Mustafa Kemal'in askerleri

[Eraserhead]

 

Izgleda da je Erdogan prestao da finansira ISIS...

[Geo]

Moraće i one što snimaju spotove dok masakriraju tela ruskih pilota i članova posade...

 

Послато са C2005 уз помоћ Тапатока

[Prospero]

Turkish admiral 'claims asylum in US' after failed coup

 

3 hours ago

 

 

A high-ranking Turkish military officer has reportedly claimed asylum in the United States after authorities in Turkey linked him to the failed coup.

Mustafa Ugurlu had been on a posting to a Nato base in Virginia at the time of the 15 July botched coup.

 

Turkey has purged its military ranks of some 100 generals accused of being part of a shadowy movement that follows a US-based Turkish preacher.

Rear Adm Ugurlu disappeared on 22 July, a week after the coup.

 

US officials told Reuters news agency that an unnamed rear admiral was seeking asylum, and he was later named by Anadolu Agency as Mustafa Ugurlu.

 

Military espionage case

 

It comes at a difficult moment in relations between the two Nato allies as Turkey is seeking the extradition from the US of the cleric accused of masterminding the coup, Fethullah Gulen. He denies involvement.

 

Two US officials told Reuters the rear admiral had been working at Nato's Allied Command Transformation headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, where 26 Turkish military are posted.

In April he took part in a Nato conference in Poland and was identified as the Western military alliance's Assistant Chief of Staff for Command and Control, Deployability and Sustainability based in Norfolk.

A Turkish embassy official in Washington told Reuters that the rear admiral had failed to report for duty after a detention order was issued. "He left his badges and his ID at the base and after that no one has heard anything from him," the official said.

Rear Adm Ugurlu was named by prosecutors in the western Turkish city of Izmir, according to Anadolu, as part of a military espionage case involving the leaking of information.

...

 

[Tribun_Populi]

​Ovaj članak meni liči kao da oni sami sebe ovde hrabre. Poslušati i video pride.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Tribun_Populi

[MancMellow]

Ko je ovaj drugi lik

[Tribun_Populi]

Koji, ovaj David Goldman?

Edited August 13, 2016 by Tribun_Populi

[hazard]

Ko je ovaj drugi lik

 

Tzv. ,,Špengler"

 

ja ga čitam povremeno čisto da vidim kako se razmišlja na republikanskoj desnici

[MancMellow]

Video sam u medjuvremenu. Znam za onu njegovu knjigu, ali nisam znao kako izgleda, a očigledno nisam ni video da li dole piše nego mi lakše da pitam na forumu :D Zanimljiv lik, a predlog za dilovanje s Turskom mu je prilično...radikalan. 

[hazard]

On ima svakojakih takvih predloga, npr. da svaki američki predsednik što se bliskog istoka tiče treba da glumi kardinala Rišeljea i da potpiruje sunite i šiite i ostale zaraćene strane da se međusobno biju, ne bi li se tako vremenom samosjebali...i tako. Inače je religiozni jevrejin, milenarista, drvi nonstop o superiornosti višemilenijumske jevrejske kulture života koja će nadživeti sve paganske kulture smrti, svi su narodi osuđeni na odumiranje osim Jevreja i onih koji ih emuliraju tako što postaju hardkor hrišćani (za šta su dobar primer, naravno, konzervativni Amerikanci) i tako to. I da, islam je parodija judeo-hriščanstva, paganska plemenska religija koja glumi religiju ,,otkrovenja" (judaizam i hrišćanstvo). To su teze...

Edited August 13, 2016 by hazard

[MancMellow]

Video sam dosta toga od njegovih tih osnovnih...teza i predloga. 

[hazard]

A voli čovek da piše i o Vagneru. Renesansna ličnost

[MancMellow]

Da...čudi me to, de baš o Vagneru  ^_^  

[hazard]

Zapravo su ti tekstovi o Vagneru meni nekako i najinteresantniji, ima šta da se nauči iz njih kada izfiltriraš ideološke naočare autora (lik je inače započeo doktorat iz muzikologije ili kako se to već kaže, pa odustao, dakle nije da samo lupeta).

 

No okačiću citat iz jednog njegovog teksta, jer svakako nije jedini koji ovako nešto propagira, a čini mi se da će nakon sledećih izbora u Evropi to postati dominantna logika bezbednosnih službi ukoliko se dese još 2-3 napada:

 

 

Yet another criminal known to security services has perpetrated a mass killing, the Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Why did the French police allow a foreign national with a criminal record of violence to reside in France? Apart from utter incompetence, the explanation is that he was a snitch for the French authorities. Blackmailing Muslim criminals to inform on prospective terrorists is the principal activity of European counter-terrorism agencies, as I noted in 2015. Every Muslim in Europe knows this.

 

The terrorists, though, have succeeded in turning the police agents sent to spy on them and forcing them to commit suicide attacks to expiate their sins. This has become depressingly familiar; as Ryan Gallagher reported recently, perpetrators already known to the authorities committed ten of the highest-profile attacks between 2013 and 2015.

 

These attacks, in other words, are designed to impress the Muslim public as much as they are intended to horrify the western public. In so many words, the terrorists tell Muslims that western police agencies cannot protect them. If they cooperate with the police they will be found out and punished.  The West fears the power of Islam: it evinces such fear by praising Islam as a religion of peace, by squelching dissent in the name of fighting supposed Islamophobia, and by offering concessions and apologies to Muslims. Ordinary Muslims live in fear of the terror networks, which have infiltrated their communities and proven their ability to turn the efforts of western security services against them. They are less likely to inform on prospective terrorists and more likely to aid them by inaction.

 

As a result, western European Muslims fear the terrorists more than they fear the police. The West will remain vulnerable to mass terror attacks until the balance of fear shifts in the other direction.

 

As the Prussian army drove into France during the 1870 war with France, Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought the advice of the American military observer, none other than Phil Sheridan, whose cavalry had burned out the farmers of the Shenandoah Valley in the last stages of the conflict. What should Bismarck do about French snipers and saboteurs from villages along the Prussian route of march? Sheridan told Bismarck to burn the villages, leaving the people “with nothing left but their eyes to weep with after the war.” That, and hang the snipers, Sheridan threw in.

 

Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population. There’s nothing particularly clever about this insight. 

 

There are lessons here for what we used to call, quaintly, the Global War on Terror.

 

Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things. Western intelligence doesn’t have to infiltrate terror groups, tap phones, mine social media postings and so forth (although these doubtless are worth doing). Muslim communities in the West will inform on the terrorists. They will tell police when someone has packed up and gone to Syria, and when he has returned. They will tell police who is talking about killing westerners, who has a suspicious amount of cash, who is listening to broadcasts from Salafist preachers.

 

They will tell western security services everything they need to know, provided that western security services ask in the right way. I mean in Phil Sheridan’s way. Like the victorious Union generals of the Civil War, the West does not have to be particularly clever. It simply needs to understand what kind of war is is fighting.

 

Most Muslims are peaceful people who disapprove of terrorism, but many are not. Opinion polls show a large and consistent minority  of 20% to 40% approves of at least some form of terrorism. Support for ISIS generally is low, but much higher for Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups. By any reasonable count there are a few hundred million Muslims who in some way approve of terror, although very few of them would take part in terror attacks. But they are the sea in which the sharks can swim unobserved. They may not build bombs, but they will turn a blind eye to terrorists in their midst, especially if those terrorists are relations. They also fear retaliation from the terrorists if they inform.

 

The way to win the war is to frighten the larger community of Muslims who passively support terror by action or inaction–frighten them so badly that they will inform on family members. Frightening the larger Muslim population in the West does not require a great deal of effort: a few thousand deportations would do. Western intelligence services do not even have to deport the right people; the wrong people know who they are, and so do many of their neighbors. The ensuing conversation is an easy one to have. “I understand that your nephew is due for deportation, Hussein, and I believe you when you tell me that he has done nothing wrong. I might be able to help you. But you have to help me. Give me something I can use–and don’t waste my time by making things up, or I swear that I’ll deport you, too. If you don’t have any information, then find out who does.”

 

This approach to quashing insurgency has worked numerous times in the past. It is not characteristic of peacetime life in western democracies, to be sure, but neither was Phil Sheridan’s ride through the Shenandoah. We prefer to think about winning hearts and minds. Winning the hearts and minds of a people, though, isn’t difficult once they fear you.

 

 

Meni je takođe interesantno da li je istinita ta priča o ,,saradnicima" policije i službi koji onda postanu teroristi-samoubice.

[MancMellow]

nemam pojma, ali meni ovo sto on predlaze je upravo ono sto teroristi hoce - objektivno ukidanje punih gradjanskih prava za sve muslimane. nije da se pravim pametan jer znam resenje, samo kazem. posle toga po zakonu akcije i reakcije nebo je granica. nije u pitanju samo unutrasnja situacija u zapadnoevropskim zemljama, nego kako ce to biti "citano" i tumaceno u celoj evropi, ukljucujuci, posebno, balkan. na obe strane.

[bigvlada]

TURKEY – MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK SAYS “PROSTITUTES MUST WEAR VEILS”

by yessir ⋅ 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

How To Ban The Burqa

How does one go about banning the burqa from one’s country?  Well the usual way is to try and do it via legal means.  And so you have France and other countries passing legislations to ban the burqa.  But now Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey has come up to a ingenuous way to do just that – apparently with much success.

About Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk

Mustafa Kemal is a revolutionary leader.  He is also known as Ataturk, a title reflecting his role as founding father of modern Turkey. Addressing the question on how to unveil the Turkish women, Mustafa Kemal came up with his very own solution, and he succeeded in the process of unveiling the Turkish women.

Mustafa Kemal’s Solution 

The Islamic veil has been around for 80 years in Turkey.   Nicholas Sarkozy said:”The problem of the burqa is not a religious problem, it’s a problem of liberty and women’s dignity. It’s not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burqa is not welcome in France. In our country, we can’t accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That’s not our idea of freedom.”

With that as background, Mustafa Kemal made this announcement: “With immediate effect, all Turkish women are privileged to wear whatever they choose, however, all prostitutes must wear a burqa veil on their face.”

So with one stroke Mustafa Kemal manage to appease women by allowing them to wear whatever they want (including the burqa), but at the same time, he introduced a social stigma by associating the wearing of the burqa with prostitutes.

So did the plan work?  According to press reports, the very next day no women in Turkey were seen in a burqa.

Think About It

As the press puts it, this problem was solved not by forbidding veils, but by making it mandatory albeit for a special group. Is this the right way to solve this problem?  Is it fair to introduce an association between prostitutes and the wearing of the burqa.  The fact that Turkish women unveiled themselves to avoid being called prostitutes shows that wearing the burqa is not a religious requirement.  Why didn’t they unveil themselves earlier? Could they? Should they?

http://www.abigmessage.com/turkey-mustafa-kemal-ataturk-says-prostitutes-must-wear-veils.html#comments

Ovo nisam znao, kralj.