YPG, A STANCE THAT ALLOWED WASHINGTON TO CIRCUMVENT LAWS PROHIBITING DEALING WITH SUCH GROUPS.

In short, as if to mock people's intelligence, the Obama administration made a hasty attempt to acquit the YPG/PYD, which serves the underhanded US interests and policies in Syria and the Middle East, with an unfounded claim. The report continues with the following emphasis on how this inconsistent claim totally conflicts with the facts:

"Numerous witnesses, including former PKK defectors, call the US stance a fiction... All four PKK defectors [interviewed by The Nation] said policy for the Syrian region that Kurds call Rojava is made in Qandil, Iraq, the PKK headquarters."

Robert Ford, the former US Ambassador to Damascus and one of the most influential figures in the USA's Syrian policy, makes the following diagnosis in his interview with the Al Jazeera:

“As to its relationship with the PKK, American officials will say ‘PYD is not officially linked to the PKK’. I think it’s just nonsense that they say PYD is not PKK. This is a verbal defense which they are not serious with. It is one of those things that you say that is not true and everyone knows it. I have a colleague in Washington. He has been to Kobani and Qamishli between May and June. He said that they had the photographs of Abdullah Öcalan on the walls and offices... American officials saying the PKK is not affiliated with the PYD is nonsense. "

This unscrupulous, double standard approach that holds no rational or legal basis adopted is regrettably still being kept in force by the US government and some circles in Pentagon. Both the Pentagon and the State Department refused to discuss these or any questions about US policy in Rojava, and the Obama administration’s special envoy, Brett McGurk, turned down several requests for an interview

Another one of the absurd myths again fabricated by the Obama administration is the fiction that the YPG/PYD is the most effective ground force against ISIS. This is another bit of nonsense because, without the crucial role of air support by the USA and the coalition forces, the YPG has had no victory over the ISIS.  If   US and coalition support is removed, it will only be a matter of time before the YPG is wiped out from the region. Moreover, they all hail from the PKK tradition that has been only capable of holing up in mountain caves and setting up ambushes, that carries out assassinations via long-barreled weapons or by shooting sleeping people in the head. Thus, it is beyond their capability to engage in close quarters, open field combat necessary owing to Syria's geography. 

Be it the PKK, the YPG or PJAK, all are unprincipled entities that change sides for their own interests. It is also quite obvious that this so-called military power, which forms special battalions comprising of homosexuals both from within their militias and those who join their ranks from the United Kingdom, the USA and various European countries, will not be in any way successful in ground battle. Therefore, the sole purpose behind this ridiculous thesis of the Obama administration was to make the YPG/PYD look legitimate and vital, thus presenting them as the so-called rightful and natural members of the satellite state planned to be established in the region.

Today, the "British Deep State" is trying to impose the same overwhelming dominance it previously asserted over the Obama administration upon the current government through governmental institutions such as the CIA and the Pentagon. For this reason, the Trump administration must break free of the legacy of the Obama period without giving in to the oppression and coercions from the British Deep State. They must abandon the delusion that they can acquire an ally by renaming the PKK with different letters of the alphabet. Putting an end to the vile schemes of the British Deep State will be to the mutual benefit of the US and the Middle East, not to mention the entire world.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Geopolitica & News Rescue:

]]>, 22 Apr 2017 15:41:13 +0300
Turkey, Gulf states forge closer ties

Alliances are fruitful. However self-centered policies with the purpose of creating wealth and prosperity only for one country lead to eventual failures for the respective countries. Such countries base their plans on failures of others and do not realize that the poverty of other nations will ultimately affect them as well. This is the reason why the world is constantly struggling with economic crises despite the abundant sources of our planet.

Islamic countries should be the pioneers of such fruitful alliances. Our religion is the religion of unity and brotherhood and this is why Muslims know the best how unity is the only way to success as well as physical and spiritual well-being. That’s why for years now, we have been urging Muslim countries to unite and join their forces. The recent collaborations and investments between Muslim countries herald the beginnings of this unity.

On March 21-22, Ankara opened its doors to an important guest. 88-year-old Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the Emir of Kuwait, met with Turkish President Erdogan, Prime Minister Yıldırım and Parliament Chairman in a two-day visit. During the meetings, the officers of the two countries gave each other ‘Order of State of Republic of Turkey’ and ‘Order of Mubarak Al Kabeer’, the two highest orders of Turkey and Kuwait, respectively. Set in a friendly atmosphere, the Kuwait Amir also made a generous donation for our Syrian guests, before the parties signed various cooperation deals on defense, industry, tourism and Islam.

This meeting was in fact only the latest one in a series of meetings that took place between Turkey and Gulf Countries, which started early 2017. Only one month earlier, President Erdogan had visited Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and was warmly welcomed by the leaders of the countries: Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain, Salman bin Abdulaziz, the king of Saudi Arabia and Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar. The lifting of the visas with Qatar and Bahrain was among the highlights of visit’s outcomes. The parties had signed more than fifty deals were on economy, energy, defense, education, environment, science, technology and seafaring during these meetings.

Energy deals in particular made it possible to take the vast energy sources of the Gulf countries to Europe over Turkey. As a result of these deals, the Saudi oil company Aramco is now going to establish a refinery in Turkey. Similarly, Qatar’s national oil company started works to build a LNG storage facility in Turkey. ‘Saudi-Turkish real-estate investment fund’ was also established during the visit of President Erdogan and became the latest joint initiative in real-estate industry, after similar achievements in the energy field. Turkey also set up its Sovereign Wealth Fund to increase its joint investments with the Gulf countries.

In addition to large state funds, private investors of these countries began setting up ‘halal’ financial instruments that will enable them make investments in Turkey and the first announced product was the ‘real-estate certificates’.

These are the first steps in the field of economic cooperation. Muslim countries of Middle East have realized that bigger economic advancements can be possible only through cooperation and alliances. They do not base their systems on the impoverishment of others and choose alliances instead of capitalist competitions. There is no doubt that the system has a great potential to bring wealth to the Middle East.

However, economic alliances are only the beginning. These steps were made to reinforce the spirit of unity that is already getting stronger by the day. It is crucial that Islamic countries form alliances in every area, always regard each other with respect and love and know and feel that they are always friends and brothers and sisters for each other. This unity and alliance should have begun in the Middle East and that is exactly what is happening.

Relations based on pure economic gains can never last long. There is always the possibility that the interests will at some point clash and will lead to disagreements. However, when alliances are built on brotherhood, all sorts of partnerships, be it cultural, economic, social, can be easily built. It is because such alliances aim at strengthening friendly ties, instead of interests.

That’s why for years now, we have constantly urged and emphasized the importance of a multifaceted alliance with the Gulf countries.

Muslims don't rise by stepping on each other. That’s the mentality of the colonialists. This dangerous and selfish mindset has inflicted great damage on the Muslim geography for a very long time. Muslims should never allow this dirty mindset to exist among themselves.

Muslims should always help each other, rise together and be an example to the rest of the world with their beautiful friendship. There is no doubt that any economic success attained through joint efforts and cooperation of the whole world, will end poverty, hunger, propel medical advancements, improve education levels of societies, pave the way scientific advancements; in short will change the world. Muslims should be the pioneers of this great effort.

Today the Islamic world needs spirit of brotherhood more than ever. It is high time that alliances are built for strong economic, cultural, social and scientific leaps. The year 2017 will usher in many new joint economic projects. We hope that these alliances will help make the spirit of brotherhood stronger. It is the honorable duty of Muslim leaders to bring societies together around friendship, loyalty, and love and make this alliance permanent. This is what the morality of the Holy Qur’an requires and is what will bring the Islamic world together.

Adnan Oktar's piece in Gulf Times

]]>, 22 Apr 2017 14:42:43 +0300
What kind of a Turkey is expected to come from the aftermath of the referendum?

With the referendum of April 16, Turks gave their consent to the proposed changes to the constitution. Even though the opposition party has some objections to the way the referendum was done, the discussions in and outside Turkey are mainly focused on the fact that Turkey is on the verge of a new era...

The world public is curious about two things:

First, what are the pros and cons of the new system for Turkey?

Second, what kind of foreign policy will Turkey pursue from this point forward? Will there be any difference in the approach to friends, neighbors, allies, or other countries? What about relations with Russia, Europe, and the US?

Before answering these questions, it would be useful to shed some light on the approved changes to the constitution. First of all, contrary to some claims of some dissidents, the new system is not going to be a dictatorship or a sultanate.

The new system is nothing other than an adapted version of the presidential and semi-presidential systems currently seen in many countries. The only difference is that it is not going to lead to federalism or autonomy, and it will preserve the unitary structure of the country. Furthermore, it will allow the president to be affiliated with a political party. This is the most crucial point in terms of the stability and well-being of an independent and strong Turkey.

In the new system, the 'partisan president' will be elected in democratic elections and will not be able to hold this position for more than two terms. As the 'President', the head of state will have broader powers. However, the elected Parliament will have the power to investigate and remove him from power if necessary.

It would be great if the new constitution were prepared without leaving even an inch of room for doubt, ambiguity or controversy, and if it were more clear, better defined. However, it will have to be perfected over time, since it was prepared with urgency, to quickly solve current problems and meet the needs of Turkey. Without a doubt, the problems and needs that become visible as the constitution is implemented, as well as proposals, criticism and reactions, will be taken into account. New revisions and improvements can once again be taken to people with a referendum.

Therefore, it is fair to say that the new system will contribute to the development, security and stability of Turkey. After all, what is being done is giving more power to a leader elected by the people so that he can have more flexibility.

This way, red tape will be cut and destructive detraction and unnecessary procedures will no longer hamper services from being implemented rapidly. The new system will make it easier for the elected leader to carry out his duties and fulfill his promises.

All of that will contribute to a stronger, safer and more stable Turkey. It will also instill more confidence in Turkey's friends and allies, strengthen mutual benefits and boost existing alliances.

Furthermore, Turkey's rapprochement process with her friend and neighbor, Russia, will speed up as well. Turkey becoming a stronger and more stable country in the region will also benefit her natural ally Russia economically, politically and strategically - just like Russia being a strong country and President Putin being a strong leader benefits Turkey.

The fact that President Putin called President Erdogan to congratulate him on referendum results is a clear indication the outcome is best for the mutual interests of the two countries.

As for relations with the EU, the same positive outlook regrettably doesn't apply to this arena. Although Turkey more than kept her end of the bargain to join the EU, the EU has been clearly stalling her for decades.

Needless to say, neither the European people nor the individual countries are to be blamed for this situation. The deep circles within the EU, the same ones that pursue sanction and isolation policies against Russia, choose to keep Turkey outside the union but refrain from clearly saying that it will not accept Turkey.

Nevertheless, Turkey will maintain its well-intentioned, constructive and reconciliatory approach after the referendum. However, it is troubling that the ungracious campaign before the referendum across mainstream European media against President Erdogan and the Turkish people continued increasingly after the referendum.

Here are some examples of the biased news reports on the England leg of the EU media that carried out divisive provocations, almost seeking to fuel civil war in Turkey:

The Economist: "Turkey is sliding into dictatorship"... Financial Times: "A bitter victory for Turkey's new sultan"... Independent: "Deep divisions make Turkey prey to its potential enemies "...

Some biased news reports on the German media are as follows:

Bild: "German Turks voted for a despot"... Spiegel Online: "Turks voted to give more power to their autocratic president"... Frankfurter Allgemeine: "In wild Erdoganistan"...

Swiss TV channels, on the other hand, didn't refrain from broadcasting scandalous programs debating 'whether Erdogan was feeding terrorism in Europe'.

Many other EU countries have also seen their media make similar biased and opposing comments. Therefore, despite Turkey's best intentions and the democratic elections that were held, the deep EU mechanisms are even more aggressive and brazen than before. And this makes Turkey-EU relations even more strained.

At the end of the day, in the aftermath of the referendum, Turkey will not have any quarrels with or hard feelings towards any of the European countries, the US, or their people. However, it is more than clear that deep structures that attack states and leaders, who refuse to be pawns to its imperialist system, have serious problems with Turkey, Russia, the US, President Erdogan, President Putin and President Trump. Then what is the best course of action other than these three leaders building a strong alliance against their common target?

Adnan Oktar's piece in Pravda:

]]>, 20 Apr 2017 16:26:37 +0300
Turkey's choice

Constitutional changes that will change Turkey’s parliamentary system to presidential one (a new system whereby the president will be allowed to be affiliated to a political party) were approved by a referendum on April 16. This referendum will bring about changes in 18 articles of the Turkish constitution, amending the powers of the president as well as ending the office of prime minister and giving the president power to appoint the members of the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the number of Parliament members will increase to 600. All the changes introduced by the referendum will come into effect with presidential and general elections to be held in tandem on November 3, 2019.

Surely the fact that it was a narrow win for the “yes” camp sends an important message. The result, once again, clearly showed people are still deeply wary of the prospect of “federalism.” Previously the presidential system idea garnered support of only around 25% of the electorate, due to fears it could lead to federalism. This led to new arrangements in the proposed constitutional changes which shut the door on federalism as an option. Also, the proposed system was changed from a typical presidential system to a party-affiliated presidential system.

The aforementioned arrangements erased the concerns of the public to a large extent, and even allowed the AKP to secure the support of the nationalist MHP party, which had taken an adamant stance against federalism. However, only a couple of days before the referendum, two presidential advisers mentioned “federalism,” which greatly irked people. Many analysts believe that despite such statements vehemently rejected by the president and the prime minister, the last-minute remarks resulted in the loss of 2% to 3% of “yes” voters on April 16.

It is crucial that when the constitution is changed it should be welcomed by the entirety of the people.

As Prime Minister Binali Yildirim aptly put on July 25, 2016: “It has to be something that is accepted by the majority of the society, if not 100%. It has to be a text that will be acceptable to them. It is obvious that it is not something that we can do alone; for this reason, we need to work with all the political parties.”

This is important, because the April 16 referendum was perceived as the confrontation of two opposing ideas, which was what happened in the general elections, as well. While some people are worried that Turkey’s democracy will take a hit, others are worried that conservatives might end up getting persecuted just like in the 1990s. There are valid points on both of these arguments.

Turkey is a democratic, Muslim country. It is one of the few countries throughout the world, and the only Muslim one, that has the word “secular” in its constitution. We Turks are proud and blessed to have been living in a democratic country for 94 years. These concepts helped prevent Turkey falling into the trap of bigotry and radicalism as had happened to some Middle Eastern countries.

Despite all of these facts, some circles sought to twist the excellent democracy and freedom introduced by Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, and attempted to persecute religious people. As a result, military coups happened, religious people were blacklisted and Turkey went through times that certainly didn’t befit a democracy. At the moment, religious Turks are worried that the bad old days might be coming back, and that’s why they keep their distance from the main opposition party CHP and have a hard time believing in its promises.

As to the other 50%, like in every other country there is a small group of radicals in Turkey that still manage to get their voices heard. Their occasional remarks rightly unsettle our people, who are wary of the horrible mentality of radicalism. This terrible state of mind, that is opposed to women’s freedom to choose what to wear, to arts and music, seriously troubles the millions of people that want to protect the democracy Ataturk fought so hard to build.

Regrettably, the disturbing verbal onslaught of such radicals is sometimes attributed to all religious people, and the right-wing government cannot escape taking some of the blame for it. The situation takes its toll on the AKP and deprives it of votes from Turkey’s coastal cities; this is once again what happened in the referendum.

This is why Turkey is sharply divided into two in every election. Unless both sides work on their practices and narrative, the situation doesn’t seem likely to change any time soon.

But what is it that has to change? The main opposition party has to work on its way of doing politics. Proving the other party wrong may shake public trust in the other side, but it’s not a method to gain people’s favor. Instead, the main opposition party should opt to address the concerns of the 50% it cannot seem to win over.

The CHP can show protectiveness over conservative values while rightfully continuing to oppose the radical mindset. It can openly state that freedoms and democracy are preached by true Islam and guarantee religious people that they will never be victimized again.

Similarly, if the ruling party explicitly criticizes and condemns the mentality of the radicals and shows at every turn how democracy, secularism and freedom are the most fundamental and indispensable principles of our country, and effectively champion modernism, art, science and freedoms – which are praised and encouraged by our religion – and if they bring women to the forefront regardless of whether they choose modern or traditional attire, it will be able to win over the secular people.

It is true that the ruling party is actively making an effort to this end, but the public still expects something more substantial.

Democracy is plurality and is a blessing. However, such a sharp divide in a country is a risk, especially for countries like Turkey. It is essential to maintain stability in Turkey, which is one of the most important allies of the US and of Israel in the region, and the only Islamic country to be a member of NATO.

We hope that the coming days will usher in policies that will end this polarization and alleviate any lingering fears.

Adnan Oktar's piece in The Jerusalem Post:

]]>, 20 Apr 2017 10:46:41 +0300