— The Erimtan Angle —

Archive for November, 2015


Sam Harris, Ben Carson and Noam Chomsky


‘Sam Harris recently did a podcast with Douglas Murray. He talked about President Obama’s approach to Syria. He also mentioned Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Noam Chomsky. Cenk Uygur, hosts of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below. “During a discussion on whether the U.S. should allow Syrian refugees into the county, neuroscientist and atheism advocate Sam Harris continued his personal jihad with author Noam Chomsky while finding common cause with Christian conservative GOP presidential candidates who want to keep the refugees out. In his podcast interview with author Douglas Murray, Harris lamented the “demagoguery on both sides” by the political parties, while accusing President Barack Obama of being “politically stupid” in the way he addresses the threat of Islamic fanaticism. Harris did have kind words for Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, despite admitting that he is a “religious maniac.’ It was toward the end of the broadcast that Harris had to take a shot at author Chomsky with whom he has had a running battleover ideology and political worldviews. “Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time,” Harris stated. “Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile, Ben Carson does not…the fact that he is a candidate for president is a scandal…but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy.” Published on Nov 24, 2015’.

As amply proven by Dr Carson and Sam Harris, even brain surgeons and neuroscientists can be idiots and bigots . . .


Turkey’s AKP Government at War: The Destruction of Silvan

‘Armored vehicles patrolling the streets, reports of starvation looming and civilians killed – a small pro-Kurdish town of Silvan has become a hotspot after the Turkish military launched and operation on November 3. The curfew has entered its second week. Published on Nov 12, 2015’.

The report reads as follows: ‘Armored vehicles patrolling the streets, reports of starvation looming and civilians killed – a small pro-Kurdish town of Silvan has become a hotspot after the Turkish military launched an operation on November 3. The curfew has entered its second week. The city neighborhoods of Tekel, Mescit and Konak have been mostly hit by the shelling as journalists at the scene reported of shattered glass, debris in the streets and bullet-riddled buildings. “Witnesses said the police had started shooting at the tea house out of the blue,” said Omer Onen, the co-chair of HDP’s Diyarbakir office, as cited by AFP. “There is no access to communication, people are at risk of starvation. They [Turkish military] didn’t give us any permission to distribute food”’.[1]

Two months ago, the Economist reported that “EASTERN Turkey has been paralysed for weeks by clashes between government forces and Kurdish extremists. Now violence is spreading to the rest of the country. Roadside bombs laid by Kurdish fighters killed 30 soldiers and policemen on September 6th and 8th. Bent on revenge, nationalist crowds waving Turkish flags attacked offices of the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP). In the Mediterranean resort of Alanya, protesters burned a building that housed its provincial headquarters. In Ankara, the capital, a group of fanatics broke into the national party office and tried to set it on fire. In many places small businesses owned by Kurds have been torched. In the west and centre of the country, angry crowds stopped coaches travelling to the largely Kurdish regions in the south-east, threatening passengers and breaking windows. Offices of the Hürriyet newspaper, which has been accused of distorting statements by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, were surrounded on two occasions by demonstrators wielding stones and clubs. Two years of talks between the central government and independence-minded Kurds seem definitively over. Strife reignited in July and military operations are gathering pace in several cities. The town of Cizre where ten people died, including children, is under curfew as soldiers conduct door-to-door searches and try to regain control of areas held by militants”.[2]  At the time, the town of Cizre was a scene of escalating violence between the Turkish Army and members of the country’s Kurdish minority. Still, the report also stated that “[i]n Silvan, a town of 46,000 people 80km (50 miles) from Diyarbakir, masked youths last month dug trenches and erected barricades. They controlled access to several districts for a nearly a week. ‘As a Kurd you are insulted, your culture is ignored and you are not seen as human being’, says a 27-year-old female sympathiser, praising the fighters. ‘For seven days, there was great resistance. Young people stood up and staked their ground’. On August 15th [2015] the town’s co-mayors, following the lead of other municipalities in the region, declared self-rule. Three days later armoured military vehicles launched an assault on Silvan. Electricity and communication networks were shut down and a curfew declared as troops battled young militants in narrow streets. Pockmarked houses, broken windows and the burnt shell of a shop testify to the violence that ensued. ‘He died in this corner’, says a resident in his 60s, pointing to a spot on a roof terrace where a 25-year-old man was shot during a stand-off, apparently by an army sniper. A water tank riddled with bullet holes stands empty nearby. With its most recent attacks, the PKK, which is deemed a terrorist group in the EU and America, has upped the ante. Observers say until now it has committed only limited resources to the recent fighting in Turkey. Most of its trained troops are busy in Syria, opposing Islamic State (IS) through a Kurdish affiliate, the People’s Defence Units. The Turkish military is supposedly also committed to fighting IS. Still Ahmet Davutoglu, the prime minister, has vowed to ‘wipe out’ the Kurdish fighters, and warplanes have launched attacks on their camps in northern Iraq. In Silvan municipal workers are slowly filling in trenches and young militants have faded back into the population, at least for the time being”.[3]

Now, following Turkey’s November Surprise,[4] which firmly cemented Tayyip Erdoğan as President (aka the Prez) with Ahmed Davutoğlu apparently staying put as wily PM (aka Wily) for now, the gloves have come off and the town is under siege. Alex MacDonald reports that the “Turkish military has deployed helicopters and tanks against the town [of Silvan], which has been under curfew for nine days, and locals have warned that its 90,000 residents are running low on food, water and electricity. At least seven people, including two civilians and a policeman, were reportedly killed as members of the Patriotic Revolutionist Youth Movement (YDG-H) – usually referred to as the youth wing of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) – fought with Turkish forces.YDG-H members have erected barricades and closed off streets, often armed with AK-47s”.[5]  MacDonald explains that “Turkey’s southeast has been in a state of unrest since a two-year ceasefire between the Turkish state and the PKK ended in July [2015]. Since then, over 150 Turkish police and security officials have been killed in clashes with Kurdish fighters, while the military claimed to have killed well over 1,000 PKK fighters, mostly in northern Iraq, but also in Turkey – though the PKK disputes these figures. As the security situation deteriorated and an increasing number of Kurdish politicians and activists have found themselves behind bars. Numerous towns and districts in the southeast have begun to declare political autonomy from the state. Though the HDP has sought to distance itself from the YDG-H, Turkish security officials have often conflated the two, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on more than one occasion referring to votes for the HDP as a vote for a ‘terrorist organisation’. Mahmut Bozarslan, a Kurdish journalist who recently left Silvan, said that the military was trying to re-assert its authority over the area following the declarations of autonomy”.[6]  Bozarslan stated to the press that “People are getting angry with this situation . . . They blame both sides – some people said that if the PKK did not bring this violence within the cities, the state would not react like this . . . On the other hand, some people blame the security officials, they say if they didn’t put this pressure on Kurds, the PKK would not have brought the strategy of sieges and barricades to the cities”.[7]

[1] “‘Erasing from map’? Scenes of destruction as Turkish military besiege Kurdish town of Silvan (VIDEO) ” RT News (11-12 November 2015). https://www.rt.com/news/321588-turkey-silvan-kurdish-curfew/.

[2] “The hatred never went away” The Economist (12 September 2015). http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21664225-civilians-join-fight-between-soldiers-and-guerrillas-burying-years-calm-hatred-never.

[3] “The hatred never went away”.

[4] “Turkey’s November Surprise: A Mandate for a Post-Kemalist Century” The Erimtan Angle (04 November 2015). https://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/turkeys-november-surprise-a-mandate-for-a-post-kemalist-century/.

[5] Alex MacDonald, “Turkey’s Silvan under siege as Kurdish fighters assert authority” Middle East Eye (11 November 2015). http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkish-town-silvan-under-siege-kurdish-fighters-assert-authority-906806398#sthash.0Bu7zoq9.dpuf.

[6] Alex MacDonald, “Turkey’s Silvan under siege as Kurdish fighters assert authority”.

[7] Alex MacDonald, “Turkey’s Silvan under siege as Kurdish fighters assert authority”.

Drone Operator Brandon Bryant

‘Former US drone operator Brandon Bryant tells IN THE NOW that he couldn’t stand himself for killing people he didn’t know and then see Obama and Brennan on TV say that there were no civilian casualties. Bryant says the inside of American’s drone program is diseased and people should know this. When asked by IN THE NOW’s host Anissa Naouai what he would tell to the families his victims, Brandon said “I’m sorry”. Published on Jan 22, 2015’.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership or the TPP in Full

The English-language online current affairs and culture magazine Slate‘s Alison Griswold announced the other that the “full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is finally available to the public after the Obama administration released it early Thursday [, 5 November 2015]”.[1]  The White House released PDF version as well as a “slightly more Internet-friendly” version on the blog-publishing platform Medium. Griswold goes on to explain that the “TPP is a hotly contested deal in the United States that touches 12 countries and about 40 percent of the global economy. Its economic implications are vast. Supporters of TPP tout its ability to open up overseas markets for U.S. companies, while detractors worry that it will cause job losses and depress wages by increasing competition from low-wage workers in other parts of the world. Representatives from the 12 nations in the deal reached an agreement on it last month. Now that the White House has released the full text, it enters into a 90-day review period. That TPP had previously been unavailable to the public was almost as controversial as the deal itself. In lieu of actual documents, the public was left with whatever information could be gleaned from the government and a few drafts published by Wikileaks”.[2]

Barack Obama himself wrote a 3-minute read to introduce the deal: “When we have a level playing field, Americans out-compete anyone in the world. That’s a fundamental truth about our country. But right now, the rules of global trade put our workers, our businesses, and our values at a disadvantage. If you’re an autoworker in Michigan, the cars you build face taxes as high as 70 percent in Vietnam. If you’re a worker in Oregon, you’re forced to compete against workers in other countries that set lower standards and pay lower wages just to cut their costs. If you’re a small business owner in Ohio, you might face customs rules that are confusing, costly, and an unnecessary barrier to selling abroad. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will change that”.[3]  After having set the mood and the tone in this optimistic and rosy-coloured way, the POTUS continues that the TPP is “the highest standard trade agreement in history. It eliminates 18,000 taxes that various countries put on American goods. That will boost Made-in-America exports abroad while supporting higher-paying jobs right here at home. And that’s going to help our economy grow. I know that past trade agreements haven’t always lived up to the hype. That’s what makes this trade agreement so different, and so important. The TPP includes the strongest labor standards in history, from requiring a minimum wage and worker safety regulations to prohibiting child labor and forced labor. It also includes the strongest environmental commitments in history, requiring countries in one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth to crack down on illegal wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing. These standards are at the core of the agreement and are fully enforceable — which means we can bring trade sanctions against countries that don’t step up their game. And for the first time ever, we’ll have a multilateral trade agreement that reflects the reality of the digital economy by promoting a free and open Internet and by preventing unfair laws that restrict the free flow of data and information. In other words, the TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century. When it comes to Asia, one of the world’s fastest-growing regions, the rulebook is up for grabs. And if we don’t pass this agreement — if America doesn’t write those rules — then countries like China will. And that would only threaten American jobs and workers and undermine American leadership around the world”.[4]

President Obama framed the TPP in the context of the upcoming Sino-American rivalry in the further course of the 21st century, presenting the TPP as a means to safeguard American sway across the world and the Pacific Rim region in particular. His language indicates that the U.S. appears willing to sacrifice the fortunes of domestic workers and small-scale entrepreneurs for the sake of solidifying the American Empire on a firm commercial base. As explained by CBC News’ Erin Obourn the “6,000-page, 30-chapter document was first released by New Zealand, and includes deals worked out over five years by the TPP members — Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam . . . Among its provisions, the deal looks to make e-commerce easier by protecting ‘cross-border transfer of information . . . including personal information,” for business purposes’ . . . [leading her to say that s]ome fear that information will be accessible to U.S. or other foreign authorities without suitable oversight. The language ‘fuels uncertainty’ over Canadians’ privacy, says Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who has raised concerns about the TPP. ‘These are rules that create restrictions on a country’s ability to establish privacy safeguards’. The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association also spoke out about the TPP, saying in a release it ‘contradict[s] the domestic data storage provisions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'”.[5]

The text of the document opens in this ominous or merely disingenuous way: the “Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) levels the playing field for American workers and American businesses, leading to more Made-in-America exports and more higher-paying American jobs here at home. By cutting over 18,000 taxes different countries put on Made-in-America products, TPP makes sure our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service suppliers, and small businesses can compete — and win — in some of the fastest growing markets in the world. With more than 95 percent of the world’s consumers living outside our borders, TPP will significantly expand the export of Made-in-America goods and services and support American jobs”.[6]  Chapter 2, “Natural Treatment and Market Access for Goods” or the Goodsa chapter explains that “the Asia-Pacific region [that b]y 2030 it will be home to 3.2 billion middle-class consumers, who will be the world’s largest buyers of staple grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy, meats and other farm products. The United States is one of a few countries, but not the only one, with the potential to provide these goods efficiently, safely, and economically. This market has the potential to be the foundation of American rural growth for a generation, bringing wealth and supporting jobs in rural areas, and encouraging rural young people to see their future in agriculture”.[7]  In other words, the TPP will be highly beneficial to U.S.-based agro-businesses and their dependents, but not necessarily for small farmers and their dependents. Still, about a month ago in the Guardian Jeffrey Frankel argues that “the TPP that has emerged is a pleasant surprise. The agreement gives pharmaceutical firms, tobacco companies, and other corporations substantially less than they had asked for – so much so that the US senator Orrin Hatch and some other Republicans now threaten to oppose ratification. Likewise, the deal gives environmentalists more than they had bothered to ask for. Perhaps some of these outcomes were the result of hard bargaining by other trading partners (such as Australia). Regardless, the TPP’s critics should now read the specifics that they have so long said they wanted to see and reconsider their opposition to the deal”.[8]  As a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, it stands to reason that Frankel would welcome the deal. Or, does he have a point???

And there is also the issue of ISDS or Investor-State Dispute Settlements . . . On the Medium-provided website’s FAQ section, this can be read: ” Question. “Is it true that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) would allow corporations to override laws, including environmental and public health regulations? Answer. No. ISDS cannot change law in the United States or any other country. No government measure (federal, state, or local) can be blocked or reversed under the ISDS provisions or any other part of TPP. The United States would never negotiate away its right to regulate in the public interest, and we don’t ask other countries to do so either. This is true with regard to public health and safety, the financial sector, the environment, and any other area where governments seek to regulate. Put simply, ISDS is a mechanism to promote good governance and the rule of law. ISDS protects basic rights — such as protection against discrimination and expropriation without compensation — akin to those enshrined in U.S. law and the Constitution. We already provide these protections at home to foreign and domestic investors under U.S. law. That’s why — although we are party to 51 agreements with ISDS — the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case. Our trade agreements ensure the same kinds of protections to U.S. businesses and investors operating abroad, where they face a heightened risk of discrimination and bias. TPP includes a number of enhancements that strengthen the transparency and integrity of the dispute settlement process under ISDS. These include making hearings open to the public, allowing the public and public interest groups to file amicus curiae submissions, ensuring that all ISDS awards are subject to review by domestic courts or international review panels, ensuring that governments have a way to dismiss claims that are without merit on an expedited basis, and more. In addition, after consultations with Members of Congress, the United States pushed for and secured additional safeguards that will establish a code of conduct for ISDS arbitrators and facilitate the dismissal of frivolous claims, among other first-of-their-kind provisions. ISDS ensures that a wide range of American businesses — including small businesses — are protected against unfair discrimination when investing abroad. This will benefit the millions of American workers employed by these companies, as outside analysis shows that about half of ISDS cases are initiated by small- and medium-sized businesses, or individual investors”.[9]

[1] Alison Griswold, “The Full Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Finally Online” Slate (05 November 2015). http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/05/full_text_of_the_tpp_trade_deal_is_finally_live_online.html.

[2] Alison Griswold, “The Full Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Finally Online”.

[3] Barack Obama, “Published in The Trans-Pacific Partnership” TPP (05 Nov 2015). https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/here-s-the-deal-the-text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-103adc324500. .

[4] Barack Obama, “Published in The Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

[5] Erin Obourn, “Critics cry foul as new Trans-Pacific Partnership details emerge” CBC News (06 Nov 2015). http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trans-pacific-partnership-details-1.3308248.

[6] U.S. Trade Representative, “Chapter 1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions” TPP (05 Nov 2015). https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/initial-provisions-and-general-definitions-aec6d5031f1b.

[7] U.S. Trade Representative, “Chapter 2. Natural Treatment and Market Access for Goods” TPP (05 Nov 2015). https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/national-treatment-and-market-access-for-goods-741f0639c2de.

[8] Jeffrey Frankel, “Why support TPP? Critics should read the agreement and keep an open mind ” The Guardian (11 Oct 2015). http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/11/why-support-tpp-critics-read-agreement-keep-open-mind.

[9] “Frequently Asked Questions”. TPP (05 Nov 2015). https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73.

Turkey’s November Surprise: A Mandate for a Post-Kemalist Century

Following the somewhat inconclusive elections of last June,[1] Turkey’s electorate came into its own last Sunday and gave the ruling Justice and Development Party (or AKP) a whopping majority in a veritable November surprise.

And now, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (aka the Prez) and the wily PM Ahmed Davutoglu (aka Wily) can begin their serious work of leading the nation further down the post-Kemalist path into a full-blooded Islamo-Capitalist future (as a presumably leading actor in the Middle East and the wider world beyond).

Turkey has been run by means of a multi-party democracy ever since the end of the Second World War. In the aftermath of Hitler’s defeat and the formation of the NATO alliance, Turkey’s leadership switched to the Demokrat Parti (DP) under Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. The DP ran the country for a decade until the military coup of 1960 brought an end to its hesitant moves away from the example set by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and what used to be called Turkish Secularism (a shorthand for a lenient attitude towards restrictions imposed by the religion of Islam and a public life centred on the propagation of Turkish nationalism as an alternative to Muslim self-identification). The remaining decades of the 20th century then saw a reassertion of the cult of Atatürk (commonly known as Kemalism) and a concerted effort to play the political game as it had been established in the West. As a result, for much of its time the country was governed by coalition governments of varying degrees of efficiency and corruptibility.

In the last decade of the previous century, though, political Islam returned to Turkey’s public life with a vengeance. The Refah Partisi (or RP, commonly but erroneously translated as Welfare Party) led by the veteran Islamist politician Necmettin Erbakan swept the country, first on a local and subsequently on a national level. At the time, Erbakan had been promoting his take on political life and advocated the inauguration of what he termed a “Just Order” (or Adil Düzen, in Turkish). In conjunction, Erbakan had already built up an organisation known as Millî Görüş (or ‘National Outlook’) to mobilize the many Turks by then living in Western Europe — academics call this grouping, the “leading Turkish diaspora organizations in Europe”. Still, before the end of the century, the Turkish army, regarding itself as the “guardian of Turkey’s secularism” as expressed by the BBC, intervened, bringing an end to the RP and Necmettin Erbakan’s political life.

Subsequently, the Kemalist elite of the country assumed that things would return to normal, particularly in view of the spectacular capture of the PKK’s leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999 and the concomitant return of veteran leftwing politician Bülent Ecevit, overseeing yet another unlikely and unwieldy coalition. But things did not turn out that way after all. In 2001, Erbakan’s successor Recep Tayyip Erdogan founded the AKP and Turkey has since never looked back.[2] The following year the new party was swept into power and in subsequent elections all but increased its share of the vote. The somewhat inconclusive election outcome last June was the first serious dent in the party’s armour. At the time, I wrote that the “worst case scenario for Turkey would now undoubtedly be unsuccessful coalition negotiations that would end in early elections in 45 days’ time”.[3] As it turned out, the AKP was unable to countenance a return to the good old days of unlikely and unwieldy coalition governments and forced a re-run of the electoral contest on the strategic date of 1 November (coinciding with the holiday period accompanying the annual celebrations of Republic Day on 29 October).

As it happens, 1 November also carries a special place in Turkey’s Kemalist mythology and historiography as Atatürk and the then-provisional Ankara government abolished the Ottoman Sultanate on that day in 1922. In fact, the main opposition newspaper Sözcü carried this item as the main headline on the day of this year’s election, reminding voters to keep Atatürk and his deeds in mind while casting ballots. Therefore, it seems unsurprising that many in Turkey were shocked by the election outcome. In contrast, one should not forget that the ruling AKP has made cunning use of the intervening not-quite five months. The Prez and Wily gave speech after speech admonishing voters to choose stability over insecurity. And, as if by happy coincidence, the terror threat posed by Kurdish nationalism and the PKK once again reared its ugly head forcing Turkey to take retaliatory military measures, inside the country as well as across the border on the grounds of the KRG in Northern Iraq. At the same time, next door’s not-so civil war in Syria managed to insert itself into Turkey’s frame as well, targeting the local Kurds and their political party the HDP. The terror attacks in Suruç (20 July 2015) and Ankara (10 October 2015) were quickly blamed on the Islamic State (IS) and led to a concerted government crackdown on sleeper cells in such diverse locations as Diyarbakır and Pendik.

Even though the country’s Kurds and the HDP had been the primary targets of the IS attacks on Turkish soil, the main beneficiary was nevertheless the AKP. Over and again, Tayyip Erdogan spoke publicly about the fact that the PKK and its Syrian ally the PYD were the same as the Caliph and his IS. The Prez convincingly equated ‘Kurdish terrorists’ with ‘Islamist freedom fighters’ in the minds of his many listeners at home as well as abroad so that they saw no option but to vote for stability over insecurity, thereby assuring a landslide return to power of the AKP. In the cold light of day on the morning after the night before, the election results are thus: the AKP, 49.47%, the CHP, 25.30%, and the HDP, 10.75%. The remaining opposition party, the nationalist MHP received 11.90% of the vote. This means that the main opposition, the CHP (or Atatürk’s Republican People’s Party) has remained stagnant, while the two other opposition groupings appear to have lost votes to the AKP. The MHP (or Nationalist Movement Party) made serious losses, and their supporters appear to have deflected en masse (losing about 6%). The Kurdish and leftist HDP (or Peoples’ Democratic Party), on the other hand, seem to have lost their share of conservative voters who opted for the AKP as the guarantor of future peace and prosperity in the region (c. 2%). In this context, it should also be pointed out that Turkish voters residing abroad have also come out in favour of Erdogan and the AKP (a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that Erbakan’s groundwork remains efficient to this day).

Many commentators as well as numerous politicians have touted these past elections as historic and significant, not just for Turkey but also on an international level. For one thing, Turkey’s ideological re-orientation away from the status quo of Kemalism and Turkish Secularism now seems to have been set in stone. The Turkish electorate have now given the Prez and Wily the mandate they needed to start building the New Turkey in earnest. Davutoglu has been steering Turkey’s foreign policy since 2009, and has cunningly reinserted Turkey into the Islamic world as a leading player and partner.[4] Now that Turkey has convincingly chosen to stay the course, the future remains all but uncertain. Some AKP supporters (such as Islamist writer and journalist Abdurrahman Dilipak) have recently even voiced their hopes that President Erdogan would become the new Caliph and leader of the world of Islam . . . Whatever will happen, it will remain certain that Atatürk’s legacy was laid to rest on 1 November 2015.

[1] https://www.rt.com/op-edge/266344-turkish-elections-independent-kurdistan-erdogan/

[2] https://www.rt.com/op-edge/turkey-scandal-erdogan-247/

[3] https://www.rt.com/op-edge/266344-turkish-elections-independent-kurdistan-erdogan/

[4] https://www.rt.com/op-edge/183464-new-turkey-prime-minister/