ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΣΗ ΒΡΕ!

  1. Ω1

    ΑΚΑΡ, προσωπικά είμαι πεπεισμένος, πως δεν έχεις ΧΗΜΙΚΑ!.. ΑΧΑΧΑΧΑΧΑΧΑΧΑ

    Turkish intelligence agency used a family-owned business to provide supplies for ISIS

    ACL Store that was sanctioned by the US for aiding ISIS in Turkey’s southeastern province Sanliurfa.

    Abdullah Bozkurt

    Two Turkish nationals and their company, recently sanctioned by the US Treasury for aiding and abetting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and identified in 2016 by Russia at the UN Security Council as operatives of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT), turned out to be connected to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, which is led by Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

    Nordic Monitor’s review of postings on Twitter and Facebook reveals that a senior leader of Erdoğan’s party met with the managers of the sanctioned firm in the border province of Şanlıurfa, where ISIS cells have been known to be active for years. In the multiple postings, the AKP provincial chairman in Şanlıurfa, Bayattin Yıldız, was seen visiting and meeting with the owners of the ACL export-import firm, an entity that has been designated under sanctions by the US government for providing logistical supplies to ISIS.

    This is not surprising given the fact that Russia had already identified the two US-designated Turkish individuals as ISIS suppliers long before and connected them to Turkey’s notorious MIT, led by Erdoğan confidant Hakan Fidan, another Islamist figure. “The main supplier of weapons and military equipment to ISIL fighters is Turkey, which is doing so through non-governmental organizations. Work in this area is overseen by the National Intelligence Organization of Turkey. Transportation mainly involves vehicles, including as part of humanitarian aid convoys,” Russia’s then-UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told members of the Security Council in a letter.


    Russian letter submitted to the UN Security Council identified the Bayaltuns as ISIS procurement agents.

    Although the US Treasury designation on November 18, 2019 only listed 30-year old İsmail Bayaltun (Turkish identity No: 43867949044) and his brother Ahmet Bayaltun as the individuals who provided support to ISIS fighters in Syria through ACL İthalat İhracat, Nordic Monitor’s review of family business activities show multiple members of the family have been active in commercial activities linked to ACL not only in the border province but also in Istanbul’s Tahtakale business district, where smuggled goods, especially electronics, were widely traded.


    Ahmet Bayaltun

    According to official trade registry data, İsmail Bayaltun filed the papers to establish ACL İthalat İhracat, an import-export company, on March 29, 2011 in Şanlıurfa. Registration No.11586 was assigned to the company under his name. The company’s address was declared as Dünya İş Merkezi, 2.Kat No: 96 in the same city. On December 5, 2018 he changed the company’s address to Yusufpaşa Mahallesi, 886 Sokak No:31/1 Eyyübiye, Şanlıurfa. On July 5, 2019 İsmail Bayaltun filed a form with the trade registration office declaring that he had turned the company over to İsmail Soylu and that the firm’s name was changed to İsmail Soylu ACL İthalat İhracat. The change appears to have been merely cosmetic.

    www.NordicMonitor.com

    No matter who was listed on the official papers, the company is really run by the Bayaltun family, which is headed by Hacı Halil Bayaltun. Other members of the family were identified as Harun, Mustafa, Raşit, Ali and more, all carrying the family name of Bayaltun. The general manager, who travels abroad, especially to Hong Kong, to procure electronic and computer parts, is Mustafa Bayaltun, according to travel photos shared by him on Facebook. Mustafa Bayaltun travels between Istanbul and Şanlıurfa to manage the business when he is not abroad and is closely connected to Erdoğan’s governing party.

    According to the US Treasury announcement, Ahmet Bayaltun has materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, ISIS. As of early 2017, he was identified as an ISIS procurement agent, although Russia had named him as such a year earlier.

    Yıldız, Erdoğan’s ruling party provincial representative in Şanlıurfa, even visited Mustafa Bayaltun in his Istanbul office on June 23, 2019 in a bid to secure support for the AKP’s Istanbul mayoral candidate, Binali Yıldırım, a former prime minister and parliament speaker. Yıldız also visited him and Halil Bayaltun on November 26, 2019, three days before the US Treasury designated the company under its sanctions regime.

    Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s letter to the UNSC on March 18, 2016:

     

    United Nations
    S/2016/262
    SecurityCouncil
    Distr.: General
    21 March 2016
    English
    Original: Russian
    16-04581 (E) 280316300316
    *1604581*
    Letter dated
    18 March 2016 from the Permanent Representativof the Russian Federation addressed to the President of theSecurity Council
    I have the honour to transmit herewith information on the involvement of anumber of Turkish individuals and entities in trafficking weapons and ammunition to territory under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (see
    annex).I should be grateful if you would have this letter and its annex circulated as a document of the Security Counci
    l.
    (Signed) V.Churkin
    www.NordicMonitor.com

     

    S/2016/26216-045812/3
    Annex to the letter dated 18 March 2016 from the Permanent
    Representative of the Russian Federation addressed to the
    President of the Security Council
    Illegal trafficking in weapons and ammunition to Syrian territoryunder ISIL control
    The main supplier of weapons and military equipment to ISIL fighters isTurkey, which is doing so through non-governmental organizations. Work in this area is overseen by the National Intelligence Organization of Turkey. Transportationmainly involves vehicles, including as part of humanitarian aid convoys.The Beşar foundation (President— D. Şanlı) is most actively engaged in
    pursuing these objectives and, in 2015, formed around 50 conveys to the Turkmenareas of Bayırbucak and Kızıltepe (260 km north of Damascus). Donations fromindividuals and entities are “officially” its main source of funding. In point of fact,the organization’s account receives such funds from a specific budget allocation ofthe National Intelligence Organization. The Beşar foundation has opened currentaccounts in Turkish and foreign banks with the support of the Government.The İyilikder foundation (President— Mr. I. Bahar) is also a major supplier ofweapons and military equipment to Syrian territory under ISIL control, havingdispatched around 25 different supply convoys in 2015. The leadership of thisnon-governmental organization is funded by sources from European and MiddleEastern countries. Funds in hard currency are transferred to Kuveyt Türk and Vakıfbank accounts.
    The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms (President— Mr. B. Yıldırım)is actively engaged in delivering munitions to terrorists in Syria. It is officiallysupported by the Government of Turkey and acts under the direction of the Turkishintelligence services. Since 2011, the foundation has sent 7,500 vehicles withvarious supplies to territory under ISIL control. This organization is funded fromTurkish sources and by other States. The Turkish banks Ziraat and Vakıf are used for
    fundraising.Furthermore, to address the challenge of delivering weapons and militaryequipment to ISIL-controlled territory, officials from the National IntelligenceOrganization have arranged for control over the weapons and ammunitions stores
    located in the border towns of Bükülmez and Sansarin (530 km south-east ofAnkara, Hatay province). The weapons are delivered to fighters through theCilvegözü checkpoint (530 km south-east of Ankara), with the support of Turkey’s
    intelligence officers and gendarmerie forces.
    For example, between 2 and 8 November 2015, a batch of weapons was transferred from the Cilvegözü checkpoint to the town of Atma (310 km north of Damascus). Fighters in the area were supplied with rounds for TOW anti-tank missile systems and for RPG-7 grenade launchers, as well as ammunition for small arms.In November 2015, the movement of military equipment was organized for illegal armed groups located in the province of Latakia. Islamists received M-60recoilless rifles and ammunition, 82mm mortar shells, 23mm and 12.7mm ammunition, hand grenades, communications tools and equipment from the Turkish intelligence services.
    www.NordicMonitor.com

    S/2016/2623/316-04581

    Between 11 and 21 January 2016, Turkish intelligence officers supplied Jabhatal-Sham terrorists with 7.62mm and 12.7mm ammunition and with rounds forRPG -7 grenade launchers. The cargo was transferred across the Turkish- Syrianborder, in the area of Kizilcat (540 km south- east of Ankara), to a fighters’ camp inthe province of Latakia. Some of the weapons and ammunition received weresubsequently sold by field commanders to ISIL representatives (in exchange forpetroleum products, food and tangible assets).On 25 January 2016, the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedomsfinanced a shipment of equipment and food (approximately 55 tons) to ISILterrorists. The union of fraternal societies and foundations of Turkey was
    responsible was forming the convoy. The “humanitarian cargo” travelled throughthe Yayladağı border crossing (530 km south
    – east of Ankara, Hatay province) to theBayırbucak district. Earlier, in July 2015, the Foundation assisted The Associationfor Human Rights and Solidarity for the Oppressed in transferring over 177 tons ofmilitary cargo to the north of Syria.Smuggling explosives and industrial chemicals to terrorist groups operating inSyria is also usually organized from Turkish territory, through border crossings inthe vicinity of Reyhanlı (Turkey), Azaz (Syria), AlQamishli (Syria) and Jarablus(Syria). Waterways, particularly the Euphrates River, are often used to transpor large consignments of explosive components: nitroglycerine, ammonium nitrate,gunpowder and trinitrotoluene (TNT).Total supplies to terrorists through Turkey were as follows in 2015: 2,500 tonsof ammonium nitrate (worth approximately US$ 788,700); 456 tons of potassiumnitrate ($468,700); 75 tons of aluminium powder ($496,500); sodium nitrate($19,400); glycerine ($102,500); and nitric acid ($34,000).
    The bulk of the chemical components are purchased in the south- easternprovinces of Turkey (Mersin, Hatay, Kilis, Gaziantep and Şanlıurfa) with the assistanceof local companies. In particular, one company acting as an intermediary is TevhidBilişim Merkezi (city of Şanlıurfa, Alcak district, Bağdat trading centre, office 1). Theowners of the company, Ismail and Ahmet Bayaltun, acquire products manufactured inenterprises from the “Mersin free economic zone” (city of Mersin) and ensure that thecargo is then dispatched to the fighters. In addition, the company Tsitrkimya (Istanbul,
    owner Zaur Guliyev) supplies aluminium powder directly to ISIL.
    The companies Trend Limited Şirketi (city of Şanlıurfa) and Maxam Anadolu(city of Malatya) specialize in transferring safety and detonating fuses to terrorists(main active ingredient— pentaerythritol tetranitrate), as well as caps, primers andelectric denotators.In order to pass through the border controls unimpeded, effectively with thecomplicity of the Turkish authorities, products are processed for companies that arepurportedly registered in Jordan and Iraq. “Transit through the Syrian Arab
    Republic” is indicated in the supporting documents, under the section on method ofdelivering the cargo to the recipient. Registration and processing of the cargo areorganized at customs posts in the cities of Antalya, Gaziantep and Mersin (Turkey).
    Once the necessary procedures have been carried out, the goods pass unhinderedthrough the border crossings at Cilvegözü and Öncüpınar (520 km south- east of Ankara, Kilis province).
    www.NordicMonitor.com

    In a letter submitted to the UNSC on March 18, 2016 Russian Ambassador Churkin said, concerning İsmail Bayaltun and Ahmet Bayaltun: “The bulk of the chemical components are purchased in the south-eastern provinces of Turkey (Mersin, Hatay, Kilis, Gaziantep and Şanlıurfa) with the assistance of local companies. In particular, one company acting as an intermediary is Tevhid Bilişim Merkezi (city of Şanlıurfa, Alcak district, Bağdat trading centre, office 1). The owners of the company, Ismail and Ahmet Bayaltun, acquire products manufactured in enterprises from the “Mersin free economic zone” (city of Mersin) and ensure that the cargo is then dispatched to the fighters. In addition, the company Tsitrkimya (Istanbul, owner Zaur Guliyev) supplies aluminium powder directly to ISIL.”

    According to the registry data, Tevhid Bilişim was established by Ahmet Bayaltun on June 27, 2013, not surprisingly in the same neighborhood in which ACL was located (Yusufpaşa Mahallesi, Bagdat Pasaji 1. Kat No:56, Şanlıurfa). The company’s operations were described as the sale of mobile phones and accessories, similar to ACL. Perhaps under pressure from his handlers at the intelligence agency after the Russians outed the firm and with the Americans close on his heels, Bayaltun filed a notification on October 21, 2019 declaring that the Tevhid firm had ceased its activities. The request for dissolution was approved three days later by the authorities.

    Tevhid Bilişim’s trade registry data:

    www.NordicMonitor.com

     

    İsmail Bayaltun had already been detained on July 10, 2015 in what the Erdoğan government pretended was a crackdown on ISIS, but he was quickly released just like many other ISIS detainees. He was provided political cover for his activities linked to the intelligence agency. In fact the Bayaltun family enterprise had been involved in providing supplies to ISIS, in particular when the Syrian town of Tal Abyad was under the control of the terrorist group. When ISIS left the town following an offensive launched by the US-backed People’s Protection Units (YPG) in June 2015, an examination of a stockpile left behind in the former ISIS territory turned up labels indicating that the packages were sent from Turkey and bore the name of Ahmet Bayaltun. Journalists from Turkish TV network Habertürk even reported that they had seen these labels with Bayaltun’s name on them when they were covering post-ISIS developments in Tal Abyad.

    The family was alleged to have been involved in shipping aluminium powder, which is used to create a stronger blast in explosives. According to Russia’s findings, Turkey had shipped some half a million dollars worth of aluminum powder to ISIS by March 2016. “Total supplies to terrorists through Turkey were as follows in 2015: 2,500 tons of ammonium nitrate (worth approximately US$ 788 ,700); 456 tons of potassium nitrate ($468,700); 75 tons of aluminium powder ($496,500); sodium nitrate ($19,400); glycerine ($102,500); and nitric acid ($34,000),” the Russian ambassador explained in the letter to the UN.

    Under pressure from both the Americans and the Russians, Turkey was eventually forced to take action, albeit limited, to convince the international community that it had been cracking down on ISIS activities in Turkey. On June 25, 2015 three trucks with a load of 144 tons aluminum power were reportedly seized by Turkish authorities while en route to Syria. The seller’s name on the bill of lading was Ahmet Bayaltun, and the origin of the shipment was China. The shipment was reportedly seized and an administrative investigation launched, but it is not clear what happened with the probe or the seized trucks. It is more than likely that the case was hushed up. Turkish authorities made no announcement on the outcome of the probe with regard to the shipment.

    Counterterrorism designations by the US Department of Treasury:

    11/22/2019

    Counter Terrorism Designations
    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20191118.aspx1/2
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
    Resource Center
    Counter Terrorism Designations
    11/18/2019
    OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
    Specially Designated Nationals List Update
    The following individuals have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:
    BAYALTUN, Ahmet, Turkey; DOB 1971; citizen Turkey; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
    BAYALTUN, Ismail (a.k.a. BAYALTUN, Ismail Halil), Dunya Is Mer, Gaziantep, Turkey; No:/A Atlikonak, Sanliurfa 63000, Turkey; DOB 01 Oct 1989; alt.
    DOB 21 Nov 1980; citizen Turkey; Gender Male; National ID No. C13638980 (Turkey); Identification Number 4386794904 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT]
    (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
    KHAN, Sayed Habib Ahmad (a.k.a. KHAN, Syed Habib Ahmad; a.k.a. “HABIB, Sayed”), Kuwait; Arzan Qemat Area, PD 12, Kabul City, Afghanistan;
    DOB 1970; POB Kunar Province, Afghanistan; nationality Afghanistan; Gender Male; Residency Number 270010174266 (Kuwait) issued 25 Apr 2016
    expires 24 Jun 2018 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: NEJAAT SOCIAL WELFARE ORGANIZATION).
    WAKIL, Rohullah (a.k.a. WAKIL, Haji Sahib Rohullah; a.k.a. “Haji Rohullah”), Afghanistan; DOB 1962; alt. DOB 1963; POB Nangalam, Afghanistan;
    Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISIL KHORASAN).
    The following entities have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:
    ACL ITHALAT IHRACAT (a.k.a. ACL GSM IMPORT EXPORT; a.k.a. ACL ITHALAT IHRACAT ISMAIL BAYALT; a.k.a. ACL ITHALAT IHRACAT ISMAIL
    BAYALTUN), No: 96 Dunya Is Merkezi 2 Kat, Sanliurfa, Turkey; Cengiz Topel Mah 2 Dun is Merk, Sanliurfa, Turkey; Yusufpasa Mah Dunya Is Merkeri
    Ctr, Sanliurfa 63000, Turkey; 96 Earth Business Center, 2nd Floor, Sanliurfa, Turkey [SDGT] (Linked To: BAYALTUN, Ismail).
    AL SULTAN MONEY TRANSFER COMPANY (a.k.a. AL SULTAN GOLD & JEWELRY; a.k.a. AL SULTAN GOLD AND JEWELRY; a.k.a. AL SULTAN
    JEWELRY; a.k.a. AL-SULTAN JEWELRY & GENERAL TRADING CO; a.k.a. AL-SULTAN JEWELRY AND GENERAL TRADING CO; a.k.a. ALSULTAN
    KUYUMCULUK; a.k.a. ALSULTAN KUYUMCULUK ELEKTRONIK GIDA ITHALAT IHRACAT LIMITED SIRKETI; a.k.a. SULTAN GOLD), Ataturk Mah.
    Sehit Nusret Cad., No: 17 A/1 Haliliye-Haliliye, Sanliurfa, Turkey [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
    NEJAAT SOCIAL WELFARE ORGANIZATION (a.k.a. NEJAT-E EJTIMAYEE), House Number 1297, Lot Number 2, Sub-District number 2, Narang Bagh
    Area, Jalalabad, Nangarhar, Afghanistan; Police District 12, Kabul City, Kabul Province, Afghanistan; Jalalabad City, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan
    [SDGT] (Linked To: ISIL KHORASAN).
    SAHLOUL MONEY EXCHANGE COMPANY (a.k.a. AL-SAHLOUL MONEY EXCHANGE COMPANY; a.k.a. SAHLUL HAWALA OFFICE), Axray,
    Masseeh Basha, Lalleli Street, Kalvan Centre Building #22, Office #203, Istanbul, Turkey; Mersin, Turkey [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF
    IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
    TAWASUL COMPANY (a.k.a. AL-TAWASUL COMPANY; a.k.a. TAWASUL FINANCIAL EXCHANGE; a.k.a. TAWASUL HAWALA COMPANY), Harim,
    Syria [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
    www.NordicMonitor.com

    The YPG’s advance near Turkish border at the expense of ISIS was a game changer for the Erdoğan government. When the conflict in Syria escalated, threatening the safety of Turkish truck drivers, Turkey’s Trade and Customs Ministry prohibited trucks from crossing into Syria, but in a decision issued on November 15, 2013 the government allowed the trucks to go through customs gates at three locations — Cilvegözü, Öncüpınar and Akçakale — on the Syrian border as long as Syrian truckers were used in the unloading and transport on the Syrian side. Therefore, ISIS continued to procure supplies from Turkey using the customs gates where it picked up trailers with Syrian tractors that hauled Turkish trailers from the border gate.

    The open-door policy at the customs gate was changed, at least on paper, when in 2015 the Americans put greater pressure on Turkey to control its Syrian border in order to cut off supplies to ISIS and other jihadist groups. Furthermore, Turkey had a new incentive to do so when the YPG took over Tal Abyad, prompting Turkish authorities to shut down the gate for shipments shortly afterwards. The Trade and Customs Ministry decided to ban the export of aluminum to Syria on July 1, 2015, citing an intelligence note it received from MIT that showed the shipments were in fact coordinated by MIT. The illegal shipments continued through other crossing points according to the intelligence provided to the UNSC by Russia in 2016.


    The Bayaltun family imported aluminum powder from China and illegally shipped it to ISIS in Syria.

    In a second letter submitted to the UNSC on May 17, 2016, Russian Ambassador Churkin further informed the UN that ISIS acquired items to manufacture improvised explosive devices from Turkey with the help of Turkish intelligence agency MIT. It stated that the basic chemical components of explosives seized in the region of Tikrit (Iraq) and in Kobani (Syria), with subsequent identification of the manufacturers and review of the conditions for selling such components to other countries, indicate that they were either manufactured in Turkey or delivered to that country without the right of re-export.

    The document identified Turkish firms Gultas Kimya, Marikem Kimyevi ve Endustriyel Urunler, Metkim, EKM Gubre and Diversey Kimya as intermediaries. “These companies have delivered to Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) aluminium powder, ammonium nitrate, pelletized carbamide and hydrogen peroxide produced by various Turkish and foreign companies. In this context, there has been a remarkable seven-fold increase in the volume of deliveries from Turkey to Syria of ammonium nitrate (at a time when agriculture in the Syrian Arab Republic is in decline), which is used by terrorists in the manufacture of improvised explosive devices,” the letter said.

    Russia claimed that “the Turkish authorities are deliberately involved in ISIL activity, as they are providing access to components for improvised explosive devices that are being widely used to commit terrorist acts.”

    Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s letter to the UNSC on May 17, 2016:

    United Nations

    S/2016/457
    Security
    Council
    Distr.: General
    19 May 2016
    English
    Original: Russian
    16-08099 (E) 200516 230516*1608099*
    Letter dated 17 May 2016 from the Permanent Representative ofthe Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the
    Secretary-GeneralI have the honour to transmit hereby an information note on the procurementby Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant of components for the manufacture ofimprovised explosive devices (see annex).I should be grateful if this letter and its annex could be distributed as adocument of the Security Council.
    (Signed) B.
    Churkin
    www.NordicMonitor.com
    S/2016/45716-080992/2
    Annex to the letter dated 17 May 2016 from the Permanent
    Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
    addressed to the Secretary-General
    Procurement by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant ofcomponents for the manufacture of improvised explosive devices Terrorists in Iraq and Syria are being supplied through foreign channels with the items needed to manufacture improvised explosive devices. An analysis of thebasic chemical components of explosives captured from Islamists in the region ofTikrit (Iraq) and in Kobani (Syria), with subsequent identification of themanufacturers and review of the conditions for selling such components to othercountries, indicates that they were either manufactured in Turkey or delivered tothat country without the right of re-export.The following Turkish firms acted as intermediaries: Gultas Kimya, Marikem Kimyevi ve Endustriyel Urunler, Metkim, EKM Gubre and Diversey Kimya. Thesecompanies have delivered to Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) aluminium powder, ammonium nitrate, pelletized carbamide and hydrogen peroxide producedby various Turkish and foreign companies. In this context, there has been aremarkable seven – fold increase in the volume of deliveries from Turkey to Syria ofammonium nitrate (at a time when agriculture in the Syrian Arab Republic is in decline), which is used by terrorists in the manufacture of improvised explosivedevices.
    One notable feature of the improvised explosive devices assembled in ISILworkshops in the Middle East is the use of the following:
    PIC16F1827
    microcontrollers made by Microchip Technology, a United States company; TIP102
    and BDX53C transistors from the Swiss company ST Microelectronics; and mobile
    telephones from Nokia, model 105 RM-908.
    Furthermore, detonation cords manufactured in third countries have beenillegally resold through Turkey to ISIL fighters.
    These facts demonstrate that the Turkish authorities are deliberately involvedin ISIL activity, as they are providing access to components for improvised explosive devices that are being widely used to commit terrorist acts.
    www.NordicMonitor.com

    2. ΤΑ ‘ΧΟΥΜΕ ΓΡΑΨΕΙ ΠΡΩΤΟΙ!..

    US’s alleged role in Turkey’s coup attempt challenged by secret Turkish military document

    Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meets with Army Brig. Gen. Edwin J. Deedrick Jr. prior to a meeting at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey Aug. 1st, 2016. During his visit to Turkey, the Chairman also visited Ankara, where he met with Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, General Hulusi Akar, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, and İsmail Kahraman, the 27th Speaker of the Grand National Assembly. Dunford delivered messages condemning in the strongest terms the recent coup attempt and reaffirming the importance of our enduring partnership for regional security as symbolized by coalition operations out of Incirlik in the counter-ISIL fight, and the importance of Turkey’s contributions to both the counter-ISIL coalition and NATO alliances. (DoD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Dominique A. Pineiro)

    Abdullah Bozkurt

    The Turkish government’s allegation that the United States was involved in a failed coup in 2016 has been further undermined with the exposure of a Turkish military document which revealed that the US Air Force had decided to temporarily scale back operations in Turkey.

    According to the document, the US Air Force had already decided to reduce tanker flights operating out of Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase in southeastern Adana province before a limited mobilization by the Turkish army took place on the night of the July 15, 2016 coup attempt. The decision was conveyed to Turkish Brig. Gen. Irfan Özsert by US Army Brig. Gen. Edwin J. Deedrick, who was serving as the assistant commanding general of the Joint Special Operations Command at the time.

    The military experts Nordic Monitor spoke to argued that it made no sense for the US to reduce its air cover if it was somehow involved in the putschist attempt in Turkey as the government claimed to be the case. The allegations that the US was involved in the attempt were made publicly by Turkish government officials at various times. Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu accused the US of orchestrating the coup in a phone interview with CNN Türk on July 16 while events were still unfolding.

    He repeated the same allegation on various occasions, saying that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s vocal critic, Fethullah Gülen, lacked the capability of mounting such an attempt. The government accuses the Gülen of being behind the failed coup although no evidence has been presented to prove the claim. Gülen himself denied playing any role and asked for an international inquiry to ascertain the real perpetrator, a proposal that Erdoğan declined.

    Interestingly, the meeting between Özsert and Deedrick took place on July 15, 2016 during which the US general informed his Turkish counterpart that Maj. Gen. James E. Kraft Jr., the commander of the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force (CJSOTF), was on temporary leave and would return to his post in early August after visiting Kuwait and then the US on a leave of absence. Maj. Gen.Kraft who departed for Kuwait on July 15, left him as acting commander during his absence, Deedrick added.

    MESAJ FORMU

    MESAJ TALİMATI
    GRUP
    ÖN EK BO:
    ÖNCELİK
    DERECE
    SİTARİ
    H SAAT
    GRUBU
    GİZLİ
    LİK DERECESİ
    DOSYA
    NUMARASI
    GEREĞİ
    BİLGİ C TEM 16
    GİZLİ
    HRK:79146872
    3000
    16
    İVEDİKİMDEN
    :
    TKS/
    İNCİRLİK
    KİME
    : GENKURHRK
    İLGİ
    :
    TKS
    /İNCİRLİK’İN 071840C TEM 16 TSG’Lİ, HRK.:79146872
    3000
    387
    16 SAYILI VE “MÜNBİÇ
    HAREKATI VE MARE HATTI İLE İLGİLİ GELİŞMELER” KONULU MESAJI.
    KONU
    :
    BMÖHGK.K.YRD.
    TUĞG. ERWIN
    DEEDRICK’IN
    GÖREVİ DEVRALMASI
    1.
    BİRLEŞİK MÜŞTEREK ÖZEL HAREKÂT GÖREV KUVVETİ (BMÖHGK (C
    JSOTF)) K. TÜMG.
    JAMES
    KRAFT
    ,
    15
    TEMMUZ 2016 TARİHİNDE KUVEYT’E İNTİKAL ETMİŞ, YRD. TUĞG.
    ERWIN DEE
    DRICK İNCİRLİK’TE GÖREVİ
    DEVRALMIŞTIR. TÜMG. KRAFT’IN BİR HAFTA KUVEYT’TE KALMAYI MÜTEAKİP, İZİNLİ OLARAK ABD’YE
    GİDECEĞİ VE AĞUSTOS AYI BAŞINDA DÖNECEĞİ ÖĞR
    ENİLMİŞTİR.
    2.
    GÖREVİ DEVRALAN TUĞG. E.DEEDRICK VE TUĞG.İ.ÖZSERT ARASINDA
    15 TEMMUZ 2016 TARİHİNDE
    BİR
    TOPLANTI GERÇEKLEŞTİRİLMİŞ, TOPLANTIDA GÖRÜŞÜLEN KONULAR AŞAĞIDA SUNULMUŞTUR;
    A.
    TUĞG.DEEDRICK’E
    MÜNBİÇ HAREKATI İLE İLGİLİ BEKLENTİLERİMİZİN NELER OLDUĞU, ŞU
    ANA
    KADAR BERABERCE NASIL ÇALIŞILDIĞI VE HASSASİYETLERİMİZ İLE PKK VE PYD’NİN AYNI TERÖR ÖRGÜTÜ
    OLDUĞU DETAYLI OLARAK İZAH EDİLMİŞ, KENDİSİ TARAFINDAN HASSASİYETLERİMİZ HAKKINDA BİLGİ
    SAHİBİ OLDUĞU İFADE EDİLEREK KARŞILIKLI GÜVEN VE ŞEFFAFLIK İÇERİSİNDE BU
    KONUDA
    AYNI
    ŞEKİLDE
    ÖZELLİKLE HASSAS DAVRANACAĞI
    BELİRTİLMİŞTİR
    .
    B.
    TUĞG.
    DEEDRICK TARAFINDAN
    ,
    17 TEMMUZ 2016 TARİHİNDE BÖLGEYE VE GELİŞMELERE HAKİM
    OLMAK KAPSAMINDA ABD BÜYÜKELÇİSİ VE ODC
    T K. İLE GÖRÜŞMEK MAKSADIYLA ANKARA’YA GİDECEĞİ,
    ANKARA’DA
    , MÜNBİÇ’E
    YÖNELİK OLARAK AÇILMASI PLANLANAN İNSANİ YARDIM KORİDORUNUN DETAYLARIN
    I
    DA GÖRÜŞECEĞİ
    VE
    DÖNÜŞTE HİRFANLI’
    YI
    ZİYARET EDECEĞİNİN
    İFADE EDİLMESİ ÜZERİNE,
    TUĞG.İ.ÖZSERT TARAFINDAN;
    (1)
    İLGİ
    MESAJDA ARZ EDİLDİĞİ ÜZERE GENELKURMAY BAŞKANLIĞI’NIN EMİRLERİ DOĞRULTUSUNDA
    PLANLANAN İNSANİ YARDIM KORİDORUNUN AR RAİ BÖLGESİNDEN AÇILMASININ DAHA UYGUN OLDUĞU,
    DOLAYISIYLA AÇMAK İSTEDİĞİMİZ ÇOBANBEY SINIR KAPISINI DA ETKİN BİR HALE GETİRECEĞİ VE DAHA
    ÖN
    CE BURADAN GÖÇ ETMİŞ MÜLTECİLERİN DÖNÜŞLERİNİ KOLAYLAŞTIRACAĞI,
    (2)
    AYRICA BURADAN GÜNEYE DOĞRU İLERLEMENİN, MARE BÖLGESİNDEKİ DEAŞ UNSURLARININ
    GERİSİNİ KUŞATACAĞINDAN DEAŞ’IN GERİ ÇEKİLMESİNİ DE SAĞLAYACAĞI,
    (3)
    BU KAPSAMDA EN ÖNEMLİ HUSUSUN EĞİT DONAT
    ÇERÇEVESİ
    NDE
    MUHALİFLERDEN KISA SÜREDE
    DAHA ÇOK BİRLİK OLUŞTURULMASI VE SAYILARININ ARTIRILARAK DAHA
    ETKİN HALE GETİRİLMELERİ
    OLDUĞU BELİRTİLMİŞTİR.
    C.
    TUĞG. DEEDRICK TARAFINDAN
    AYRICA AFRICOM BÖLGESİNDEKİ ARTAN TANKER UÇAK İHTİYACINA
    PARALEL OLARAK
    , ABD SAVUNMA BAKAN
    LIĞI’NIN ALDIĞI KARARLAR DOĞRULTUSUNDA
    GEÇİCİ BİR SÜRE İLE
    SURİYE VE IRAK’TA KULLANILAN TANKER UÇAKLARIN BİR KISMININ AFRICOM SORUMLULUK SAHASINDA
    KONUŞLANDIRILACAĞI, BU NEDENLE
    SURİYE VE IRAK HAREKÂT ALANINDA YAKIN HAVA DESTEĞİ
    PLANLAMASINDA YAKLAŞIK %27
    ORANINDA BİR AZALMA MEYDANA GELECEĞİ VE BU DURUMUN MARE
    HATTINDAKİ FAALİYETLERİ DE AYNI ORANDA ETKİLEYECEĞİ İFADE EDİLMİŞTİR.
    3.
    ARZ EDİLEN HUSUSLARLA İLGİLİ GELİŞMELERİN ZAMANA BAĞLI KALMAKSIZIN BİLDİRİLECEĞİNİ.
    PARAFE/KOORD
    İ
    NE
    KALEME ALANIN
    İ
    MZA BLOKU
    MÜS
    AADE EDEN
    İ
    N
    İ
    MZA BLOKU
    (İMZALIDIR)
    ERTAN ŞAHİN
    P.KUR
    .
    BNB.
    PL.SB.
    (İMZALIDIR)
    İ
    RFAN ÖZSERT
    TU
    Ğ
    GENERAL
    TÜRK TEMS
    İ
    L HEYET B
    Ş
    K.
    SAYFA
    MESAJIN GELD
    İĞİ
    MESAJIN ÇEK
    İ
    LD
    İĞİ
    1/1
    TSG
    İŞ
    LETMEN
    TSG
    S
    İ
    STEM
    İŞ
    LETMEN
    www.NordicMonitor.com

    According to a memo that provided a readout of the meeting, Deedrick told the Turkish general that the US Defense Department had made a decision to shift some of the tanker planes deployed at Incirlik Airbase to the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) because of a growing need for these capabilities in the region. As a result some of the close air support capabilities in the Iraqi and Syrian theatres would be reduced nearly by 27 percent on a temporary basis, Deedrick explained.

    The memo shoots holes in the Turkish government narrative and appears to be yet another piece of evidence that the US actually had nothing to do with the coup attempt. It also undermines the government argument that Incirlik Airbase, which the government propagandists claimed played a crucial role in the events of July 15, was not really relevant in the limited mobilization. Nevertheless, that did not prevent Turkish prosecutors from launching criminal investigations connected to the base, In fact, they decided to investigate not only Turkish officers but also a number of US service people who were deployed at the base.

    One would have expected the US to beef up its logistical capabilities in Turkey in preparation for the coup if it had really been involved as the government claimed, according to one expert Nordic Monitor spoke to on condition of anonymity. The opposite took place, and the US decided to reduce its footprint by deploying some of its tanker planes to the Africa command, according to this document, the expert said.


    Irfan Özsert

    During the meeting with Özsert, the US general further noted that he would be going to Ankara on July 17 to meet with the US ambassador as well as representatives of the Office of Defense Cooperation Turkey (ODC-T), which is a US Security Assistance Organization (SAO) to Turkey. He said he would have a better grasp of the developments and would pay another visit to Özsert upon his return. Nordic Monitor previously published confidential documents showing how US servicemen and US defense contractors were the subject of coup investigations in Ankara due to regular meetings and contacts with their Turkish counterparts. Meetings that were scheduled long before as part of multi-year service contracts for Turkish military procurement needs were also treated as suspicions activities by Turkish prosecutors.

    The role Gen. Özsert played at Incirlik Airbase during the July 15 events was also questioned by experts. According to the secret document, he was acting as the Turkish military representative (Türk Askeri Temsil Heyeti Başkani) when he met with the US general. While he was accusing his colleagues, including the commander of Incirlik Airbase, Bekir Ercan Van, of involvement in the coup, he claimed he was on temporary duty at Incirlik but did not explain what that temporary assignment was.

    It was also quite odd that while the Turkish command at Incirlik was on a terrorism alert and troops were deployed to counter a possible attack, Özsert kept his distance for reasons that were not explained. Instead he talked to an unidentified person in Ankara and received a different set of instructions, while his colleagues were ordered within the chain of command to report to their positions.

    In his statement Özsert said he contacted Gen. Zekai Aksakallı, commander of the Special Forces who played in a key role in orchestrating what many believe to have been a false flag coup bid in cooperation with the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT). Military experts also found it strange for Özsert to have made contact with Aksakallı, who was not his commanding officer. The question of why Gen. Özsert did not contact his superior officer on the night of July 15 remains unanswered.

    Özsert further claimed that he ordered the removal of flight equipment from tanker planes to cut off fuel supplies for F-16s in the air on the night of July 15 but later stated that he identified three tanker planes taking off from the base to provide fuel for fighter jets that were alleged to have been involved in the coup events. How did those tanker planes manage to fly when key flight equipment had been removed and they were disabled? Numerous inconsistencies in Gen. Özsert’s statement were not addressed, either, in the indictments or hearings in several leading cases in which alleged putschists were tried. As seen in dozens of other coup cases, the government-appointed judges seemed to be in rush to convict pro-NATO officers en masse on dubious charges during the trials without leaving much room for the defense to contest the evidence presented by prosecutors.


    Irfan Özsert’s passport was leaked by the al-Marsad news outlet when he used it to travel to Libya where he and agents from MIT were reportedly involved in a clandestine operation to support Islamist groups.

    For the clandestine role he played in and around Incirlik Airbase, Özsert was rewarded by President Erdoğan and promoted to major general two weeks after the failed coup. He was one of only four generals to attain that rank, while two-thirds of all flag officers in NATO’s second largest army were dismissed and/or jailed on dubious terrorism and coup plotting charges. He was later appointed to head of the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (Genelkurmay İstihbarat Başkanlığı). In August 2019 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general.

    Özsert and his team of defense and intelligence officials were exposed when their passports were published by the al-Marsad news outlet earlier this year. They were reportedly involved in classified military and intelligence operations in Libya, where the Erdoğan government was providing supplies, technical expertise and military assistance to armed Islamist groups. He is currently head of the the Defense’s Ministry Defense and Security Directorate (Milli Savunma Bakanlığı Savunma ve Güvenlik Genel Müdürlüğü).

    In the coup trial concerning events at General Staff headquarters, Lt. Kübra Yavuz testified that she was deprived of food, beaten, tortured and electrocuted while in custody for two days at a shooting range on the General Staff compound to give a false statement while blindfolded and handcuffed from behind. She said the torture was carried out on the orders of Gen. Özsert and Gen. Aksakallı to coerce her to provide a false statement. She said she recanted her initial statement when she was finally brought before a court to stand trial in June 2018, two years after the incidents in question.

    Yavuz was working for the protocol section at the General Staff and escorted MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan to the main door when he wrapped up a meeting with Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar in the evening hours of July 15. Many believe Fidan and Akar, who had had long meetings the day before, hammered out the final details of the false flag coup attempt at that meeting held at General Staff headquarters. As soon as Fidan left the building, the mobilization started, with units deployed to various locations on the pretext of responding to an imminent terrorist threat to military installations.

    3. 

    A wounded protester is taken to receive first aid during clashes with security forces in Baghdad, Iraq, over corruption and Iran’s growing influence, Nov. 28, 2019. (AP/Khalid Mohammed)
    Iraq protest
     Dec 1, 2019
    “While the Iranian regime is killing its own people, European countries rush to support that very murderous regime ,” Netanyahu declares. “Now is the time to change course.”

    Despite the danger, the people of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon continue to risk their lives and protest against the tyrannical Islamic regime.

    Yet while the Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons and terrorizing its own people as well and the entire Middle East, European countries continue to support the Ayatollahs.

    Netanyahu is right. These countries should be ashamed of themselves! Now is the time for them to change course and follow the American lead.

    4.

    4’lü zirve sonrası Macron’dan açıklama: Türkiye’ye geleceğiz

    Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı Emmanuel Macron, Suriye, Libya ve diğer konuları görüşmek üzere İngiltere, Fransa ve Almanya olarak, gelecek yılın ilk üç ayında Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ile tekrar bir araya geleceklerini belirtti.

    4'lü zirve sonrası Macron'dan açıklama: Türkiye'ye geleceğiz
    04.12.2019 
    Macron, Londra’da düzenlenen NATO Liderler Zirvesi’nin ardından basın toplantısı düzenlendi.
    “NATO’nun beyin ölümü gerçekleşti” yönündeki ifadesini, zirvede ülkelerin maddi katkılarının konuşulmaması için kullandığını belirten Macron, zirve sırasında bir araya geldiği birçok liderlere Fransa‘nın Rusya ile ilişkileri hakkında bilgi verdiğini söyledi.

    Türkiye ile terörün tanımı konusunda bir konsensüsün oluşması mümkün değil.” diyen Macron, Avrupa’nın savunmasını önemsediğini ancak bunun NATO’ya alternatif olmadığını kaydetti.

    Macron,  “Avrupa’nın istikrarı ve güvenliği ancak Rusya ile sağlam bir ilişki kurarak garanti edilebilir.” ifadesini kullandı.

    Avrupa’nın istikrar ve güvenliğinin önemli olduğunu ifade eden Macron, Rusya’nın artık NATO’nun düşmanı olmadığını vurguladı.

    Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan dün, İngiltere Başbakanı Johnson, Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı Macron ve Almanya Başbakanı Merkel ile Suriye konulu zirvede bir araya gelmişti.

    Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan dün, İngiltere Başbakanı Johnson, Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı Macron ve Almanya Başbakanı Merkel ile Suriye konulu zirvede bir araya gelmişti.

    “DİYALOĞUN GÜÇLENDİRİLMESİ GEREKİYOR”

    Macron, El Kaide ve DEAŞ’ın düşmanları olduğunu dile getirerek, “Türkiye’nin güvenliği ve terörün bedelini ağır ödemesine duyduğum saygı ve müttefiklik ilişkimiz kapsamında, DEAŞ’in yeniden canlanmaması adına Suriye’nin kuzeydoğusundaki durum ile ilgili diyaloğun güçlendirilmesi gerekiyor. Bu konuda diyalog eksikliği oldu ve müttefikler arasında saygıda kusur edildi.” diye konuştu.

    “YENİDEN BİR ARAYA GELECEĞİZ”

    Macron, dün Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan, Almanya Başbakanı Angela Merkel ve İngiltere Başbakanı Boris Johnson ile gerçekleştirilen Dörtlü Zirve’yi hatırlatarak, “Suriye, Libya ve diğer konularda E3 ülkeleri olarak Türkiye ile diyaloğu sürdürmeye karar verdik. 2020’nin ilk üç ayında muhtemelen Türkiye’de tekrar bir araya geleceğiz.” dedi.

    Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı, Türkiye ile anlaşamadıkları konular bulunduğunu ancak diyaloğun devam etmesi gerektiğini söyledi.

    FRANSA’NIN AFRİKA’DAKİ ASKERİ VARLIĞI

    Macron, Mali’de 13 Fransız askerin hayatını kaybetmesinin ardından Fransa’nın Afrika’daki askeri varlığına ilişkin eleştirelere de cevap verdi.

    Fransa’nın Sahel ülkelerindeki askeri varlığının meşru olduğunu savunan Macron, “Kısa zamanda, G5 Sahel üyesi 5 ülkedeki askeri varlığımız ve siyasi şartlarımız konusuna açıklık getirmemiz gerekiyor. Bu ülkelerden, Fransa ve uluslararası toplumdan talepleri konusuna açıklık getirmesini ve resmi olarak duyurmasını bekliyoruz. Bize ihtiyaçları olup olmadığına karar vermeliler.” ifadelerini kullandı.

    Fransa’nın bölgedeki askeri varlığının, bu ülkelerin vereceği karara göre devam edip etmeyeceğini dile getiren Macron, bu bağlamda G5 Sahel ülkelerini (Mali, Burkina Faso, Nijer, Çad ve Moritanya) 16 Aralık’ta Fransa’nın Pau kentine davet ettiğini duyurdu.

    KAYNAK: AA

    6.

    ABD’den son dakika açıklaması:  ‘nun vazgeçilmez bir parçası

    ABD Savunma Bakanı , Amerikan güçlerinin ‘nin kuzeydoğusundan çekilme işlemlerinin tamamlandığını açıkladı. Esper, ayrıca ‘nin başından bu yana “‘nun vazgeçilmez bir parçası olduğunu” vurguladı.

    Türkiye NATO'nun vazgeçilmez bir parçası

    İngiliz haber ajansı Reuters’a özel mülakat veren Mark Esper’in açıklaması, ABD Başkanı ‘ın ekim ayında ‘den çekilme kararını vermesinin ardından bölgedeki Amerikan askeri varlığına yönelik belirsizliği ortadan kaldırdı.

    ABD’li bakan, ülke genelinde daha stabil pozisyonda yaklaşık 600 Amerikan askerinin bulunduğunu aktardı. , Avrupalı müttefikler Suriye görevi için katkı sağladığı takdirde, bölgedeki Amerikan askeri sayısını düşürebileceklerini de sözlerine ekledi.

    Esper, “Koalisyon tekrar konuşuyor. Bazı müttefiklerin gönüllü askerler göndermek istediğini görüyoruz. Müttefik bir ülke, bir NATO ülkesi, bize 50 kişi vermeye karar verirse, 50 kişiyi (Amerikan askeri) devre dışı bırakabilirim” dedi.

    7.

     Başkanı   ile güçlü

    Başkan ’da  Başkanı ’la bir araya geldi. ABD Başkanı “  ile daha güçlü” dedi. NATO Zirvesi’nde, birlik beraberlik çıktı. 29 ülke “Birbirimizi korumak adına hepimiz birimiz, birimiz de hepimiz i hareket edecek” yazan metne imza attı.

    Erdoğan, Trump’la yarım saatlik zirve gerçekleştirdi. ‘den enerji konusuna kadar ‘nin kararlılığını bir kez daha iletti.

     Başkanı da önemli mesajlar verdi: Harika bir görüşmeydi. Sınır ve güvenli bölge çok iyi gidiyor.  üyesi Türkiye iyi iş çıkarıyor.

    NATO Zirvesi’nde, birlik beraberlik çıktı. 29 ülke “Birbirimizi korumak adına hepimiz birimiz, birimiz de hepimiz için hareket edecek” yazan metne imza attı.

    ‘daki NATO Zirvesi’nde, birlik beraberlik çıktı. Ülkeler fikir birliğine vardı.

    HEPİMİZ BİRİMİZ İÇİN BİRİMİZ NATO İÇİN
    Başkan ‘ın katıldığı NATO’nun 70. Kuruluş Yıldönümü toplantısı, birlik beraberlik mesajıyla sona erdi. Londra Deklarasyonu’na 29 ülkenin liderleri imza attı. Buna göre:

    Çin’e karşı birlik olma kararı verildi.

    Rusya ile ilişkilerin açık tutulacağı kayda geçirildi.

    Baltık ülkelerinin güvenlik planları kabul edildi.

    “Terörizm bütün türleri ve tezahürleriyle hepimiz i tehdit olmaya devam ediyor” vurgusuna yer verildi.
    Müttefiklerin terörle mücadele konusunda kararlı olduğu ve bu çerçevede birlikte daha güçlü adımlar attığı kaydedildi.
    “Farklılıklarımız ne olursa olsun, asıl görevimizin etrafında birleşmeye devam edeceğiz. Birbirimizi korumak adına hepimiz birimiz, birimiz de hepimiz için hareket edecek” denildi.

    “KENETLENELİM”
    NATO Genel
     Sekreteri Jens Stoltenberg, “NATO kurulduğundan beri fikir ayrılıkları olmuştur. Üyelerimiz iletişim alt yapısının güvenliği konusunda mutabık kaldılar. Müttefiklerimiz aynı zamanda ortak yük paylaşımı konusunda görülmemiş iş birliği yaptı. Tüm müttefiklerimizi korumak için planlarımız mevcut. Bizim birinci amacımız savaş açmak değil barıştır. Savaşları engellemektir. Bunun en iyi yolu çelik gibi bir kenetlenmedir. Bir müttefike saldırıldığında bu ittifaktan karşılık görmek demektir” ifadelerini kullandı.

    TERÖRE KARŞI İŞBİRLİĞİ
    Başkan Erdoğan, NATO’nun bir yenilenme ihtiyacının ortada olduğunu belirtti. İttifakın, terör örgütlerinden kaynaklanan asimetrik tehditler karşısında çok daha kararlı ve etkin davranması gerektiğine vurgu yaptı. Türkiye’nin terörle mücadelesinde müttefik ülkelerden daha fazla dayanışma beklediklerini kaydetti.

    8.

    NATO’nun beyin sağlığı nasıl?!

    ●Londra

    05.12.2019

    Londra’daki NATO zirvesi, bir öncekinde de olduğu gibi hayli sancılı geçiyor… Zirve öncesinde, Türkiye’ye siyasi ve psikolojik baskı amaçlı yoğun bir karalama teşebbüsü vaki oldu. Türkiye’nin NATO’ya şantaj yaptığını söyleyecek kadar işi ileri götürdüler. Tabiatıyla Türkiye, bu hücumlara bütün kademelerde en net cevapları verdi. Barış ve istikrarın korunması için, NATO’nun bölgesel ve küresel harekât merkezlerinde, en fazla katkı veren beş ülkeden biri olduğunu hatırlattı. Yasa dışı göç ve insani misyon konularında, bilhassa en fazla destek veren üç ülkeden biri olarak, Türkiye’nin NATO’ya olan katkılarının asla inkâr edilemeyeceğini belirtti… Bu gerçeklere rağmen, karalama çabalarının altında ne yatıyor? En önce bunun sebebi, Batı’nın bencil ve hatalı yaklaşımlarıdır. 1980’li yılların sonunda, Sovyetler Birliği’nin dağılacağına dair emareler yayılırken, Ronald Reagan ve Margaret Thatcher gibi dişli siyasetçiler, NATO’nun bundan sonraki düşman renginin “Kızıl” yerine “Yeşil” olacağını söylüyorlardı… 1991’de Sovyetler Birliği resmen dağıldığında ve Varşova Paktı tarihe karıştığında, NATO’ya artık ihtiyaç olup olmadığı hararetle tartışılmıştı. 1992’de Yugoslavya’nın dağılmasıyla birlikte, Sırpların Bosna Hersek’te başlattığı soykırım, katliam ve toplu tecavüz vahşeti, tam üç sene boyunca AB ve ABD tarafından sadece seyredildi. 20. Yüzyılın bitiminde, bu utanç verici faciaya tam üç yıl sessiz kaldıktan sonra, nihayet 1995 Ağustos ayında, Sırp vahşetine karşı NATO harekete geçebilmişti… Fakat 11 Eylül 2001 saldırısından sonra, aynı NATO, ABD’nin peşinden Afganistan’a sürüklenmek için bu kadar beklememişti! Hele hele 2011 Mart’ında, Libya’yı bombalamak için; Fransa, BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin kararını bile beklemeden harekete geçmişti…
    Peki, 2007’de, Elize Sarayı’nın bahçesine, Kaddafi’nin bedevi çadırını kurdurtan Sarkozy’nin acelesi neydi acaba? Yoksa kendisinin seçim kampanyası için, Kaddafi’den aldığı yüklü miktarda rüşvetin izlerini silmek miydi hedefi? Şimdilerde tuhaf tavırlarıyla dikkat çeken Macron’a bunu birileri sormuyor mu? Hani, “NATO’nun beyin ölümü gerçekleşiyor” derken neyi kastediyor, daha açıkçası neyin peşinde? Merkel ile rekabet amaçlı, birtakım teşebbüslerde bulunmaya çalışırken kendisini De Gaulle filan mı zannediyor? De Gaulle, iki dünya savaşında da görev yapmış, daha sonra da Fransa’nın başına ikinci defa geçen bir liderdi. Ülkeyi nükleer güç hâline getirdikten sonra, ABD hegemonyasına kafa tutmuş ve bu sebeple de, 1966 yılında Fransa’yı NATO’nun askerî kanadından çekmişti…
    Evet, o zamanlar Fransa yükselen güçtü… ABD’nin kendisini müstemleke gibi görmesine (Fransa’daki üsleri tepe tepe kullanıyordu) son vermek için, NATO’nun genel merkezini; ABD’nin elli bin asker ve sivil memuru ile birlikte, Fransa dışına (Belçika’ya) yolladı… Ancak Fransa 43 yıl sonra (2009), Sarkozy döneminde, yeniden Paktın askerî kanadına dönme ihtiyacı hissetti. ABD’nin bastonu olarak, Macron’un; Güney Savunma Planına karşı çıktığı, Türkiye’nin de onayıyla… Acemi Macron, kendisini dev aynasında görüyor. Bu zata, birileri asla De Gaulle gibi bir rol oynayamayacağını hatırlatmalı herhâlde… 1960’larda Fransa, ABD’ye karşı bağımsız hareket etme hamleleri yapıyordu. Ama bugün aynı Fransa’da, üniversiteli gençler “Açız…” diye sokaklarda nümayiş yapıyor! Emmanuel Macron, boyundan büyük laflar ederken, bu tabloyu gözünün önünden ayırmamalı. Nitekim “NATO’nun beyin ölümü gerçekleşiyor…” lafı üzerine, Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan’dan çok sert bir zılgıt yedi. Macron, Trump’ın koltuğu altında bir yere gidemeyeceğini fark etse kendi yararına olacak… Çünkü Trump uyanık tüccar olarak, tahsilat peşinde ve başta Almanya-Fransa olmak üzere, AB ülkelerine savunma için daha fazla para harcayın diyor. “Gayri Safi Millî Hasılanızın yüzde ikisini bu işe ayırın. Sizi daha fazla sırtımızda taşımak zorunda değiliz” diyor. AB bu azarları işitmekten fena hâlde rahatsız, ama NATO konusunda ilave bir şeyler yapmak için de istekli görünmüyor. Bu arada Macron, tam tersine daha çok şey bekliyor havasında…
    Londra zirvesinin en sıcak konusu, NATO’nun Baltık ve Polonya için hazırlanan yeni savunma planı… Türkiye bu konuda açık tavrını koydu. Suriye’nin kuzeyi için önerdiği güvenli bölge ve oradaki PKK/PYD tehdit unsurunu içine alan, “Güney Savunma Planı” açıkça desteklenmeden ve terör örgütüne karşı, NATO tarafından resmî ortak dayanışma tutumu açıklanmadan, Baltık Planına destek vermeyeceğini peşinen ilan etti. Kısacası Türkiye nereden gelirse gelsin, dayatmaları asla kabul etmiyor, etmeyecek. Bu kararlı tavrımızı artık müttefiklerimizin anlaması ve hazmetmesi gerekiyor. 1974 Kıbrıs Harekâtı’ndan sonra, Yunanistan; müdahaleye mâni olamadığı için protesto maksadıyla, NATO’nun askerî kanadından çekilmişti. Daha sonra dönmek istediğinde ise, Türkiye’nin vetosu ile yüz yüze geldi. Sivil hükûmetler, ABD’nin zorlamasına direndi. Ne var ki, 12 Eylül Darbesinden sonra; askerî yönetim, karşılığında hiçbir taviz almadan itirazı kaldırdı ve böylece Yunanistan dönebildi!..
    Şunu net olarak belirtelim ki, Türkiye 1980’lerin, 90’ların Türkiye’si değil. Batı’nın anlamak istemediği şey de bu. Ama anlayacaklar. Birileri bizi dışlamak istiyor. Ama unutmasınlar, Türkiye NATO’nun ikinci büyük ordusuna sahip… Tarihî mirasının icabı olarak, yeni çekim merkezi olma yolunda ilerliyor. Dolayısıyla NATO meselesi bizim için yegane alternatif değil. Biliyoruz ki, yeni bir dünya düzeninin oluşma sancıları yaşanıyor. İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında kurulan BM de, NATO da, artık günümüz şartlarına cevap veremiyor. Üstelik ABD, her iki kuruluşu kendi emellerine alet ediyor!.. Bu sakil durum devam edemez. Dünya siyasi dengeleri yerine oturmadan da, çalkantılar sona ermez. Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan’ın ifadesiyle, NATO artık kendini güncellemeli. Atlantik Paktı’nın beynindeki hasar, ancak ciddi bir reformla tedavi edilebilir…

    TÜRKİYE GAZETESİ

     9.

    (Esty Dziubov/TPS)
    Dec 4, 2019
     
    A Special Forces undercover unit arrested two ISIS terrorists who planned to carry out an attack in Jerusalem on Independence Day, the police revealed Wednesday.

    By TPS

    A Special Forces undercover unit led the operation to arrest two Islamic State (ISIS) operatives who planned to carry out a terrorist attack in Jerusalem on Israel’s Independence Day, the police revealed Wednesday.

    Following the publication of an indictment by the Jerusalem District Attorney’s Office against Ahmad Ja’abis, 21, and Basel Abidat, 19, for their alleged membership in a terrorist organization and prohibited action with terror-related property, the police disclosed that the Border Police’s undercover unit conducted the arrests in Jerusalem.

    On the night of October 28, dozens of troops simultaneously raided two houses in the Jabel Mukaber neighborhood.

    “The moment the conditions ripened, we dispatched forces to arrest them in two houses in the village,” said an officer who oversaw the operation.

    The indictment published by the Jerusalem District Attorney charges that the defendants acted together and separately to join ISIS and support it in various ways.

    In September 2019, the defendants discussed the possibility of committing a terrorist attack at various locations in Jerusalem or at a military base in the Jordan Valley area, with the aim of killing as many Jews as possible in ISIS’ name.

    The defendants discussed the possibility of acquiring weapons to carry out a shooting attack during a mass event in Jerusalem at the Safra Square in front of the Town Hall or at the Sultan Pool during the Independence Day celebrations.

    They also discussed the possibility of carrying out a stabbing attack if they could not obtain firearms.

    Additionally, during 2016-2019, the defendants surfed on various websites covering ISIS military, religious and political activities, and watched instructional videos and read training manuals on how to produce explosives and rockets.

    In June 2019, Abidat tried to join ISIS in Sinai but failed in doing so. Ja’abis raised a sum of NIS 2,000 and transferred it through another man to ISIS.

    “The special police units of the Israeli police, including the Border Police, will continue to work creatively and resolutely with all security organizations in order to thwart terror and protect the lives of Israeli citizens throughout the country,” the police stated.

    Over the past several years, Israeli security forces have arrested several cells in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority (PA) which were inspired by ISIS or which had actual connections with the terror organization.

    10. ΕΔΩ ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΛΑΜΟΓΙΑ ΔΗΜ/ΦΟΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΡΟΣ-ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑΤΟΣ!

    Journalists Against Free Speech

    A strange new world.

     

    Reprinted from City Journal.

    Suppose you’re the editorial-page editor of a college newspaper, contemplating the big news on campus: protesters have silenced an invited speaker and gone on a violent rampage. Should you, as a journalist whose profession depends on the First Amendment, write an editorial reaffirming the right to free speech?

    If that seems like a no-brainer, you’re behind the times. The question stumped the staff of the Middlebury Campus after protesters silenced conservative social thinker Charles Murray and injured the professor who’d invited him. The prospect of taking a stand on the First Amendment was so daunting that the paper dispensed with its usual weekly editorial, devoting the space instead to a range of opinions from others—most of whom defended the protesters. When a larger and more violent mob at the University of California at Berkeley prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, students at the Daily Californian did write a forceful editorial—but not in favor of his right to speak. Instead, they reviled Yiannopoulos and denounced those who “invited chaos” by offering a platform to “someone who never belonged here.”

    Free speech is no longer sacred among young journalists who have absorbed the campus lessons about “hate speech”—defined more and more broadly—and they’re breaking long-standing taboos as they bring “cancel culture” into professional newsrooms. They’re not yet in charge, but many of their editors are reacting like beleaguered college presidents, terrified of seeming insufficiently “woke.” Most professional journalists, young and old, still pay lip service to the First Amendment, and they certainly believe that it protects their work, but they’re increasingly eager for others to be “de-platformed” or “no-platformed,” as today’s censors like to put it—effectively silenced.

    These mostly younger progressive journalists lead campaigns to get conservative journalists fired, banned from Twitter, and “de-monetized” on YouTube. They don’t burn books, but they’ve successfully pressured Amazon to stop selling titles that they deem offensive. They encourage advertising boycotts designed to put ideological rivals out of business. They’re loath to report forthrightly on left-wing censorship and violence, even when fellow journalists get attacked. They equate conservatives’ speech with violence and rationalize leftists’ actual violence as . . . speech.

    It’s a strange new world for those who remember liberal journalists like Nat Hentoff, the Village Voice writer who stood with the ACLU in defending the free-speech rights of Nazis, Klansmen, and others whose views he deplored—or who recall the days when the Columbia Journalism Review stood as an unswerving advocate for press freedom. While America has seen its share of politicians eager to limit speech, from John Adams and Woodrow Wilson (who both had journalists prosecuted for “sedition”) to Donald Trump (who has made various unconstitutional threats), journalists on the left and the right have long shared a reverence for the First Amendment, if only out of self-interest. When liberals supported campaign-finance laws restricting corporations’ political messages during election campaigns, they insisted on exemptions for news organizations. One could fault them for being self-serving in this selective censorship, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in its Citizens United decision, but at least they stood up for their profession’s freedom.

    Today, though, journalists are becoming zealous to silence their ideological rivals—and the fervor is mainly on the left. During the 1960s, the left-wing activists leading Berkeley’s Free Speech movement fought for the rights of conservatives to speak on campus, but today’s activists embrace the New Left’s intellectual rationalizations for censorship. To justify the protection of an ever-expanding array of victimized groups, theorists of intersectionality—the idea that subgroup identities, such as race, gender, and sexuality, overlap to make people more oppressed—have adapted Herbert Marcuse’s neo-Marxist notion of “repressive tolerance.” Marcuse propounded that Orwellian oxymoron in the 1960s to justify government censorship of right-wing groups that were supposedly oppressing the powerless.

    Greg Lukianoff, who has fought free-speech wars on campus for two decades as the head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), dates the ascendancy of the new censors to 2013, when student protesters at Brown University forced the cancellation of a speech by Raymond Kelly, the New York City police commissioner. “For the first time, rather than being ashamed of this assault on free speech, most people on campus seemed to rally around the protesters,” says Lukianoff, coauthor of The Coddling of the American Mind. “That’s when we started hearing the language of medicalization, that free speech would cause medical harm. Outsiders dismissed this as a college phenomenon and predicted that these intolerant fragile kids would have to change when they hit the real world. But instead, they’re changing the world.”

    This change can be seen at the once-stalwart ACLU, which has retreated to a new policy of rejecting First Amendment cases when the speech in question “can inflict serious harms” on “marginalized communities.” That’s the paternalistic rationale for campus speech codes, which have repeatedly been declared unconstitutional but remain popular, especially among Democrats and young people. In a national survey in 2017 by the Cato Institute, a majority of Democrats (versus a quarter of Republicans) said that the government should prohibit hate speech, and 60 percent of respondents under age 30 agreed that hate speech constitutes an act of violence.

    Even journalists are adopting these attitudes, as Robby Soave observed while reporting on young radicals in his book Panic Attack. A decade ago, when Soave was an undergraduate on the University of Michigan’s student paper, his fellow editors stood in the Hentoff tradition: devout leftists but also free-speech absolutists. Starting around 2013, though, Soave saw a change at Michigan and other schools. “The power dynamic switched on campus so that the anti-speech activists began dominating the discourse while those who believed in free speech became afraid to speak up,” says Soave, now a writer for Reason. “Campus newspapers, especially at elite institutions, have become increasingly sympathetic to the notion that speech isn’t protected if it makes students feel unsafe. And now you’re seeing these graduates going into professional journalism and demanding that their editors provide a safe workplace by not employing people whose views make them uncomfortable.”

    The result is what Dean Baquet, the New York Times executive editor, recently called a “generational divide” in newsrooms. The progressive activism of younger journalists often leaves their older colleagues exasperated. “The paper is now written by 25-year-old gender studies majors,” said one Washington Post veteran. She wouldn’t speak for the record, though: as fragile and marginalized as these young progressives claim to be, they know how to make life miserable for unwoke colleagues.

    If their publication is considering hiring a conservative, or if a colleague writes or tweets something that offends them, young progressives express their outrage on social media—sometimes publicly on Twitter, sometimes in internal chat rooms. The internal chat is supposed to be confidential, but comments often get leaked, stoking online outrage. It takes remarkably little to start the cycle, as Times opinion writer Bari Weiss discovered last year. Weiss, already in disfavor among progressives for criticizing aspects of the #MeToo movement, got into trouble for celebrating the Olympic performance of gymnast Mirai Nagasu, the American-born daughter of Japanese immigrants. Weiss adapted a line from the Hamilton musical to tweet: “Immigrants: They get the job done.” Weiss was promptly attacked for describing Nagasu as an immigrant, making her guilty of a progressive offense known as “othering.”

    HuffPost’s Ashley Feinberg, who did her own version of othering by labeling Weiss a “feminist apostate” and “troll,” published the leaked transcript of an internal chat among Times staffers in which Weiss’s tweet was compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The staffers called for an expansion of the company’s program in implicit-bias training to combat the paper’s “microaggressions” and “hostile work environment.” Weiss tried explaining that she’d been aware of the gymnast’s family background and had been using poetic license, but eventually she tweeted her surrender: “I am being told that I am a racist, a ghoul and that I deserve to die. So I deleted the tweet. That’s where we are.”

    Ian Buruma, the editor of The New York Review of Books, was fired for publishing an article by a man accused of sexual assault (a Canadian journalist who’d been acquitted of the charges in court but saw his career ruined). Buruma was doomed by online outrage, a staff revolt, and threats from university presses to withdraw advertising. Harper’s was similarly roiled by internal rebellion and online fury for publishing articles by John Hockenberry, the NPR host who lost his job over sexual harassment accusations, and by Katie Roiphe, whose criticism of #MeToo was controversial even before the magazine published it. Rumors about the pending article prompted Nicole Cliffe, a columnist at Slate, to call for freelance writers to boycott Harper’s unless it killed Roiphe’s piece; Cliffe even offered to compensate them for any money they lost by withdrawing their articles. Her preemptive strike didn’t stop publication of the Roiphe article, but it did inspire at least one company to withdraw an ad from Harper’s.

    The Atlantic faced a campaign to fire Kevin Williamson shortly after he was hired away from National Review. Writers at theNew Republic, the New York Times, Slate, Vox, the Daily Beast, and other outlets called him unfit for the job. They were particularly appalled by an earlier podcast in which Williamson, in a spirit of provocation, said that women who have abortions deserved the same punishment as those who commit first-degree murder, even if that meant hanging. The Atlanticinitially stood by him, and Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of its star progressive writers, even praised Williamson’s work and said that he’d advised hiring him. But the online dragging and internal discontent soon led to his exit. At a staff meeting (a video of which was leaked to HuffPost) after Williamson’s firing, Coates apologized to his colleagues. “I feel like I kind of failed you guys,” he said.

    The online outrage against Williamson was fanned by Media Matters for America, the nonprofit that employs dozens of researchers to dig up damaging material on conservatives—or, at least, material that will sound especially bad if it’s quoted without context. (Williamson, for instance, had also expressed reservations about imposing the death penalty for any crime.) One Media Matters researcher, heroically profiled in the Washington Post, spent ten hours a day listening to recordings from 2006 to 2011 of Tucker Carlson’s conversations with Bubba the Love Sponge, a shock-jock radio host. Media Matters published some of Carlson’s cruder comments and followed up with new ones on subsequent days to keep the story alive and provide ammunition for activists demanding that corporations stop advertising on Carlson’s Fox News show. The campaign succeeded in pressuring advertisers like Land Rover and IHOP to abandon the program, which runs fewer commercials than it did last year.

    It’s easy to see why progressive activists have made advertising boycotts one of their chief weapons against Fox, Breitbart, and other conservative outlets. What’s harder to fathom is why so many journalists have cheered a tactic that’s bad for their profession. This kind of boycott is different from the traditional ones against companies accused of bad behavior like mistreating their workers or polluting the environment. In this case, companies are targeted not for the way they run their businesses but simply for advertising their wares. Jack Shafer, the longtime media critic, has been a lonely libertarian voice warning of the threat that this poses to journalism and public discourse. “I barely trust IHOP to make my breakfast,” he wrote in Politico. “Why would I expect it to vet my cable news content for me?”

    Journalists have traditionally prided themselves on their independence from advertisers. Now the boycotters want to end that independence. If advertisers start being held accountable for content, their aversion to controversy will put pressure on media companies to churn out bland fare that won’t risk offending anyone. “It’s easy to imagine today’s boycotts turning into tomorrow’s blacklist,” wrote Shafer.

    Instead of worrying about this threat to their autonomy, journalists at progressive and mainstream publications have promoted it. Activists announce boycotts regularly, but these rarely make an impact unless they get widespread public attention. Sleeping Giants, an activist group leading the boycotts, has gotten lots of publicity (and web traffic) from largely uncritical articles heralding its leaders’ pure motives. Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post’s media columnist, acknowledged that there might be a problem if boycotters aimed at a provocative outlet like Gawker—a left-leaning site that meets her approval—but she couldn’t bring herself to condemn the tactic. Quite the reverse: “To those who sympathize with Sleeping Giants’ objections to online racism, sexism and hate-mongering—count me in this number—their efforts seem worthwhile, sometimes even noble.”

    Other journalists have explicitly endorsed the Carlson boycott, including Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, and Michelangelo Signorile of HuffPost. Some have even pitched in to pressure the advertisers directly. Jenna Amatulli, a reporter at HuffPost, published a list of the show’s advertisers, complete with links to their contact information, and wrote that she had “reached out” for statements from each company—meaning, in effect, that she had personally threatened them with bad publicity. No one wants to be named in a story accusing an advertiser of supporting “racism,” “white nationalism,” and “misogyny,” Carlson’s alleged sins, reported as established facts in HuffPost articles.

    Other HuffPost reporters used similar tactics against Daryush Valizadeh, known as Roosh, a male critic of feminism who ran a website called Return of Kings. After the reporters “reached out” to Amazon, YouTube, and other companies that enabled Roosh to collect online revenue, Amazon removed some of his books, and YouTube banned him from livestreaming. HuffPost triumphantly reported the campaign’s outcome: “Rape Apologist ‘Roosh’ Shutting Down Website After Running Out of Money.”

    How would the management of HuffPostreact if conservative journalists similarly “reached out” to its advertisers? I put that question to Lydia Polgreen, the editor-in-chief, noting that it would be easy to find articles (like one by Jesse Been defending violence against Trump supporters) that could scare off corporations. She dodged the question, referring me to a spokesperson’s bland statement about HuffPost being trusted by advertisers because of its “factual insights.”

    A few conservatives have tried these censorious tactics against liberals, with little success. They’ve hired researchers to dig up damaging social-media posts by liberal reporters—a move that Polgreen called an “extremely alarming” threat to “independent journalism,” though it’s precisely what her HuffPost staff and Media Matters do to conservative journalists. Some conservatives responded to the Fox boycotts by announcing counter-boycotts against MSNBC, but these efforts got virtually no press coverage. Conservative journalists eagerly criticize the bias of their progressive colleagues, but they don’t have the same power to censor—or the same zeal.

    To get an idea of the imbalance, consider the cases of Quinn Norton, a libertarian technology writer, and Sarah Jeong, a progressive technology writer. After the Times announced that it was hiring Norton for its editorial page, it took just seven hours for progressives to get her fired. On Twitter and in an internal Times chat room (as HuffPost reported), Norton was attacked for having tweeted that she was friends with a neo-Nazi hacker whom she had covered. She had always repudiated his ideology, calling him a “terrible person,” but that wasn’t enough to save her job. Six months later, in August 2018, when the Times hired Jeong for the editorial page, conservative activists unearthed tweets from Jeong, an Asian-American, denigrating white men as well as whites as a race. One used a hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople”; another predicted that whites would soon go extinct and said, “This was my plan all along.” The Times stuck with its decision to hire her. (The paper recently announced that Jeong would no longer be part of its editorial board, though she will continue as a contributing writer.)

    Conservative journalists criticized the Times for its double standard, but they didn’t unite with the online activists demanding that Jeong be fired. The Times’s Bret Stephens wrote a column urging the paper to overlook the offensive tweets. In New York, Andrew Sullivan lambasted Jeong’s bigotry and the progressive dogma that it’s impossible to be racist against whites, but he, too, urged the Times not to fire her because media companies should not succumb to online mobs. You might think that Sullivan’s forbearance would win him some points with progressives, and perhaps even make them question their own enthusiasm for purges, but the column didn’t play well even with Sullivan’s colleagues at New York. Brian Feldman, an associate editor, tweeted: “Andrew Sullivan’s newest column is complete garbage and I’m embarrassed to be even tangentially associated with it.” Not exactly collegial, but again, that’s where we are.

    Another thought experiment: suppose, after a small organization announces a march in support of abortion rights, that an alliance of antiabortion protesters vows to shut it down. As the marchers proceed, they’re confronted by a much larger group of counterprotesters wearing masks, carrying clubs, and chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” The counterprotesters block the marchers’ progress and throw eggs, milk shakes, and rocks at them. Fights break out, inspiring a news article: “Six people were injured today in clashes between anti-murder demonstrators and a far-left group linked to infanticide. Leaders of the anti-murder protesters blamed the left-wing group for provoking the violence and vowed to ‘continue defending ourselves and the most vulnerable members of our society.’ ”

    Are there any right-wing journalists capable of misreporting a story so dishonestly? They haven’t had a chance to try. There’s no group of right-wing masked thugs who regularly try to stop left-wing speeches and marches. The “no-platforming” strategy is a specialty of Antifa, the left-wing network whose members have brawled at conservative and Republican events in Berkeley, San Jose, Charlottesville, Washington, D.C., Boston, Portland, Vancouver, and other cities. They describe themselves as “anti-fascist,” a ludicrous term for a masked mob suppressing free speech, but journalists respectfully use it anyway.

    Media coverage obscures Antifa’s aggression by vaguely reporting “clashes” between antifascists who claim to be acting in “self-defense” (though they typically outnumber their enemies by at least four to one) against the violence of “racists” and “white supremacists” of the “alt-right.” It doesn’t matter if the conservative group is rallying to support free speech—hardly a traditional priority for fascists—and has specifically banned white supremacists from participating. Enterprising journalists can always find someone at the rally somehow linked to what some left-wing organization has designated a dangerous “hate group.” And journalists can turn to the much-quoted Mark Bray, a historian at Dartmouth, to provide a rationale for the masked mob’s tactics. In his Anti-Fascist Handbook, Bray acknowledges that Antifa’s no-platforming strategy infringes on others’ free speech but maintains that it is “justified for its role in the political struggle against fascism” and approvingly describes violence as “a small though vital sliver of anti-fascist activity.”

    This coverage jibes with the media narrative that the great threat to civil liberties comes from the right, a rationale used for censoring conservatives. If a lone sociopath with right-wing leanings turns violent, commentators rush to blame it on the “climate” created by President Trump and Fox News, which makes no more sense than blaming Elizabeth Warren for the recent killing spree in Dayton by a supporter of hers, or blaming MSNBC for the Rachel Maddow fan who opened fire on Republican members of Congress in Alexandria, Virginia. Violent young men certainly exist on the right, but no conservative academic or journalist tries to rationalize their attacks as “self-defense.” They can post online threats and domination fantasies, but they don’t have the numbers or the institutional power to silence their opponents.

    Yet most journalists obsess over right-wing dangers while ignoring or downplaying the actual violence on the left. There are exceptions, like Peter Beinart of TheAtlantic, who has warned about Antifa and criticized The Nation and Slate for celebrating one of its assaults (the punching of white nationalist Richard Spencer). But few others have paid much heed to Antifa. Some, like Carlos Maza and the New Republic’s Matt Ford, have praised its milk-shaking tactic. While working at Vox, Maza tweeted, “Milkshake them all. Humiliate them at every turn. Make them dread public organizing.” He has also tweeted, “Deplatform the bigots,” and put that idea into practice with the outspoken support of Vox’s executives. His pressure on YouTube triggered the “Vox Adpocalypse,” in which YouTube cut off advertising revenue to Steven Crowder and other conservative commentators.

    Outside of conservative and libertarian outlets, Antifa hasn’t attracted much scrutiny, even as its followers have assaulted journalists. (They also stood outside Carlson’s home, chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”) The latest victim is Andy Ngo, a writer for Quillette, City Journal, the Wall Street Journal, and other publications, whose coverage of Antifa’s violence led to threats and harassment from the group’s members over the last two years. In June, Ngo was attacked at a rally in Portland for men’s rights that attracted two dozen supporters. They were opposed by 400 protesters who blocked streets and threw milk shakes handed out by organizers. As Ngo was reporting, masked Antifa protesters rushed him, stole his camera, showered him with milk shakes and eggs, kicked him, and pummeled his head, cutting his face and tearing his earlobe. He was hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage.

    Any attack on a journalist for reporting usually inspires displays of professional solidarity, but the Wall Street Journal was the only major newspaper to editorialize in support of Ngo. The Committee to Protect Journalists, which issues frequent news bulletins on threats to the press, published nothing on the assault. Last year, the committee ran a detailed report on American journalists who felt threatened by the far right (none of whom had been physically injured), but it seems uninterested in Antifa.

    Some progressive journalists condemned the assault on Ngo but faulted him and the conservative organizers of the rally for inviting violence, as in a HuffPost article headlined “Far-Right Extremists Wanted Blood in Portland’s Streets. Once Again, They Got It.” Aymann Ismail, a staff writer at Slate, tweeted, “This is bad, but Ngo has done worse.” The Portland Mercury tried discrediting Ngo by claiming that he previously had been complicit in an attack by right-wingers on Antifa—a baseless claim debunked by Reason’s Soave but nonetheless repeated by the Daily Beast, Vice, and Rolling Stone. Zack Beauchamp of Vox condemned the physical assault on Ngo but offered excruciating rationalizations for Antifa’s rage. “The mere fact that Ngo was assaulted doesn’t say what the meaning of that assault is, or what the broader context is that’s necessary to understand it,” he wrote, explaining that the controversy “isn’t really a debate about press freedoms” but rather about “two divergent visions of where American politics is.” One of those visions just happens to require silencing the other side.

    Free speech should be of special interest to the Columbia Journalism Review, which calls itself “the leading global voice on journalism news and commentary.” But CJR sees the issue through a progressive filter. It not only criticized The New York Review of Books and Harper’s for publishing articles by journalists fired for sexual harassment but also essentially advocated a blacklist: “The men who feel they have been unfairly treated following accusations of harassment or abuse are entitled to their perspective, but nothing demands that editors turn over the pages of their publications to these figures.” CJRapplauded Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for “stemming the flow of toxic ideas” by banning “hate-mongers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones.” After the violence at Berkeley and Middlebury, CJRurged reporters covering campus unrest to “be wary of amplifying flashpoints that match Trump’s own ‘intolerant left’ narrative,” and it has been following its own advice.

    CJR showed little interest in Antifa’s censorious tactics until prompted recently by Quillette, the online magazine devoted to “dangerous ideas,” which has run articles by journalists and academics on the culture wars over free speech. Eoin Lenihan, a researcher in online extremism, reported in May on an analysis of the Twitter users who interact most heavily with Antifa sites. Most turned out to be journalists, including writers for the Guardian, the New Republic, and HuffPostas well for pro-Antifa publications. Following a group closely on Twitter, of course, doesn’t mean that one endorses its activity; journalists do need to track the subjects they cover. But these journalists seemed more devoted to promoting the cause than covering it impartially. “Of all 15 verified national-level journalists in our subset, we couldn’t find a single article, by any of them, that was markedly critical of Antifa in any way,” Lenihan wrote. “In all cases, their work in this area consisted primarily of downplaying Antifa violence while advancing Antifa talking points, and in some cases quoting Antifa extremists as if they were impartial experts.”

    CJR responded to Lenihan’s article—but not by analyzing the press coverage of Antifa. Instead, it ran an article, “Right-Wing Publications Launder an Anti-Journalist Smear Campaign,” by Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch, a project of the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way. Holt’s article was a mix of ad hominem attacks, irrelevancies, and inaccuracies. Cathy Young, who wrote about the controversy for Arc Digital, concluded that every key point in his argument was wrong. Even worse was what Holt omitted. He didn’t even address Lenihan’s main conclusion: that press coverage of Antifa was biased—the issue that should have been most relevant to a journalism review.

    Yet CJR remained uninterested in Antifa even after the subsequent assault on Andy Ngo. This past summer, it ran an article about rightists attacking journalists in Greece, but Ngo’s assault didn’t even rate a mention in CJR’s daily digest of journalism news. The only reference to the Portland melee was a summary of a Media Matters article criticizing Fox News for its coverage. Fox, like other outlets, had quoted a report from the Portland police that some of the milk shakes handed out by Antifa contained quick-drying cement, but no other evidence existed that this was true. To the nation’s leading journalism review, that was apparently the most important lesson of the episode for reporters: be careful not to exaggerate the violence of leftists opposed to free speech. And never mind that a journalist is in the hospital as a result of that violence.

    Is there any hope of reviving the spirit of Nat Hentoff on the left? The zeal for banning “hate speech” doesn’t seem to be abating, though some progressives are developing a new appreciation for the First Amendment, thanks to Trump’s incoherent comments about it, like his offhand remark that “bad” speech is not “free speech” because it is “dangerous.” While the dangers of Trump’s “war on the press” have been exaggerated—no matter how much he’d like to silence “fake news CNN” or the “failing New York Times,” the courts won’t suspend the First Amendment to please him—there is a danger of the federal government stifling speech on social media.

    There’s some bipartisan support in Congress and even among journalists for removing what’s been called the Internet’s First Amendment: the exemption that allows social media platforms to publish controversial material without being held legally liable for it. Removing the exemption appeals to some Democrats who want to restrict “hate speech,” and to some Republicans, too, angry at the platforms for censoring right-wing voices. This censorship is often blamed on social media companies’ progressive bias, which may well exist, but it’s due at least in part simply to the greater external pressure from progressive activists and journalists. If progressives keep trying to de-platform their opponents—and if Twitter and Facebook and YouTube keep caving to the pressure—there’ll be more bipartisan enthusiasm to restrict all speech on social media.

    A more immediate danger is self-censorship by writers fearful of being fired or blacklisted and by editors fearful of online rage, staff revolts, and advertising boycotts. After the firing of Williamson, The Atlantic (to its credit) published a dissent from that decision by Conor Friedersdorf, in which he worried about the chilling effect it would have on the magazine’s writers and editors, and how their fear of taking chances would ultimately hurt readers. That’s the danger at every publication that bows to the new censors. Resisting them won’t be easy if journalism keeps going the way of academia.

    But all editors and publishers can take a couple of basic steps. One is to concentrate on hiring journalists committed to the most important kind of diversity: a wide range of ideas open for vigorous debate. The other step is even simpler: stop capitulating. Ignore the online speech police, and don’t reward the staff censors, either. Instead of feeling their pain or acceding to their demands, give them a copy of Nat Hentoff’s Free Speech for Me—but Not for Thee. If they still don’t get it—if they still don’t see that free speech is their profession’s paramount principle—tactfully suggest that their talents would be better suited to another line of work.

    11. ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΠΟΙΗΤΕΣ “ΔΙΕΘΝΕΙΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΙ”! ΜΕ ΤΟ ΝΑ ΘΕΛΕΤΕ ΝΑ ΡΙΞΕΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΤΡΑΜΠ (ΜΕ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΛΙΟΠΑΤΣΑΒΟΥΡΑ, ΜΕ ΤΟ ΠΑΡΚΙΝΣΟΝ, ΤΗΝ ΚΥΡΑ ΠΕΛΟΣΙ, ΠΟΥ ΗΤΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ “ΛΑΓΟΣ” ΤΗΣ ΧΙΛΑΡΙ), ΕΠΕΙΔΗ ΣΑΣ ΞΕΦΥΓΑΝ ΟΙ ΕΞΕΛΙΞΕΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΞΕΛΕΓΗ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ ΤΩΝ Η.Π..Α., ΔΙΧΖΑΖΕΤΕ ΤΙΣ Η.Π.Α.,ΜΕΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΔΙΧΑΣΜΟ Η.Π.Α. – ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ, ΠΟΥ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΗΣΑΤΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΙΔΙΟ ΛΟΓΟ, ΚΑΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΒΕΒΑΙΟ ΠΩΣ ΑΥΤΟ ΘΑ ΤΟ ΠΛΗΡΩΣΕΙ ΣΥΝΟΛΙΚΑ Η ΔΥΣΗ, ΣΕ ΜΙΑ ΛΙΑΝ ΠΙΘΑΝΗ ΑΝΑΜΕΤΡΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΡΩΣΙΑ! ΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΜΕ ΘΥΜΗΘΕΙΤΕ!.. ΓΙ’ ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙ Ο ΤΡΑΜΠ,ΜΕΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΣΤΗΜΕΝΗ ΠΑΡΑΠΟΜΠΗ ΤΟΥ ΑΝΑΡΡΩΤΗΘΗΚΕ, ΑΝ ΟΙ “ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΙ” ΑΓΑΠΑΝΕ ΤΙΣ Η.Π.Α.!.. ΟΣΟ ΓΙΑ ΤΑ ΛΑΜΟΓΙΑ ΠΟΥ ΛΕΝΕ ΕΙΡΩΝΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΧΕΤΑ, ΔΗΜ/ΦΕ ΚΟΥΤΡΑ, “ΚΑΛΗΜΕΡΑ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΟΥΣ ΤΟΥ  ΤΡΑΜΠ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ”, ΜΑΘΕ, ΕΠΕΙΔΗ ΜΑΣ ΔΙΑΒΑΖΕΙΣ, ΠΩΣ ΕΜΕΙΣ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΜΑΣΤΕ ΤΟΥ ΤΡΑΜΠ, ΑΛΛΑ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ! ΑΝ ΜΑΣ ΔΙΑΒΑΣΕΙΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΑΡΧΗ, ΘΑ ΑΡΧΙΣΕΙΣ ΝΑ ΜΕΤΡΑΣ ΤΙΣ ΦΟΡΕΣ ΠΟΥ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘΕΙ ΣΕ Ό,ΤΙ ΓΡΑΨΑΜΕ!.. 

    Pelosi Palooza

    Stalinist-friendly San Francisco Democrat aims to undo the 2016 election from abroad.

     

     

    “By coming here, we want to say to everyone we are still are still in, the United States is still in.”

    That was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the United Nations climate conference in Madrid this week, with an all-Democrat delegation in tow. What the United States was “still in,” according to Pelosi, was the climate accord from which President Trump had withdrawn.

    “We aren’t here to talk about impeachment of the president of the United States,” Pelosi proclaimed, “We’re here to talk positively about our agenda to save the planet for future generations.” On the other hand, the Speaker’s actual agenda was already on full display.

    With Judiciary Committee boss Jerrold Nadler gearing up for impeachment hearings in Washington, Pelosi was countermanding President Trump’s decisions and claiming to represent the United States. From a UN platform in a foreign country, Nancy Pelosi echoes the Democrat charge that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president who stole the 2016 election. In effect, she now tells the world that Trump will soon be gone, and this comes as no surprise.

    The supposedly moderate Pelosi has reversed herself and green-lighted the impeachment proceedings as a solemn duty for the benefit of the nation. In other areas the Speaker remains remarkable consistent, and revealing.

    “Thanksgiving is an all-American holiday,” Pelosi said in a statement last week. “when our country recognizes the great blessings that have been bestowed upon our nation.” The Bible’s wisdom in the Book of Ecclesiastes, Pelosi explains, “is echoed in the song ‘Turn! Turn! Turn!’ by Pete Seeger.” He is the only person named in her message, without the back story of the strumming Stalinist.

    Seeger joined the Communist Party in 1942, after the Stalin-Hitler Pact and in 1945 became director of People’s Songs, Stalinist evangelism wrapped in populist pieties. At that time, as Bobby Gentry might say, everything was an “Ode to Uncle Joe.”

    Seeger was not the most talented American Stalinist, trailing Paul Robeson, Lillian Hellman, and others, but he never flagged in zeal. In his emeritus years, Seeger joined the campaign to “Free the Cuban Five,” operatives of the Communist Castro regime that gave Seeger a prize. As it happens, the banjoist Bolshevik was not Pelosi’s only Stalinist star.

    “Harry Bridges was arguably the most significant labor leader of the twentieth century,” Pelosi wrote in the Congressional Record in 2001, on the 100th anniversary of Bridges birth. Bridges was “beloved by the workers of this nation, and recognized as one of the most important labor leaders in the world” and his International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union was “the most progressive union of the time.”

    In reality, Harry Bridges was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party USA, directly approved by the Kremlin. True to form, Bridges “progressive” union obeyed every twist and turn of the Party line. In 1948 and 1952, the Communist Party did not field candidates and instead backed the Progressive Party. Bay Area lawyer Vincent Hallinan was the Progressive Party candidate for president in 1952, and Nancy Pelosi is a veteran cheerleader for the Hallinan family.

    By 1968, the Communist Party was again fielding candidates and in 1976 Gus Hall got a vote from college student John Brennan, who would go on to head the CIA. In 1979, American Communist Angela Davis won the Lenin Peace Prize and in 1980 and 1984 Davis joined the ticket under Gus Hall. Ronald Reagan crushed them, and as Marxist.org notes, after that the CPUSA urged voters to support the Democrat Party. The influence still shows.

    Like the Communists, the Democrats maintain a single party line on most issues and mouth the same slogans in lockstep fidelity. They choose for their congressional leader not some thirty-something rising star capable of proven accomplishments and capable of working across the aisle. They pick a leftist fossil like Nancy Pelosi, in Congress since 1987, an aging champion of Harry Bridges and Vincent Hallinan, and careful to give thanks for Pete Seeger.

    In 2016, Nancy Pelosi signed a statement celebrating New Left Icon Tom Hayden, a high-profile supporter of the Vietnamese Communist regime that deployed the speeches of Hayden and Jane Fonda as a sound track for torture sessions of Americans. The statement hailed “the movement for social justice that lives on in the platform and the people of our Party.”

    Throughout the Cold War, the Democrat Party was a servile appeaser of Communist Russia, with Sen. Ted Kennedy even seeking covertly to deploy Russian aid against Reagan in 1984. After the victory of Donald Trump in 2016, the Democrats changed course and erupted in McCarthyite rage.

    “What do the Russians have on Donald Trump, politically, financially and personally?” Pelosi wondered in July of 2018, during the height of Mueller probe hysteria. Pelosi postured as an opponent of impeachment but a look at the current Democratic field convinced her to go all-in on the hearings by serial prevaricator Adam Schiff, essentially a Stalinist show trial.

    With Nadler’s sequel gearing up and President Trump in London for a NATO meeting, Nancy Pelosi flies to Spain and tells the world “the United States is still in.” And now abide Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi, but the greatest of these is Pelosi.

    12. ΕΚΤΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΞΑΝΘΗ, ΠΟΙΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΡΑΓΕ “ΠΙΣΩ” ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ  ΠΑΝΑΙΤΩΛΙΚΟ, ΤΟΝ Ο ΠΛΑΤΑΝΙΑ, ΤΟΝ ΑΤΡΟΜΗΤΟ, ΤΟΝ ΗΡΑΚΛΗ, ΤΗΝ ΒΕΡΟΙΑ, ΤΟΝ ΒΟΛΟ, ΤΟΝ ΑΣΤΕΡΑ ΤΡ.; 

    ΠΙΣΩ” ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΛΑΜΙΑ, ΤΟΝ ΠΑΝΙΩΝΙΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ Ο.Φ.Η.; ΑΠΟ ΠΕΡΥΣΙ ΤΑ ΓΡΑΦΑΜΕ! ΠΟΣΑ ΑΡΑΓΕ ΛΕΦΤΑ ΕΧΟΥΝ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΣΤΟ… ΠΑΡΑΣΚΗΝΙΟ ΟΙ ΣΑΜΠΙΝΤΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΑΝΙΔΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΥΡΙΩΣ Ο ΣΑΜΠΙΝΤΙΣ;

    Χάνει και τον τίτλο των Πρεσπών!

    Χάνει και τον τίτλο των Πρεσπών!
    Πέμπτη, 5 Δεκεμβρίου 2019 

    *** ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΟ : Τα περισσότερα στοιχεία, λέει, τα έδωσε … ο πατέρας του γιού ! ***

    *** ΕΝ όψει των δύσκολων δικαστικών αγώνων πού θα έχει να δώσει στη συνέχεια, ο Πάοκ θα φροντίσει – όπως μαθαίνω – να ενισχύσει τα νομικό του επιτελείο * ΜΕΤΑΞΥ των υποψηφίων, είναι οι Κοντονής και Βασιλειάδης * ΜΕ επικεφαλής, βεβαίως, τον Ρασπούτιν ***

    *** ΤΑ έμαθε και ο Χούφτελς τα μαντάτα, λέει* ΚΑΙ μόλις τα έμαθε, εξαφανίστηκε ! * ΟΠΟΥ φύγει – φύγει * Ο ΕΥΡΩΝ Χούφτελς, αμειφθήσεται ***

    ΟΙ ΣΠΑΣΜΩΔΙΚΕΣ ΑΝΤΙΔΡΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΚΝΥΟΥΝ

    ΠΑΝΙΚΟΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΑΟΚ ΕΝ ΟΨΕΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ ΥΠΟΒΙΒΑΣΜΟΥ !

    ΧΑΝΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΤΙΤΛΟ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΕΣΠΩΝ !

    ΟΙ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΞΕΙΣ ΓΑ ΤΟ ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΝΙΣΧΥΡΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΝ ΣΠΑΝΕ ΜΕ ΤΙΠΟΤΑ

    Οι δαιδαλώδεις διαδρομές μεταξύ εταιρειών της παράνομης εξαγοράς δεν καλύπτονται με τίποτα

    *** ΕΧΟΥΜΕ και λέμε λοιπόν * RFA, Vialand, Dimera, Belterra Holdings, Donskoy Tabac, Atlantis Pac … * ΠΑΡΤΕ να ‘χετε * ΚΑΙ … ο τελευταίος να κλείσει την πόρτα, παρακαλώ * ΟΛΕΣ αυτές, είναι οι εταιρείες πού διαβάσαμε και μάθαμε ότι μεσολάβησαν ή ανακατεύτηκαν με διάφορους τρόπους στην υπόθεση της εξαγοράς της ΠΑΕ Ξάνθης από τον Πάοκ * ΑΥΤΕΣ βγήκαν στη φόρα, λέω * ΜΠΟΡΕΙ να είναι κι άλλες, ων οκ έστιν αριθμός! * ΜΠΟΡΕΙ να ξέρει κι’ άλλες ο Ολυμπιακός, μπορεί και να μην ξέρει * ΧΑΜΟΣ γίνεται με τις εταιρείες αυτές * ΕΙΝΑΙ σαν τη Λερναία Υδρα * ΑΜΑ κόψεις μία, δέκα θα ξεπεταχτούν !

    *** ΟΙ δημοσιογράφοι πού έφτιαξαν το ρεπορτάζ στο ONE TV, πρέπει να δούλεψαν πολύ, εξαντλητικά αλλά και υπομονετικά, γα να βγάλουν αυτό το ρεπορτάζ και κυρίως, να βγάλουν άκρη μέσα σ’ αυτό τον κυκεώνα * ΤΟ αποτέλεσμα όμως τους δικαίωσε * ΤΟ σκάνδαλο αποκαλύφθηκε και η αποκάλυψη έσπασε τσιμέντα : * ΝΑΙ, ο Ιβάν Ιγκνιατίεβιτς Σαμπίντι ΕΙΝΑΙ ο ΙΔΙΟΚΤΗΤΗΣ ΔΥΟ ΠΑΕ, του ΠΑΟΚ και της ΞΑΝΘΗΣ !

    *** ΕΓΩ λοιπόν, ΑΥΤΟ λέω και επιμένω * ΚΑΙ δεν έχω καμία απολύτως αμφιβολία γι’ αυτό * ΚΑΙ οι αναγνώστες μου, αυτοί πού διαβάζουν τα γραπτά μου από παλιά, ΞΕΡΟΥΝ επίσης, ΠΟΛΥ ΚΑΛΑ, ότι ΕΙΔΙΚΑ σε τέτοια θέματα, ΣΠΑΝΙΩΣ, για να μην πω, ΠΟΤΕ, δεν έχω πέσει έξω * ΕΠΕΙΔΗ λοιπόν διάβασα και διαβάζω διάφορες … «αντικειμενικές κρίσεις» κάποιων επωνύμων του ποδοσφαίρου πού το παίζουν … «ισορροπιστές» επειδή θέλουν να τα έχουν καλά και με τους δύο, θα προσθέσω για όσους αμφισβητούν ακόμη την ΕΠΑΡΚΕΙΑ των στοιχείων του ΟΝΕ :

    *** ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ, ρε πολυξερίδηδες, για πέστε μου ΠΩΣ ΑΛΛΙΩΣ θα ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΠΤΟΝΤΑΝ η αλήθεια για την εξαγορά της ιδιοκτησίας της Ξάνθης ; * ΘΑ … δήλωνε δημόσια ο Ιβάν ότι κατέχει την πλειοψηφία των μετοχών ; * Η ΜΗΠΩΣ θα κρεμούσε καμιά ταμπέλα έξω από τα αποδυτήρια πού να έλεγε προσοχή, η ομάδα ανήκει στον Ιβαν Ιγκνιατίβιτς Σαμπίντι ; * ΧΩΡΙΣ πλάκες λοιπόν * ΤΑ στοιχεία είναι ΥΠΕΡΑΡΚΕΤΑ και οι πρώτες αντιδράσεις του Πάοκ ΑΝΑΜΕΝΟΜΕΝΑ ΣΠΑΣΜΩΔΙΚΕΣ * ΜΙΛΗΣΕ για γελοιότητες και απείλησε με αγωγές και μηνύσεις * ΤΙ άλλο να έκανε, δηλαδή, από το να προσπαθήσει να ΚΕΡΔΙΣΕΙ ΧΡΟΝΟ ;

    *** ΚΑΘΥΣΤΕΡΗΣΗ παίζει ο Πάοκ με τρία πούλμαν μπροστά από την εστία του * ΓΙΑ να προλάβει να οργανωθεί, πριν τον βρει το μεγάλο κακό * ΚΑΙ να προσπαθήσει κατά το δυνατόν, να ΣΚΕΠΑΣΕΙ τις βρομιές του * ΜΟΝΟ πού είναι τόσες πολλές ώστε να μην προλάβει * ΚΑΙ να ξέρετε, θέλει μεγάλη υπομονή για να καλυφθούν όλες οι ακαθαρσίες, ώστε να μη φαίνονται και να μη μυρίζουν; * ΠΑΡ’ τε παράδειγμα τις γατούλες

    *** ΔΕΝ ξέρω αν έχετε προσέξει τη γάτα πόση ώρα και με πόση προσοχή σκεπάζει τα κακά της ! * ΓΙΑ το ζωντανό αυτό, το σκέπασμα ακαθαρσιών είναι πραγματική ιεροτελεστία * ΣΤΡΕΦΕΙ το κορμί της προς τα πίσω και αρχίζει με τα πισινά της πόδια, μια με το ένα και μια με το άλλο, να ρίχνει χώμα πάνω τους * ΕΠΙ ώρες ατέλειωτες μπορεί να κάνει αυτή τη δουλειά και δεν σταματάει αν δεν πειστεί ότι τα κακά σκεπάστηκαν και δεν φαίνονται, ούτε μυρίζουν

    *** Ο ΠΑΟΚ δεν είναι γάτα * ΔΕΝ το έχει στη φύση του, δηλαδή, σαν κακομαθημένο εκ φύσεως σωματείο, να προσπαθεί να σκεπάσει τις βρομιές του ΑΝΤΙΘΕΤΩΣ, θα έλεγα αρέσκεται να τις αφήνει να φαίνονται * ΚΑΙ να μυρίζουν * ΝΟΜΙΖΩ λοιπόν ότι ο Πάοκ ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΠΡΟΛΑΒΕΙ να καλύψει όσα μπορούν να καλυφθούν * ΠΟΥ σημαίνει κι ότι δεν μπορεί να ΑΠΟΔΕΙΞΕΙ την αθωότητά του * ΚΑΙ κατ’ επέκταση, ότι ΔΕΝ ΓΛΙΤΩΝΕΙ, ότι ΘΑ ΥΠΟΣΤΕΙ τις ΣΥΝΕΠΕΙΕΣ του ΝΟΜΟΥ

    ΑΜΕΣΟΣ Ο ΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΓΙΑ … ΑΚΟΜΗ ΠΙΟ ΧΕΙΡΟΤΕΡΑ !

    ΧΑΝΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΡΣΙΝΟ ΤΙΤΛΟ ΤΟΥ … ΠΡΩΤΑΘΛΗΤΗ ΠΡΕΣΠΩΝ !

    *** ΠΟΙΕΣ είναι οι συνέπειες που θα αντιμετωπίσει αν εφαρμοστούν τα νόμιμα ; * ΕΙΝΑΙ γνωστές και χιλιογραμμένες * ΦΥΣΙΚΑ, πάνω απ’ όλα ο υποβιβασμό πού προβλέπεται σαφέστατα * ΔΕΝ είναι όμως ΜΟΝΟΝ αυτή η ποινή πού τσούζει * ΕΙΝΑΙ κι’ άλλη μία, ΠΟΛΥ ΣΟΒΑΡΗ κυρίως από ΗΘΙΚΗ πλευράς * ΚΑΙ ποια είναι αυτή ; * ΕΝ ολίγοις, η ΑΦΑΙΡΕΣΗ του ΠΕΡΣΙΝΟΥ ΤΙΤΛΟΥ του πρωταθλητή !

    *** ΝΑΙ, όπως το διαβάσατε * ΤΙ ανέφερε μάλιστα κι η νομικός του Ολυμπιακού, η κ. Σουλούκου, για όποιον διάβασε με προσοχή τις δηλώσεις της * «ΘΕΩΡΟΥΜΕ ότι τα ζητήματα και του φετινού αγώνα ΠΑΟΚ – Ξάνθη ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΕΡΣΙΝΟΥ πρέπει να μπουν στο μικροσκόπιο και ο καθένας να αναλάβει την ευθύνη του» * ΤΙ είχε γίνει πέρυσι ; * Ο ΠΑΟΚ είχε κερδίσει ΔΥΟ φορες την Ξάνθη * ΣΤΗΝ Τούμπα με 2-0 και στην Ξάνθη με 1-2 * ΑΥΤΑ τα δυο τουλάχιστον παιχνίδια τα χάνει * ΔΙΟΤΙ απλά, θα αποδειχθούν ΣΤΗΜΕΝΑ * ΟΠΟΤΕ, χάνει ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΤΙΤΛΟ

    *** ΒΕΒΑΙΩΣ, δεν μπορώ να παραβλέψω την βαθύτερη σημασία της ΣΟΦΗΣ κουβέντας : «Στην Ελλάδα ζούμε» ! * ΣΩΣΤΟ, αλλά ποτέ δεν πρέπει να πάψουμε να ελπίζουμε * ΟΤΙ κάποτε και κάποιες φορές ίσως η πραγματικότητα θα μας κάνει να ξεχάσουμε πως ζούμε στην Ελλάδα, ότι θα αναπνεύσουμε και θα βιώσουμε λογικές και ΑΞΙΕΣ άλλων πιο ΑΝΕΠΤΥΓΜΕΝΩΝ χωρών * ΕΚΕΙΝΩΝ, πού βάζουν αξίες όπως η ΗΘΙΚΗ, η ΙΣΟΝΟΜΙΑ και η ΕΦΑΡΜΟΓΗ των νόμων το ίδιο ΓΙΑ ΟΛΟΥΣ, πάνω απ’ όλα

    ΠΑΟΚ : ΤΑ ΕΠΟΜΕΝΑ ΒΗΜΑΤΑ

    ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΠΟΙΗΣΗ ΜΕ ΠΙΕΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΚΥΒΡΝΗΣ

    ΑΙΧΜΗ ΤΟΥ ΔΟΡΑΤΟΣ ΟΙ ΑΝΤΙΔΡΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΠΑΔΩΝ

    *** ΝΟΜΙΖΩ ότι μπορώ να μαντέψω τις επόμενες κινήσεις του Πάοκ * ΤΑ περί μηνύσεων κι αγωγών και διαφόρων προσφυγών στη Δικαιοσύνη, ξεχάστε τα * ΜΟΝΟ για καθυστέρηση είναι ατά, διότι νομικά δεν στέκουν ούτε με το «πι» των ορθοπεδικών * ΔΕΝ λέω ότι δεν θα πάνε στα δικαστήρια, αλλά θα το κάνουν γνωρίζοντας πως ούτε να δικαιωθούν πρόκειται, ούτε να κερδίσουν κάτι επί της ουσίας * ΑΠΛΑ, ποντάρουν στο ότι ίσως κάποιοι να φοβηθούν και να σταματήσουν * ΑΥΤΟ όμως δε γίνεται

    *** ΤΟ επόμενο βήμα, η «γραμμή» πού κατά την ταπεινή μου άποψη θα ακολουθήσει ο Πάοκ, είναι η ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΠΟΙΗΣΗ του θέματος * ΒΛΕΠΩ δηλαδή να ασκηθούν πιέσεις μέσω των απόλυτα ΕΛΕΓΧΟΜΕΝΩΝ οπαδών του, προς την κυβέρνηση, αλλά και τους τοπικούς άρχοντες, ώστε να επιτύχει μία, έστω και επικοινωνιακής μορφής ψευδοεικόνας … «οικουμενικότητα», με ζητούμενο σε στυλ … «κάτω τα χέρια από τον Πάοκ» και άλλα παρεμφερή

    *** ΘΑ πιάσει αυτή η τακτική ; * ΝΟΜΙΖΩ ότι η απάντηση θα προέλθει από την πολιτεία, δηλαδή από την Κυβέρνηση * ΑΝ σήμερα είχαμε κυβέρνηση .. συριζανέλ, η απάντηση θα ήταν κατηγορηματική * «Ο ΠΑΟΚ είναι η αγαπημένη μας ομάδα, βρίσκεται στο απυρόβλητο και δεν τον πειράζει κανείς» * Μ κυβέρνηση Νέας Δημοκρατίας όμως, αν δεν μπορούμε να ξέρουμε τι θα κάνει εν προκειμένω, τουλάχιστον ΜΠΟΡΟΥΜΕ ΝΑ ΕΛΠΙΖΟΥΜΕ, ότι θα πράξει ΤΟ ΣΩΣΤΟ * ΚΑΙ αυτό, είναι το σημαντικότερο όλων ***

    ΤΟ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ ΜΕΛΙΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ

    *** ΤΟΝ Ιούνιο του 2019, ο ΠΑΟΚ ανακοίνωσε την απόκτηση του νεαρού ποδοσφαιριστή Μελιόπουλου από την Ξάνθη, έναντι 800.000 ευρώ * ΑΡΧΕΣ Οκτωβρίου του 2019, ο Μελιόπουλος ανακοίνωσε ότι σταματάει το ποδόσφαιρο * ΣΕ σχετικές του δηλώσεις, είχε αποκαλύψει : * «ΗΡΘΕ μετά τον Οκτώβρη-Νοέμβρη η υπογραφή μου στον ΠΑΟΚ * ΓΙΑ μένα δεν λέει κάτι αυτό, ούτε θέλω να μπω σε λεπτομέρειες, γιατί αυτοί έκλεισαν την μεταγραφή μόνοι τους»

    *** «ΑΥΤΟΙ» … «μόνοι τους» ! ***

    Η ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΗ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ ΓΙΑ ΞΑΝΘΗ

    ΠΕΡΙΕΙΧΕ ΚΑΙ … ΠΑΝΑΙΤΩΛΙΚΟ !

    *** ΤΟΝ περασμένο Μάϊο, ο δημοσιογράφος Γιώργος Γεωργίου, ως πρόεδρος της ΠΑΕ Απόλλων Σμύρνης, έκανε ΠΡΩΤΟΣ με επίσημη δήλωση, την ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΗ : * «ΔΕΝ υπάρχει Πανόπουλος στην Ξάνθη, την έχει αγοράσει ο Σαββίδης * ΚΑΙ το άλλο δεν το ξέρεις, ότι αγόρασε και τον Παναιτωλικό * ΕΦΤΑ εκατομμύρια * ΤΗΝ Ξάνθη την έχει αγοράσει από πέρυσι, ενώ τον Παναιτωλικό τον πήρε πριν από είκοσι ημέρες * ΒΑΡΕΘΗΚΕ ο Κωστούλας, κουράστηκε», είπε

    *** ΤΟ επόμενο … λεπτό, ο Γιώργος Γεωργίου εξέπεσε από τη θέση του προέδρου της ΠΑΕ Απόλλων * ΑΥΤΟ όμως δεν σημαίνει και ότι δεν είχε πεί την ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ * ΑΝΤΙΘΕΤΑ, η σπασμωδική αντίδραση εναντίον του, ήταν ΤΡΑΝΗ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΞΗ της ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑΣ * ΤΟΣΟ η Ξάνθη, όσο κι ο Παναιτωλικός, αν θυμάμαι καλά, ψέλλισαν κάτι περί μηνύσεων και αγωγών * ΦΥΣΙΚΑ, ουδείς το αποτόλμησε ***

    *** ΜΕΘΑΥΡΙΟ Σάββατο, ο Ολυμπιακός αντιμετωπίζει τον Παναιτωλικό * ΤΗΝ δεύτερη ΠΑΕ δηλαδή για την οποία ο Γεωργίου ΚΑΤΗΓΓΕΙΛΕ ότι άλλαξε χέρια και αποτελεί ιδιοκτησία του Ιβάν Ιγκνιατίεβιτς Σαμπίντι * ΚΑΙ ως εκ τούτου, ο αγώνας αυτός προσλαμβάνει ιδιαίτερη σημαντικότητα και ξεχωριστό ενδιαφέρον ***

    «Να εφαρμοστούν οι νόμοι και ο κάθε κατεργάρης να πάει στον πάγκο του»

    *** ΜΟΥ γράφει : «ΚΑΠΟΙΟΙ πολιτικοί στην Ελλάδα εκμεταλλεύτηκαν τους πεινασμένους για τίτλους στο ποδόσφαιρο, και αφού τους υποσχεθήκαν εξυγιαντικά ένα νταμπλ κατόρθωσαν να βγάλουν μια τετραετία στην κυβέρνηση * ΕΚΑΝΑΝ ένα λάθος όμως γιατί απαξίωσαν και αδίκησαν την μόνη και πραγματική ομάδα, που μπορούσε να σταθεί και στην Ευρώπη * ΓΙ’ αυτό και οι φίλαθλοι της ομάδας αυτής έστειλαν τους πρώην κυβερνήτες για βρούβες, ανεβάζοντας άλλους στην κυβέρνηση, αφήνοντας όμως κάποια κατάλοιπα των προηγούμενων σε καίριες θέσεις * ΑΝ και η παρούσα κυβέρνηση συνεχίσει την προηγούμενη πορεία, δεν ξαποστείλει τα προοδευτικά απομεινάρια σπίτι τους και ποντάρει στους ψήφους του προηγούμενου μπουλουκιού, που με οποιονδήποτε τρόπο θέλει να αποκτήσει τίτλους, και τους αφήνει ακόμα να παρανομούν, θα έχει την ίδια τύχη με την προηγούμενη * ΓΙΑΤΙ οι ψήφοι τους με όσους εξυγιαντές και να ενωθούν δεν φτάνουν τις δικές μας * ΑΥΤΑ, όσον αφορά τα ψηφοθηρικά παιχνίδια * ΑΛΛΙΩΣ ας κοιτάξουν στην κυβέρνηση να εφαρμόσουν τους νόμους και ο κάθε κατεργάρης να πάει στον πάγκο του * ΓΙΑΤΙ πλέον δεν είναι θέμα αθλητικού φανατισμού, αλλά πολιτικής κοροϊδίας, και ανικανότητας, στην εφαρμογή των νόμων» (

    Ιωάννης Δαραβιγκας ) ***

    «Το…απαλλοτρίωσε ο Ωχ ωχ ωχ (από Χο Χο Χο )»

    *** ΜΟΥ γράφει : * «ΝΑ μη δείτε άνθρωπο να… προοδεύει, να του την πέσετε αμέσως ! * Ο ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ είναι επενδυτής * ΑΓΟΡΑΖΕΙ επιχειρήσεις, αλλά και ακίνητα * ΑΦΟΥ αγόρασε ξενοδοχεία , αποφάσισε να επεκταθεί και στις… αθλητικές εγκαταστάσεις * ΠΟΥ είναι το κακό ; * ΜΕΤΑ τα γήπεδα και τα γραφεία της Ξάνθης, που ξέρετε ; * ΜΠΟΡΕΙ να θέλει να αγοράσει και το περιβόητο γήπεδο που ήταν και χρησιμοποιείτε από τον Ολυμπιακό και ξαφνικά το…απαλλοτρίωσε ο Ωχ ωχ ωχ (από Χο Χο Χο ) Κόκκαλης ! * ΕΤΣΙ, θα μπορούν να δίνουν φιλικά οι Κ19 του Θρύλου με αυτή του Μπάουγκ, αφού θα είναι δίπλα – δίπλα οι εγκαταστάσεις * ΑΥΤΟΣ είναι ο απώτερος σκοπός του Κόκκαλη * ΣΥΝΕΤΑΙΡΙΣΜΟΣ με τον Σαμπίντι σε ΟΛΑ τα επίπεδα ! * ΑΜ, πώς !!! * Η ΡΩΣΙΚΗ αρκούδα έρχεται να βάλει πόδι ΜΕ ΚΑΘΕ ΤΡΟΠΟ στην πολύπαθη Ελλάδα» ( Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδόπουλος ) ***

    (Το κείμενο δημοσιεύτηκε στον «Κόκκινο Πρωταθλητή» στις 05/12)

    13. 

    Erdoğan’ın gizli ve özel ordusu SADAT

    Erdoğan’ın Gezi olaylarının hemen ardından kendisine bağlı özel bir paramiliter güç kurmak için düğmeye bastığını ve bu işin de TSK’dan “İslamcı” oldukları için kovulan bazı subayların oluşturduğu “SADAT” adlı kuruluş tarafından yapılacağını (Ekim 2013’te) gündeme gelmişti.

    SADAT’ın başında 1996 yılında tuğgenerallikten emekliye sevk edilen özel harpçi Adnan Tanrıverdi bulunuyor.

    SADAT’ın faaliyetlerine ilk dikkati çeken de Fransız istihbaratı olmuştu. Fransız istihbarat raporlarında, SADAT’ın Libya, Suudi Arabistan ve Pakistan’da askeri eğitim ve danışmanlık faaliyetleri için görüşmelerde bulunduğuna dikkat çekilerek “Bunun için de dini imajı ve de Erdoğan ile yakın ilişkilerini ön plana çıkarıyorlar”değerlendirmesinde bulunulmuştu.

    Aynı raporlarda, SADAT’a hizmet veren emekli subayların büyük çoğunluğu irticai faaliyetler nedeniyle TSK’dan ilişiği kesilen özel harpçilerden oluştuğuna dikkat çekilmişti.

    Bu arada Adnan Tanrıverdi’nin Türkiye’nin bazı mümtaz basın ve yayın organlarında “SADAT’ı kurmamızı AKP istedi”şeklindeki sözlerine de yer verilmişti.

    İşte bu SADAT, AKP Gençlik kolları ve Osmanlı Ocakları’ndan devşirdiği gençlere Türkiye’nin çeşitli bölgelerinde kurulu kamplarda eğitim veriyor.

    ..Ve Erdoğan, kendi geleceğini bu özel orduya bağlamış gözüküyor.

    Ha, SADAT’ın, Suriye’de Esad rejimine karşı savaşan cihatçı güçlerin eğitiminde de katkı sağladığını belirtelim.

    Adnan Tanrıverdi kimdir?

    Tanrıverdi 1944 yılında Akşehir de doğdu. İlkokul, ortaokul ve liseyi Akşehir’de okudu. 1962–1963 yılları arasında bir yıl öğretmenlik yaptı. 1963 yılında İstanbul Üniversitesi Zooloji bölümüne girdi ancak okulu bıraktı. Tanrıverdi, 1964 yılında Kara Harp Okulu’na girdi. 1967 yılında ise Teğmen rütbesine yükseldi. 1978 yılında Kurmay Subay oldu. Kenan Evren dönemi Tanrıverdi’nin yıldızının patladığı dönem oldu. Evren döneminde NATO çizgisinin ordu içinde yükseldiği hatırlanırsa Tanrıverdi’nin yükselişinin Evren dönemi ile başlaması oldukça anlamlı.

    Adnan Tanrıverdi

    İslamcı bir kimliğe sahip olduğunu gizlemeyen ve orduda dini propaganda yapan Tanrıverdi işte bu yıllarda orduda hızla yükseldi. 1980 yılında Silahlı Kuvvetler Akademisi’ni bitirdi. Kurmay subay olarak; 2. Piyade Tümen Komutanlığı’nda (Adapazarı) İstihbarat Şube Müdürlüğü ve Kurmay Başkan Vekilliği; Kara Harp Akademisi Öğretim Üyeliği; Genelkurmay Özel Harp Daire Başkanlığı Lojistik ve Harekat Şube Müdürlükleri, Kurmay Başkan Vekilliği görevlerinde bulundu. 1980 Ağustosunda Binbaşılığa terfi etti. 1984 yılında Yarbay, 1987 yılında ise Albaylığa terfi etti. 1990 yılında 8inci Kolordu Topçu Alay Komutanlığı (Malazgirt) görevine atandı. Bu görevde iken 30 Ağustos 1992 tarihinde Tuğgeneralliğe yükseltildi.

    Adnan Tanrıverdi’nin Özel Harp Daire Başkanlığı görevi oldukça önemli. Bilindiği gibi Özel Harp Dairesi, Nato’nun Gladyo teşkilatının Türkiye koludur. NATO, komünizm ile mücadele adına tüm Avrupa’da bu teşkilatı örgütledi. Doğrudan Genelkurmay Başkanlığı’na bağlı olan Özel Harp Dairesi, Soğuk Savaş süresince ABD eksenli dünya siyasetinin Türkiye’de oturması için faaliyet yürüttü. 6–7 Eylül’den siyasi cinayetlere, ülkenin pek çok karanlık olayında Özel Harp Dairesi’nin adı geçer. Vakit yazarının bu Özel Harp Dairesi’nde başkanlık yapması Ergenekon tartışmalarının yaşandığı günlerde oldukça ilginç bir tesadüf. Bilindiği gibi her kesimin üzerinde mutabık olduğu konulardan biri kontrgerillanın Özel Harekat Dairesi’ne dayandığı gerçeğidir. Bu durum eski basbakanlardan  Bülent Ecevit tarafından defalarca dile getirilmiştir.

    1992–1995 yılları arasında üç yıl 2. Zırhlı Tugay Komutanlığı (Kartal), 1995–1996 yıllarında da Kara Kuvvetleri Sağlık Daire Başkanlığı görevlerinde bulunduktan sonra 30 Ağustos 1996 yılında, İsmail Hakkı Karadayı’nın genelkurmay başkanlığı döneminde emekli edildi. Oysa Tanrıverdi askerliğe devam etmek istediğini söylüyordu. Ancak onun İslamcı kimliği buna engel oldu.

    Emekli olduktan sonra bir yıl İslamcı yayınları ile bilinen Üsküdar Fm’de yayın koordinatörlüğü yaptı. Ardından ilginçtir TGRT’nin eski sahibi Enver Ören’in sahibi olduğu devre mülk şirketi İhlas Marmara Evleri’nin Camii Yaptırma ve Yardım Derneği Yönetim Kurulunda görev aldı. 2 8 Kasım 2004 tarihinden itibaren de Adaleti Savunanlar Derneği’nin (ASDER) Genel Başkanlığı görevini üstlendi.

    ASDER Muhafazakar çizgiye sahip bir dernek. 7 kurucusunun tamamı ordudan YAŞ kararları ile atılan askerlerden oluşuyor. Dernek ordunun dini bir kimlik ile idaresini savunuyor. Türban yasağını eleştiriyor. Genel olarak ise hükümeti destekleyen çalışmalar yapıyor. Bir dönem Cumhuriyet mitinglerine alternatif olarak düzenlenen ve hükümeti destekleyen Ortak Akıl Hareketi içerisinde ASDER de var. ASDER, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin aldığı kararları sert bir dille eleştiren bildirileri de kaleme aldı. Dernek “Darbeye Karşı Dur De” hareketinin de destekçisi.

    Tanrıverdi Milli Gazete ve Vakit’te de köşe yazarlığı yaptı.

    Dilipak da danışman

    28 Şubat 2012’de Ticaret Sicil Gazetesi’nde yayınlanan şirketin toplam sermayesi 643 bin lira. Şirketin kuruluş amaçları arasında “Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin çıkarlarını gözeterek ihtiyaç duyan dost ülkelere savunma danışmanlığı, güvenlik güçlerinin organizasyonunu yapmak, ihtiyaç duyulan silah, mühimmat, araç gereç ve yiyeceklerinin temini için ihalelere girmek ve bir güvenlik gücünün ihtiyacı olan personel, araç, gemi, uçak, helikopter vs. için eğitim, atış ve simulasyon tesisleri yapmak ve eğitim danışmanlığı hizmeti vermek” de yer alıyor.

    Şirketin danışman kadrosundaki bazı isimler şunlar:

    * Emekli Tuğgeneral Korkmaz Tağma: Askeri Yüksek Sevk ve İdare Danışmanı

    * Emekli Topçu Albay Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zelka: Ekonomi Danışmanı

    * Emekli Öğretmen Kıdemli Albay Mehmet İnkaya: Askeri Eğitim Sistemi ve Rehberlik Uzmanı

    * Emekli Pilot Albay Haluk Yıldırım: Savaş Uçak Pilotu ve Savaş pilotu eğitimi uzmanı

    * Emekli Albay İrfan Çalışkan: Özel Kuvvetler Harekat, İç Güvenlik ve Harita Uzmanı

    SADAT şirketinin web sayfasında Abdurrahman Dilipak ve Nevzat Tarhan’ın isimleri de danışman olarak geçiyor.

    -/-

    TÜRK VE RUS GLADYOSU İŞBİRLİĞİ. ERDOĞAN’IN GİZLİ ORDUSUNA RUS DESTEĞİ. ERDOĞAN’IN KORKUSU.

    -/-

    14.

    Trump, Macron Air Differences at NATO Summit

    By Patsy Widakuswara December 03, 2019

    Differences between U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron were on full display as NATO leaders gathered for a summit in London.

    In an almost 40-minute session with journalists the two leaders clashed on a number of issues including burden sharing within NATO, terrorism, Turkey’s incursion into northern Syria, and the U.S. withdrawal from an arms treaty with Russia.

    The two leaders met hours after Trump criticized Macron for his recent statement describing NATO as experiencing a “brain death,” due to diminished U.S. leadership. Trump called it a “nasty statement.”

    As the two sat down for talks, Trump warned member countries who do not meet NATO’s guideline of spending 2% of GDP on collective defense could be dealt with “from a trade standpoint” referring to tariffs on products including French wine.

    This prompted Macron, who is currently contributing 1.9% of France’s GDB towards NATO’s defense, to push back.

    “It’s not just about money,” Macron said. “What about peace in Europe?” he asked Trump.

    “It’s impossible just to say we have to put money, we have to put soldiers, without being clear on the fundamentals of what NATO should be,” Macron said.

    Macron said he supports a stronger European component in NATO but points out that after the end of the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty, European countries are faced with the new threat of Russian missiles.

    The Trump administration withdrew from the 1987 arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union in August after what it says were Moscow’s repeated violations of the agreement.

    Islamic State threat

    Trump and Macron argued about how to deal with Islamic State after the October withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, a move Trump made without consulting the alliance. The withdrawal paved the way for Turkey to launch an offensive against the U.S.-allied Kurdish militia in northern Syria and triggered fear among allies of a potential IS resurgence.

    In response to a question on whether France should do more to take Islamic State fighters captured in the Middle East, Trump asked Macron if he would like “some nice ISIS fighters”.

    Macron countered that the main problem is IS fighters in the region. Referring to the abrupt U.S. withdrawal from northern Syria, Macron said “you have more and more of these fighters due to the situation today”.

    Macron is “more on the side of those who wants to actually face up to the crisis and talk about it,” said Hans Kundnani of Chatham House. He is the sort of “disruptive factor” compared to other leaders who may choose to paper over disagreements, Kundnani said.

    Earlier Tuesday, as Trump met with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the U.S. president said Macron’s “brain death” comments regarding NATO were “insulting” to other members.

    In the past Trump has repeatedly criticized the alliance as “obsolete” and expressed his desire to leave it. But the president seemed to have changed his tune, saying that NATO “serves a great purpose”.

    The French leader warned in a recent interview with The Economist that European countries can no longer rely on the United States to defend NATO allies and need to start taking care of their own security.

    “As Emmanuel Macron considers complacency as the most pressing danger facing Europe and European security, he is likely to reaffirm his comments and continue to push for all allies to clarify their position in this debate,” said Martin Quencez, Deputy Director of the Paris Office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

    “It is also France’s role to show that the president’s disruptive method can foster constructive reforms, and that his harsh criticisms can be followed by a more positive agenda for the transatlantic partnership,” said Quencez.

    Burden-sharing

    The dispute between two leaders was precisely the kind of flare-up that summit organizers have desperately tried to avoid, as it overshadowed discussions of substance in the summit, including the idea of a more equitable burden-sharing touted by Trump.

    Stoltenberg praised Trump on Tuesday, saying his leadership on the issue is “having a real impact.” He cited a $130 billion increase in defense budgets among the non-U.S. NATO members and said that would go to $400 billion by 2024.

    Only 9 out of 29 member countries currently meet NATO’s guideline of spending 2% of their GDP on collective defense.

    In addition to budget discussions, NATO’s secretary general said leaders would be talking about counterterrorism efforts, arms control, relations with Russia and the rise of China.

    Stoltenberg also rejected the suggestion that NATO is “brain-dead” saying that the alliance is active, agile and adapting. “We have just implemented the largest reinforcements of collective defense since the end of the Cold War,” he added.

    The issue of member countries being delinquent was brought up again in Trump’s meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

    When asked about whether he would defend a country that does not meet its defense spending target, Trump appeared non-committal.

    “I would look at it as a group, but I think it’s very unfair when a country doesn’t pay,” Trump said.

    The principle of collective defense is enshrined in NATO’s Article 5, that an attack on one member is an attack on all of its members. The alliance has only invoked the article once in its history–in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the U.S.

    Cloud of impeachment

    The summit comes as Trump faces an impeachment investigation back home. He repeated his criticism Tuesday of Democrats who control the House of Representatives, saying it is unfair to hold hearings while he is attending the summit.

    Trump is not the first U.S. president to attend a NATO summit under the cloud of impeachment. In 1974 Richard Nixon went to NATO’s 25th anniversary meeting in Brussels while the U.S. House of Representatives was concluding its impeachment inquiry. Nixon stepped down a few weeks later.

    15.

    NATO Secretary General announces increased defence spending by Allies

    NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

    29 Nov. 2019

    Ahead of the meeting of NATO Leaders in London to mark the Alliance’s 70th anniversary, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Friday (29 November 2019) gave details of large increases in Allied defence spending. Mr. Stoltenberg announced that in 2019 defence spending across European Allies and Canada increased in real terms by 4.6 %, making this the fifth consecutive year of growth. He also revealed that by the end of 2020, those Allies will have invested $130 billion more since 2016. Based on the latest estimates, the accumulated increase in defence spending by the end of 2024 will be $400 billion. Mr. Stoltenberg said: “This is unprecedented progress and it is making NATO stronger.’

    The Secretary General also confirmed that more Allies are meeting the guideline of spending 2 % of GDP on defence.  This year, 9 Allies will meet the guideline, up from only 3 Allies just a few years ago.  The majority of Allies have plans in place to reach 2 % by 2024.  Mr Stoltenberg said: “Allies are also investing billions more in new capabilities and contributing to NATO deployments around the world. So we are on the right track but we cannot be complacent. We must keep up the momentum.”

    NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in London on 3-4 December and the Secretary General said he expected they will take decisions to continue NATO’s adaptation, including more improvements to the readiness of Allied forces; recognising space as an operational domain; and updating NATO’s action plan against terrorism.  Leaders are also due to have a strategic discussion on Russia, the future of arms control, as well as the rise of China.

    The Secretary General highlighted how NATO continues to be the bedrock of peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.  He acknowledged that while there were sometimes disagreements among Allies, they have always been able to overcome their differences and unite round their core task; protecting and defending each other.  Mr Stoltenberg said: “Our Alliance is active, agile and adapting for the future.  Standing together, North America and Europe represent half the world’s economic and military might.  In uncertain times, we need strong multinational institutions like NATO. So we must continue to strengthen them every day, to keep all our citizens safe.  And that is what we are going to do when Leaders meet next week.”

    16.

    North Korea Launches Projectile Ahead of End-of-year Deadline

    By William Gallo November 28, 2019

    North Korea confirmed Friday it tested a “super large multiple rocket launcher,” the latest reminder of Pyongyang’s end-of-year deadline for nuclear talks.

    The official Korean Central News Agency said leader Kim Jong Un oversaw the “volley test-fire” on Thursday and “expressed satisfaction” with the results.

    It is North Korea’s 13th round of weapons tests since early May, making 2019 one of its busiest years for missile tests.

    Kim has given the United States until the end of the year to make concessions in nuclear talks that have been stalled since February.

    South Korea’s military said the North fired two projectiles, which traveled about 380 kilometers at an altitude of 97 kilometers before splashing into the ocean.

    The test involved the KN-25 multiple rocket launch system, a short-range weapons system that Pyongyang has tested several times this year.

    By repeatedly testing the KN-25, defense analysts say North Korea has successfully reduced the amount of time it takes to launch successive rockets from the system.

    “The faster it fires, the quicker it can out of dodge before counter-fire arrives,” Jeffrey Lewis, an expert in nuclear nonproliferation with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, said on Twitter.

    During the first two tests of the KN-25 in August and September, it took between 15 and 20 minutes between launches. In a subsequent October test, that number was reduced to 3 minutes. On Thursday, Seoul’s military estimated there were only 30 seconds between shots.

    North Korean state media on Friday proclaimed the test a success.

    “The volley test-fire aimed to finally examine the combat application of the super-large, multiple-launch rocket system proved the military and technical superiority of the weapon system and its firm reliability,” KCNA said.

    In addition to advancing its weapons arsenal, the North Korean tests appear aimed at applying more pressure on the U.S. ahead of Kim’s end-of-year deadline for nuclear talks.

    North Korea last month walked out of working-level nuclear negotiations, blaming Washington for the breakdown. Pyongyang has since warned it could restart nuclear or longer-range missile tests.

    Last week, Kim visited a frontline island near the disputed inter-Korean sea border off the western coast and ordered troops there to conduct an artillery drill.

    Kim and U.S. President Donald Trump have met three times since June 2018, but have failed to make any progress on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

    Talks have been stalled since February, when a summit in Hanoi between Kim and Trump ended in a disagreement over how to pace sanctions relief with steps to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program.

    Almost all of North Korea’s missile test this year have been short range. Trump has said he has “no problem” with North Korea’s short-range launches, since they cannot reach the United States.

    The latest launch came as the United States began celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday. It is only the second time this year North Korea has launched a missile in the evening. All other launches this year have occurred in the early morning hours.

    “North Korea has a keen sense of timing and the political calendar in the US. With the Trump impeachment hearings going on and Thanksgiving, and year-end holidays just around the corner, Pyongyang is ramping up pressure and setting the stage for blaming the U.S. for the next big provocation,” Sung-Yoon Lee, a Korea expert at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, said.

    17.

    Iran Press TV

    Russia plans to sign new S-400 deal with Turkey in first half of 2020: Official

    Iran Press TV

    Tuesday, 26 November 2019 

    A high-ranking Russian military figure says Moscow plans to sign a new contract with Turkey to supply new batteries of the advanced Russian-made S-400 missile defense systems to Turkey in the first half of 2020.

    “We hope that in the first half of 2020 we will sign contract documents. However, I want to emphasize that military-technical cooperation with Turkey is not limited to the supply of S-400s. We have big plans ahead,” Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency quoted the chief executive of Russia’s state-owned arms trade company Rosoboronexport, Aleksandr Mikheev, as saying on Tuesday.

    He went on to say that Ankara has an option for another S-400 regiment, and has already received the terms of reference from Moscow.

    Mikheev noted that the terms of reference provide for the technical support of the project by the Turkish side, including partial localization of the production of individual elements of the system.

    He, however, stopped short of providing any information about what elements and in what volumes would be manufactured in Turkey.

    Mikheev also said Russia and Turkey were discussing the financial side of the new agreement.

    The remarks come only two days after Turkish media outlets reported that Turkey was set to test its S-400 missile defense system despite repeated warnings from Washington that it could lead to sanctions.

    CNN Turk television news network, citing the governor’s office in the capital Ankara as saying, reported on Sunday that the Turkish military planes, including F-16 fighter jets, would conduct low- and high-altitude flights over the city on Monday and Tuesday as part of “anti-air defense system tests.”

    Turkey’s Milliyet newspaper also confirmed that the flights aimed to test the S-400 radar system.

    Pompeo: Turkey’s test of Russian weapons system ‘concerning’

    Also on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described Turkey’s test of its new S-400 missile system as “concerning,” but added that talks between Washington and Ankara to resolve the issue were still underway.
    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks to the media in the briefing room at the State Department, in Washington, DC, on November 26, 2019. (Photo by AFP)

    Speaking at a news conference, Pompeo said the United States has made it clear to Turkey that Washington wants to see Ankara move away from full operation of the system.

    “Yes it is concerning,” Pompeo said, when he was asked about the reports of Turkey carrying out tests with its S-400 system.

    “We are hopeful. We are still talking to the Turks, still trying to figure out our way through this thing,” he said.

    Turkey’s Defense Ministry announced in a statement on September 15 that the delivery of the second battery of S-400 missile defense systems has been completed at Murted Airfield Command, located 35 kilometers (22 miles) northwest of the capital Ankara, and that the systems would become operational in April 2020.

    The first part of the S-400 delivery was completed in late July. Russia delivered 30 planeloads of S-400 hardware and equipment – as part of the initial batch – to Murted Airfield Command.

    Ankara and Washington have been at loggerheads over Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 systems, which the United States says are not compatible with NATO defenses and poses a threat to Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusglu told CNN Turk in an exclusive interview in mid-September that S-400 missile systems would be activated despite repeated US warnings.

    “They (US officials) told us ‘don’t activate them and we can sort this out’, but we told them that we didn’t buy these systems as a prop,” the top Turkish diplomat said, adding that Turkey would be open to buying US-made Patriot surface-to-air missile systems as well.

    On September 9, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Donald Trump’s administration was considering imposing sanctions on Turkey over purchase of S-400 systems, but no decisions have been made yet.

    Cavusoglu told private Turkish-language TGRT Haber television news network in an exclusive interview back on July 22 that his country would take retaliatory measures in case the United States slapped sanctions on Ankara over the Russian-made systems.

    “If the United States portrays an adversarial attitude towards us, we will take retaliatory measures, as we’ve told them. This is not a threat or a bluff. We are not a country that will bow down to those who show an animosity towards Turkey,” he said.

    Cavusoglu added that he did not expect the US administration to take such an action.

    The White House said on July 17 that it was no longer possible for Turkey to be involved in the program for the F-35 stealth jets after parts of S-400 began arriving in Ankara.

    It also said it would impose sanctions on Turkey under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

    The US Congress passed the CAATSA against Russia in August 2017 over allegations of interfering in the 2016 presidential election. The law, among other things, imposes sanctions on countries and companies that engage in contracts to purchase weaponry from Russia.

    Moscow and Ankara finalized an agreement on the delivery of the S-400 in December 2017.

    Back in April 2018, Erdogan and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin said in Ankara that they had agreed to expedite the delivery of the S-400. At the time, it was said that the delivery could be made between late 2019 and early 2020.

    A number of NATO member states have criticized Turkey for purchase of the S-400, arguing the missile batteries are not compatible with those of the military alliance.

    They also argue that the purchase could jeopardize Ankara’s acquisition of F-35 fighter jets and possibly result in US sanctions.

    The S-400 is an advanced Russian missile system designed to detect, track, and destroy planes, drones, or missiles as far as 402 kilometers away. It has previously been sold only to China and India.

    Ankara is striving to boost its air defense, particularly after Washington decided in 2015 to withdraw its Patriot surface-to-air missile system from Turkish border with Syria, a move that weakened Turkey’s air defense.

    Before gravitating towards Russia, the Turkish military reportedly walked out of a $3.4-billion contract for a similar Chinese system. The withdrawal took place under purported pressure from Washington.

    18.

    Radio Free Asia

    Myanmar Rejects US Allegations it Has Chemical Weapons

    2019-11-26 — The Myanmar military on Tuesday denied U.S. accusations that it has violated a chemical weapons convention by possibly keeping a stockpile of the weapons from the 1980s in breach of a convention it signed in 2015.

    U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno said Monday that Myanmar has failed to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) by not disclosing its past chemical weapons programs or destroying a historical chemical weapons production facility.

    Myanmar ratified the convention in 2015. The arms control treaty outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors.

    DiNanno said the U.S. held talks with Myanmar officials earlier this year to make the civilian-led government and military aware of its concerns over the country’s past chemical weapons program and to comply with the CWC, according to the Agence France-Press (AFP) news agency.

    He also said Washington had information that Myanmar had a chemical weapons program in the 1980s that included a sulfur mustard gas development and a chemical weapons production facility.

    DiNanno said the U.S. is ready to help Myanmar if it wants to dispose of any chemical weapons.

    Myanmar military spokesman Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun said the country has neither used nor stored chemical weapons.

    “We don’t have any production, storage, usage, or plans for production of such weapons,” he said.

    “We haven’t had any activities related to these weapons, both before and after signing the convention,” he said. “We are abiding by it.”

    “Currently, there is immense pressure upon our country due to the ICJ lawsuit,” he said. “I think it will be beneficial to our country only if we stay united.”

    Zaw Min Tun said the accusations add even more pressure on Myanmar as it prepares to face genocide charges next month at the U.N.’s top court for the 2017 military-led crackdown on Rohingya Muslims.

    “I see this accusation as part of the U.S. agenda to put more political pressure on Myanmar,” he said.
    Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi will lead the defense team at the ICJ when the first public hearing against the Southeast Asian nation is held in December.

    The country also faces similar legal action at the International Criminal Court and in an Argentine court.

    Chemical weapons factory

    As for the allegations DiNanno raised against Myanmar, Zaw Min Tun said he didn’t know why the U.S. believes that Myanmar may still be keeping leftover chemical weapons produced in the 1980s.

    “I don’t know what his accusation is based on,” he said. “We have had no reason to own chemical weapons, even in the 1980s.”

    Zaw Min Tun said DiNanno also accused Myanmar authorities of using poisonous phosphorus gas in November 2012 against villagers protesting against a Chinese-backed copper mine project in the town of Letpadaung in northwestern Myanmar’s Sagaing region.

    During the violent showdown, police officers used smoke bombs containing phosphorus – a highly flammable chemical – to break up protests, injuring dozens of demonstrators, including Buddhist monks.

    Zaw Min Tun said that police used tear-gas grenades during the crackdown, adding that DiNanno was “picking on the incident and exaggerating it as using poisonous gases.”

    The Myanmar government sent monks who sustained burns to Thailand for medical treatment, he added.

    “If there had been an actual use of chemical weapons, we would have been exposed since then,” Zaw Min Tun said.

    The military spokesman also pointed out that DiNanno mentioned five Myanmar reporters from the publication Unity Journal who received 10-year prison sentences in July 2014 for writing an article accusing the military of producing chemical weapons at a factory.

    “With regard to that case, they were not prosecuted for writing the article about the factory that allegedly produced chemical weapons,” Zaw Min Tun said. “As far as I know, they were prosecuted because they had trespassed into a secured area of the factory compound and taken photos.”

    “Besides, the factory is just a regular defense weapon manufacturing facility, not one producing chemical weapons,” he added.

    Not much of an impact

    Myanmar political and military affairs analyst Maung Maung Soe said the U.S. accusations do not hold much weight because they lack evidence pointing to the actual use of chemical weapons by the military.

    “The accusations refer to many years in the past, so it might be difficult for them to take any action,” he said. “It might take time for them to prove it.”

    He noted the U.S. government’s incorrectly asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, in 2003, but its military forces failed to find them after they invaded the country.

    “Now they are making the same accusation against Myanmar,” he said. “But it is difficult for me to comment since I don’t know if they really have them or not.”

    “The accusations alone wouldn’t make a dent,” he added. “As long as they cannot prove that the military had used them in warfare, it won’t have much of an impact.”

    Reported by Thant Zin Oo for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Ye Kaung Myint Maung. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

    Copyright © 1998-2019, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036. For any commercial use of RFA content please send an email to: mahajanr@rfa.org. RFA content November not be used in a manner which would give the appearance of any endorsement of any product or support of any issue or political position. Please read the full text of our Terms of Use.

    19.

    Radio Free Asia

    Myanmar Rejects US Allegations it Has Chemical Weapons

    2019-11-26 — The Myanmar military on Tuesday denied U.S. accusations that it has violated a chemical weapons convention by possibly keeping a stockpile of the weapons from the 1980s in breach of a convention it signed in 2015.

    U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno said Monday that Myanmar has failed to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) by not disclosing its past chemical weapons programs or destroying a historical chemical weapons production facility.

    Myanmar ratified the convention in 2015. The arms control treaty outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors.

    DiNanno said the U.S. held talks with Myanmar officials earlier this year to make the civilian-led government and military aware of its concerns over the country’s past chemical weapons program and to comply with the CWC, according to the Agence France-Press (AFP) news agency.

    He also said Washington had information that Myanmar had a chemical weapons program in the 1980s that included a sulfur mustard gas development and a chemical weapons production facility.

    DiNanno said the U.S. is ready to help Myanmar if it wants to dispose of any chemical weapons.

    Myanmar military spokesman Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun said the country has neither used nor stored chemical weapons.

    “We don’t have any production, storage, usage, or plans for production of such weapons,” he said.

    “We haven’t had any activities related to these weapons, both before and after signing the convention,” he said. “We are abiding by it.”

    “Currently, there is immense pressure upon our country due to the ICJ lawsuit,” he said. “I think it will be beneficial to our country only if we stay united.”

    Zaw Min Tun said the accusations add even more pressure on Myanmar as it prepares to face genocide charges next month at the U.N.’s top court for the 2017 military-led crackdown on Rohingya Muslims.

    “I see this accusation as part of the U.S. agenda to put more political pressure on Myanmar,” he said.
    Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi will lead the defense team at the ICJ when the first public hearing against the Southeast Asian nation is held in December.

    The country also faces similar legal action at the International Criminal Court and in an Argentine court.

    Chemical weapons factory

    As for the allegations DiNanno raised against Myanmar, Zaw Min Tun said he didn’t know why the U.S. believes that Myanmar may still be keeping leftover chemical weapons produced in the 1980s.

    “I don’t know what his accusation is based on,” he said. “We have had no reason to own chemical weapons, even in the 1980s.”

    Zaw Min Tun said DiNanno also accused Myanmar authorities of using poisonous phosphorus gas in November 2012 against villagers protesting against a Chinese-backed copper mine project in the town of Letpadaung in northwestern Myanmar’s Sagaing region.

    During the violent showdown, police officers used smoke bombs containing phosphorus – a highly flammable chemical – to break up protests, injuring dozens of demonstrators, including Buddhist monks.

    Zaw Min Tun said that police used tear-gas grenades during the crackdown, adding that DiNanno was “picking on the incident and exaggerating it as using poisonous gases.”

    The Myanmar government sent monks who sustained burns to Thailand for medical treatment, he added.

    “If there had been an actual use of chemical weapons, we would have been exposed since then,” Zaw Min Tun said.

    The military spokesman also pointed out that DiNanno mentioned five Myanmar reporters from the publication Unity Journal who received 10-year prison sentences in July 2014 for writing an article accusing the military of producing chemical weapons at a factory.

    “With regard to that case, they were not prosecuted for writing the article about the factory that allegedly produced chemical weapons,” Zaw Min Tun said. “As far as I know, they were prosecuted because they had trespassed into a secured area of the factory compound and taken photos.”

    “Besides, the factory is just a regular defense weapon manufacturing facility, not one producing chemical weapons,” he added.

    Not much of an impact

    Myanmar political and military affairs analyst Maung Maung Soe said the U.S. accusations do not hold much weight because they lack evidence pointing to the actual use of chemical weapons by the military.

    “The accusations refer to many years in the past, so it might be difficult for them to take any action,” he said. “It might take time for them to prove it.”

    He noted the U.S. government’s incorrectly asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, in 2003, but its military forces failed to find them after they invaded the country.

    “Now they are making the same accusation against Myanmar,” he said. “But it is difficult for me to comment since I don’t know if they really have them or not.”

    “The accusations alone wouldn’t make a dent,” he added. “As long as they cannot prove that the military had used them in warfare, it won’t have much of an impact.”

    Reported by Thant Zin Oo for RFA’s Myanmar Service. Translated by Ye Kaung Myint Maung. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

    Copyright © 1998-2019, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036. For any commercial use of RFA content please send an email to: mahajanr@rfa.org. RFA content November not be used in a manner which would give the appearance of any endorsement of any product or support of any issue or political position. Please read the full text of our Terms of Use.

    -/-

Αφήστε μια απάντηση

Η ηλ. διεύθυνσή σας δεν δημοσιεύεται. Τα υποχρεωτικά πεδία σημειώνονται με *