Ataturk.com

The Turkish Constitutional Court issued a ruling Thursday (June 5, 2008) annulling the law, which allowed the wearing of Muslim head scarves in the country's universities.

The Court states that the law allowing the scarves was in contradiction with the secular foundations of the Turkish Republic.

The law came into being in February 2008 when the Turkish President Abdullah Gül signed the constitutional changes approved earlier by the Parliament, allowing the wearing of the scarves by the Turkish women in universities.

The changes were met with violent protests in defense of the secular Turkish state on part of large segments of Turkey's society.

The initiative for the changes came from the ruling Justice and Development Party with the wives of Gül and the PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appearing in public wearing the Muslim head scarves.

Wearing muslim head scarves has been increasing in Turkey during the past two decades where it is used as a political statement and view, rather then religious belief in most part; and it is believed that some financial aid is being provided for those who choose to wear them, which comes from some of the fundamentalist religious groups supported by some countries.

Bir İran'lı Türk Dostumuzun Yazdığı Uyarı Mektubu

Sevgili Türkiye'deki dostlarım ve kardeşlerim,

Devrim sırasında devrim muhafızları tarafından önce tecavüz edilip, daha sonrada ipe gönderilen çok sevgili kız kardeşim Mehtab'ın anısına...

Bu mektubu sizlere yazmamdaki neden bizim 30 sene kadar önce yaşadığımız o talihsiz ve karanlık günün Türkiye için de yaklaşıyor olduğunu görmem ve bundan daha derin olarak kalbimde hissetmem oldu.

Türban yasasının mecliste onaylandığı tarihin İran İslam devriminin olduğu güne denk gelmesi kalbimde bunun ilahi bir güçten gelen uyarı fişeği olduğu hislerini uyandırdı ve bu mektubu kaleme almaya karar verdim. Biliyorum hepiniz kalbinizde karanlığın otoritesini hissettiniz. Karanlık otorite gelmeden hissettirdi yaklaştığını.

Current Turkish Gorvernment & Their anti-Secular Activities

Turkey's chief prosecutor has asked the Constitutional Court to ban the governing AK Party, accusing it of anti-secular activities.

Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya said he believed that there was enough evidence to show the party had been contravening Turkey's secular constitution.

The AK Party, which has Islamist roots, won last year's general elections.

But the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan - which is negotiating for Turkey to join the EU - has always insisted that its political views have changed.

Does Prime Minister Erdoğan Accept Turkish Secularism? an article by Middle East Quarterly in Spring 2007 reveals what is being tried to hide.

Headscarf controversy

The AKP is already locked in a battle with Turkey's secular elite, backed by the powerful military, over recent changes on the headscarf issue.

The Constitutional Court is reviewing an appeal by the main pro-secular opposition party on the validity of parliament's constitutional amendments in February to allow women wear Islamic headscarves at universities.

The AKP has argues that the headscarf ban unfairly bars large numbers of girls from higher education in a nation where about 66% of women wear the scarf. However accuracy of this number is questionable.

Many secularists in the country equate the wearing of the headscarf with political Islam. Turkish Woman

In a surprise announcement, Mr Yalcinkaya, the chief prosecutor at the Court of Appeals, said he had filed a court request for the closure of the AKP.

He also revealed that the party had been under investigation for six months.

Speaking on Turkish television later on Friday, an AKP lawmaker said he was shocked at the news. The lawmaker said that senior party officials and lawyers were now holding an emergency meeting in the capital Ankara.

The AKP has its roots in an Islamist party that has been banned.

'Genocide' Politics

I was just started liking the guy specially after meeting with him in New Hampshire. However I slowly recognized how far away he is from able to handle world politics. His name even reminded me a Turkish name Burak, and appeared he was going to unite us, which will not happen by promoting haterism in order to gain votes. What a big disappointment.

Barack Obama that is and his position on (so-called) Armenian Genocide can be found here.

I am sure he will realize if he ever gets elected (which will not be possible as if he runs against McCain, I do not see him winning) that his way of thinking will change and will need to take a 180 degree change on the subject.

What can we say about Hillary? Smart politician. She knows what is the right thing to do, and that is why you can not find any references on her website to what below article was reporting. Are Clintons better for Turkey or should we look at McCain? Absolutely not McCain as both McCain and Obama will continue Bush plan for Turkey and Middle East which brought the what is called "soft Islam" to Turkish politics and the country where Turkey has been positioned to be used as an example to Middle East where religions and government co-existing together. That is not what Ataturk build and secularism has to be protected at any cost. However Clintons will promote Turkey's joining EU and become part of Europe where the solution for Turkey's future looks much more promising.

For those who can vote in the US, if you vote for either McCain or Obama, you will be voting for a Turkey, promoted to become a soft islamic state (ilimli islam), further supporting a weak Kurdish state formed most likely in Kirkuk area where Israel will have full control. If you vote for Clintons, you will help Turkey get closer to Europe and keep it's secular position. Since Clintons would be closer to Turkey, chances of seeing a Kurdish state will be very low.

Below is from the article at Washington Times, Embassy Row By James Morrison February 26, 2008

A grim but tireless debate between Turks and Armenians for more than nine decades found its way into the U.S. presidential campaign, as Turkish-Americans began organizing politically against any change in Washington's policy toward the "Armenian genocide" of 1915.

Officially, the United States recognizes the killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians as a tragedy, but not genocide. Washington repeatedly has cited its concern over angering Turkey, a key NATO ally, as the reason for avoiding the loaded word. Turkey and Armenia also dispute the number of victims, with Turkey claiming about 300,000 and Armenia 1.5 million.

Yesterday, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations warned its members that the "Armenian dispute with Turkey is being politicized to the point of becoming an issue in the U.S. election campaign."

Democratic hopefuls Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to reverse U.S. policy and recognize the slaughter of Armenians under the old Ottoman Turkish Empire as genocide, if either of them is elected president. Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain stuck to the U.S. line and referred to the massacre as a "tragedy."

'There was NO Armenian genocide'

The Turkish Embassy's (London, U.K.) Orhan Tung responds to the Armenian ambassador on the question of the 1915 genocide.

Contrary to the Armenian allegations, in fact, there is no consensus among the historians and legal experts to qualify the events of 1915 as “genocide”.

There is a legitimate historical controversy concerning the interpretation of the events in question and most of the scholars who have propounded a contra genocide viewpoint are of the highest calibre and repute, including Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, David Fromkin, Justin McCarthy, Guenther Lewy, Norman Stone, Kamuran Gürün, Michael Gunter, Gilles Veinstein, Andrew Mango, Roderic Davidson, J.C. Hurwitz, William Batkay, Edward J. Erickson and Steven Katz.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. A good number of well-respected scholars recognize the deportation decision in 1915, taken under World War I conditions, as a security measure to stop the Armenians from co-operating with the foreign forces invading Anatolia.

A Page of History - Story of Berch Keresteciyan

Istanbul 1919 ... a city of suffering under the pain of Allied occupation ... Berch Keresteciyan Efendi, in those days, is the Director of the Ottoman Bank. Mustafa Kemal knows him from Selanik, as the president of the bank’s Selanik branch. Berch Keresteciyan Efendi also happens to be the Vice President of Hilal-ý Ahmer (Kizilay), the “Turkish Red-Crescent”.In the Istanbul of those days, a city teeming with spies on every corner, Berch Keresteciyan meets with Mustafa Kemal’s attorney Sadettin Ferit Bey and divulges the following information:“You are, I believe, both the attorney and a close friend of the Esteemed Pasha. The ship that the Esteemed will be taking to Samsun will be sunk by a British torpedo boat outside the Bosphorus. Please convey this warning to the Esteemed Pasha.”

Azerbaijan condemns H.R.106

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan

Baku, October 12, 2007 - The U.S. House of Representative's Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the draft Resolution 106, which characterizes the events of 1915 in Ottoman Empire related to relocation of the part of the Armenian population collaborating with invading forces, as "genocide".

The Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan condemns this decision as wrong and biased and considers it harmful for the developments in the region and globally.

Azerbaijan supports the Turkish call to examine the archival documents related to the World War I tragedies in this part of the world. It is crucial to learn all details before taking steps.

Azerbaijan suffered itself from notorious ethnic cleansing by Armenia, vivid example of which is genocide in Azerbaijani town of Khojaly, where hundreds of women, kids, and elderly people have been killed. Azerbaijan, which is also a victim of numerous terrorist acts and occupation of territories by Armenia, knows well how Armenian diaspora and Government hide their own misdoings through the aggressive propaganda.

MFA of Azerbaijan strongly urges the U.S. House of Representatives to refrain from adopting the Resolution 106 in order to demonstrate that the United States Congress is impartial and not under the pressure of ethnic lobbies.

More...