A Tool To Defame Turks

-I was curious about the status of the Turkish-Iraqi border, and stumbled on this document.


Please read as it make's the most absurd translations of words used by the Turkish military. With all the media tools we have today this sort of thing should not happen.

But then again, many of us know why it does...

Terrorist in Turkish is terrorist in English, not rebel. The Turks have even adopted the word so there's no mistakes made at international airports, between rebel and terrorist. Yet many, for some terribly morbid reason, call them rebels!.. Hmm..

- I am just wishing those who use the term "rebel" to loose one of his relatives, close friends or a member of family at a PKK bombing of a minibus or a bazaar or a shopping centre or a popular tourism destination in Turkey or an airport or elsewhere just it happened in Greece.

-The author of that article writes a lot of very pro PKK stories. He is also the Associated Press Bureau Chief in Istanbul. You can write a letter in protest to this email address: info@ap.org

I notice he writes that Apo is a hero to the PKK. I wonder if he'd write that Osammy is a hero to Al Quaeda...

-The fact it's not written in U.S. media, or rather isn't a common occurring statement in U.S. media. But somehow again, and for some reason.. We Turks find ourselves confused why the west and U.S. often address the group as rebels and not terrorists, their leaders as heros and not sick minded murderers..

I am writing you as to a number of articles by your agency, the links to which are given below:

My COMPLAINT to you is that, as you will also see, in the abovegiven articles by your agency PKK terrorists are insistently referred to as "PKK rebels", "Kurdish Rebels", "PKK Guerillas" etc. However, the PKK is classified as a terrorist organisation by (including but not limited to) EU, UK and US.

Please refer to the following pages for verification:

EU List - http://www.statewatch.org/terrorlists/docs/EUterrorlist-May-06.pdf

UK List - http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-terrorist-groups?version=1

US List - http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

Furthermore, please refer to http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/studies4.htm for a comprehensive study of PKK's activities, and to http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/turkey/turk3.htm for PKK's attacks on teachers in South East Anatolia Region (on which PKK exerts claim).

Moreover an article by Raphael F. Perl (Specialist in International Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Congressional Research Service) lists the relations of terrorists with media as follows (full text: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/crs-terror.htm)

* Terrorists need publicity, usually free publicity that a group could normally not afford or buy. Any publicity surrounding a terrorist act alerts the world that a problem exists that cannot be ignored and must be addressed. From a terrorist perspective, an unedited interview with a major figure is a treasured prize, such as the May 1997 CNN interview with Saudi dissident, terrorist recruiter and financier Usama Bin Ladin. For news networks, access to a terrorist is a hot story and is usually treated as such.

* They seek a favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act. One may not agree with their act but this does not preclude being sympathetic to their plight and their cause. Terrorists believe the public "needs help" in understanding that their cause is just and terrorist violence is the only course of action available to them against the superior evil forces of state and establishment. Good relationships with the press are important here and they are often cultivated and nurtured over a period of years.

* Terrorist organizations may also seek to court, or place, sympathetic personnel in press positions--particularly in wire services--and in some instances may even seek to control smaller news organizations through funding.

* Legitimacy. Terrorist causes want the press to give legitimacy to what is often portrayed as ideological or personality feuds or divisions between armed groups and political wings. For the military tactician, war is the continuation of politics by other means; for the sophisticated terrorist, politics is the continuation of terror by other means. IRA and Hamas are examples of groups having "political" and "military" components. Musa Abu Marzuq, for example, who was in charge of the political wing of Hamas is believed to have approved specific bombings and assassinations.2 Likewise, the "dual hat" relationship of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein--the purported political wing of the IRA--to other IRA activities is subject to speculation. Distinctions are often designed to help people join the ranks, or financially contribute to the terrorist organization.

* They also want the press to notice and give legitimacy to the findings and viewpoints of specially created non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and study centers that may serve as covers for terrorist fund raising, recruitment, and travel by terrorists into the target country. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad-funded and controlled World and Islam Studies Enterprise is but one known example. The Hamas-funded Islamic Association for Palestine (LAP) in Richardson, Texas, is another of many.3

* In hostage situations--terrorists need to have details on identity, number and value of hostages, as well as details about pending rescue attempts, and details on the public exposure of their operation. Particularly where state sponsors are involved, they want details about any plans for military retaliation.

* Terrorist organizations seek media coverage that causes damage to their enemy. This is particularly noticeable when the perpetrators of the act and the rationale for their act remain unclear. They want the media to amplify panic, to spread fear, to facilitate economic loss (like scaring away investment and tourism), to make populations loose faith in their governments' ability to protect them, and to trigger government and popular overreaction to specific incidents and the overall threat of terrorism.

Therefore, use of the term "Rebels" instead of terrorists is misleading the public opinion. Any terms, besides "terrorists", used to define members of PKK may result (and probably have already resulted) in undue public support and sympathy (particularly in EU and US) for this terrorist organisation. Besides those living in Turkey, only a small number of people in the world can know the detailed facts about Turkey and can make educated judgment of the news materials presented. Your agency's refraining from labelling PKK as a terrorist organisation, contrary to your agency's policy, does not in any way means neutrality or objectivity as it hinders the essence of the news item being communicated to world public who are relatively much less knowledgeble about Turkey. An uninformed reader outside Turkey, having read your agency's articles, would most likely deduce that there is a country called Kurdistan and Turkey has invaded it, killing several Kurds but there are these rebel Kurds, or freedom fighters who are valiantly fighting against Turkish opression and tyranny (oh those evil turks, they should be rooted out) despite being fiercely outnumbered. Someone has to stop these Turks, oh poor Kurds..." This organisation you are refraining from calling terrorists have killed infants, children, and women some of whom are KURDS, for whose sovereignity and rights PKK claims to be fighting for. They are using guerilla tactics, planting bombs not only against military targets but also in public civilian places like the bomb that exploded in a mall this year in ANKARA, the capitol. Therefore, in no way this organisation represents the Turkish-Kurds. Another fact all fail to mention is that although the Southeast Anatolia region has a majority Kurdish population, there are also Turks living there under the same conditions as their Kurdish brothers. My next door neighbour is a Turkish-Kurd by the way, and we do not have any problems.

In that context, I urge you to notify your staff as to these facts and show further diligence when reviewing news material so as to prevent any potential prospective misnomers, and to take necessary measures to redress any mis-information that has already been presented by your agency to the public, and reconsider your policy in this regards with a view towards a possibility that you might be promoting terrorism while you should be condemning it. Please let me remind you that, as evident above, several newspapers are referring to your agency's reports while preparing their news items.

Please excuse me if you are not the proper venue for such a complaint but I was unable to find any complaint venue on your agency's web page.

I look forward to your official response,

For your consideration

Sent to infa@ap.org on 24/10/2007.

-As far as I know BBC, AP and Reuteurs have all decided not to brand any group as terrorists and to use less judgmental terms like rebels etc. As far as from what I understand that should apply to any terrorist organisation but I did not have the time to check whether they are defining Al-Queda (El-Kaide) or IRA or ETA etc. as rebels or fighters.

BBC's response to complaints in this regard were as follows:

"Thank you for your e-mail regarding BBC News.

BBC journalists operate by a policy set out in our editorial guidelines, which can be read here:


We would emphasise that it remains the BBC's overall objective to provide fair, balanced and accurate reports, which allow the public to make an informed judgement about what is happening in the world.
Thank you for your interest in our coverage.

Marie-Therese Gibson
BBC Information"

Justin I guess you must also be following the western press, so could you please submit some western news articles etc that refer to Hamas or Al-Qaeda, IRA and ETA any other terrorist organisation that troubles US or any EU country as rebel or fighters or guerillas or militias, or that poses a favorable standpoint in regards to those "organisations".

Given these agencies' policies, there sure must be examples of such articles.

-My complaint about the article is as follows:

"When Turkey reports the death of Kurdish rebels, it calls them "terrorists" and says they were "rendered ineffective," a euphemism designed to distance Turkish troops from the brutality of killing. But the military glorifies its own dead as "martyrs." This is a one-dimensional sentence in that the Turkish government also uses terms like "captured dead" etc., which does not distance the troops from the brutalilty of killing. Please take note the sentence pays specific attention to accuse the military not the government. There is a growing enmity towards Turkish Military in the western media as well as EU but that's another topic.

"While Turkey ponders how to attack guerrillas based in northern Iraq, it is drawing on a broad vocabulary of diplomatic and military terms in its battle with the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party." This sentence attempts to portray that there was some kind of government conspiracy to term these groups different than what they really area. What would we call a group of people who attacks the state's military forces, civilians, enterprises in the region and infrastructure? I guess we should have called them "the young and the restless". Please take further note that although the article mentions a broad range of military and diplomatic terms carefully used by the Turkish government, the only terms the article provides among those "broad" range of terms are "martyrs" and "terrorists". Don't you think that the article is manipulative?

"A common goal of Turkish war talk is to portray the rebel group as illegitimate and unrepresentative of the interests of Turkey's Kurdish minority, many of whom are tired of fighting that tore apart their communities until the 1999 capture of rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan." Please take note of the term "war talk". Wars take place between countries. Another attempt of the article to manipulate the public opinion. The term "war" should have been used here as "war on terrorism" instead. I guess you understand what I mean. The article seems to be composed with an intent to pull some specific strings/chords, and uses misleading terms to that end, ironically which is the topic of the article. The first sentence which reads "A common goal of Turkish war talk is to portray the rebel group as illegitimate and unrepresentative of the interests of Turkey's Kurdish minority.." is again aimed accusing Turkey of mis-representing the situation. I do not know what can I say about this in a few words...Please see my link in my previous post as to PKK's activities and actions since 1985 (yeah we've being fighting against them for 22 years, yet somehow they have the finances, armament, logistics support, training expertise, and recruitment potential to cope up with that efforts since then, which have cost Turkey about 5 billion USD per year). Furthermore the Southeast part of Turkey also accommodates Turks as well as Kurds but you will see that not many articles pay attention to that or most prefer to leave that out. Furthermore, how could it be regarded as legitimate. In what sense an armed organization aside from the state's own defense and public order forces can be regarded as legitimate. How should Turkey have legitimized PKK? Please take special note of the author's selection of terminology...

"The PKK rebels, who abandoned a unilateral cease-fire in 2004, draw recruits from Turkey's impoverished southeast. Twenty pro-Kurdish lawmakers allegedly have close ties to militants who seek more rights and autonomy for Kurds." Guess why the southeastern part is impoverished. Please read the article on fas.org page (the link in my previous post) as to how PKK prevented or hindered development efforts in the said region. And yeah, we want that region to remain impoverished so much that we have been building several major dams on euphrates river (please refer to GAP [Southeastern Anatolia Project] for more) to facilitate a better irrigation of that region so as to increase agricultural production. Why would any state want to keep one if its regions un-developed, considering the fact that more business means increased employment, income per capita, tax revenue, GNP, more content people, in summary increased welfare of the nation. Please take note that there are Turks living in the said region as well, aren't they impoverished as well, or does the term impoverishment applies only to Kurds. Why don't the Turks in the region opt to engage in armed fight against the state? They do not and neither do the Kurds. The number of PKK terrorists are about 3000-5000 as far as I know in comparison to some 10 or 20 million Turkish-Kurds in SE Turkey. So how come they can represent the interests of the Turkish-Kurds? By killing soldiers, civilians among them Turkish-Kurds who refuse to support them?

Anyway I am a bit sensitive on this one. There is a greater plan in action here to slander Turkey. The PKK, the Armenian Genocide allegations, demonizing Turkish Militay etc. are all instruments thereof.

-And regarding legitimacy and political extensions of terrorist groups:

* Legitimacy. Terrorist causes want the press to give legitimacy to what is often portrayed as ideological or personality feuds or divisions between armed groups and political wings. For the military tactician, war is the continuation of politics by other means; for the sophisticated terrorist, politics is the continuation of terror by other means. IRA and Hamas are examples of groups having "political" and "military" components. Musa Abu Marzuq, for example, who was in charge of the political wing of Hamas is believed to have approved specific bombings and assassinations.2 Likewise, the "dual hat" relationship of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein--the purported political wing of the IRA--to other IRA activities is subject to speculation. Distinctions are often designed to help people join the ranks, or financially contribute to the terrorist organization.

-Not once have I seen on CNN or BBC that Osama is a hero, much less a hero to his own people. Not once was that solicited in the media.

However as soon as theres something to report about the PKK, it's the Rebel group that's been sadly struggling for autonomy in south eastern Turkey. The reporters even have the sad tone of voice when breaking the news when PKK "freedom fighters" are killed..

However not once have I seen western media produce something along those lines when describing Al Queda, or even Osama Bin Laden.

Shut up Justin, you're just out there to disagree with me, on everything and anything.

The sky is blue, do I hear a disagreement coming?

"Not once have I have..." -Me

The common nature of the news of him being depicted as a hero, or his organization a worthy one is something I have not seen. Nor a common occurrence.

However in every news broadcast I have witnessed the PKK is often deemed not such a bad groupie. Again the common occurrence is something you neglect to acknowledge.

LoL, you dug up one of the rarest pieces of media to prove your point. Would you like a cookie?

-Can you find a U.S. published news article that says "and Osama bin Laden is a hero to Al Qaeda members"--not some weird fringe news organization but something equally "mainstream" as AP AND published IN the U.S.

In the articles provided, the positive terms like hero etc. are all attributed to followers of the said terrorist organisations or to the citizens of the host countries whereas the author of the article in question himself uses sentences like:

"When Turkey reports the death of Kurdish rebels, it calls them "terrorists" and says they were "rendered ineffective," a euphemism designed to distance Turkish troops from the brutality of killing. But the military glorifies its own dead as "martyrs."

While Turkey ponders how to attack guerrillas based in northern Iraq, it is drawing on a broad vocabulary of diplomatic and military terms in its battle with the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party.

A common goal of Turkish war talk is to portray the rebel group as illegitimate and unrepresentative of the interests of Turkey's Kurdish minority, many of whom are tired of fighting that tore apart their communities until the 1999 capture of rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan.

The PKK rebels, who abandoned a unilateral cease-fire in 2004, draw recruits from Turkey's impoverished southeast. Twenty pro-Kurdish lawmakers allegedly have close ties to militants who seek more rights and autonomy for Kurds.

Turkish pressure on the United States and Iraq to crack down on the Kurdish rebels paid off when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the PKK was a "common enemy," and President Bush used similar language after a Nov. 5 meeting with the Turkish prime minister."

So he takes a personel stance to the PKK whereas the authors of the articles you provided refrain from expressing their personel views on the terrorist organisations mentioned therein but prefers to hand the ball to the locals they have interviewed with...That is the difference, that is the bias...

Justin, please provide the links to articles regarding ETA and commandoes. I would like to read them as well, perhaps I am mistaken and there is hopefully no bias when it comes to PKK...

-I think u dont want to understand one point... How could u say because one terrorist sees the other one as hero, make media right to show them as rebel? How u can say that media can be impartial by sympathizing a terrorist group?
I m living in England... innocent people have been arrested and shot by police because police tought these people may sympathizing Al Qaeda....

Fighting against terrorisim is hard we all know it... If we want to end the terrorism in the world we must all argree there is no good and bad terrorist.
Terrorist is a terrorist not rebel.....

-Every word is basically a label.

For instance, the Palestinian rebels blowing themselves up or taking hostages (Munich) are basically gods warriors. Like you'd see the mother of some suicide bomber be so proud of his son... Then you'd have other people calling the same person a terrorist.

Other example is Castro. Some worship the guy and some say he's the worst thing that's happened to Cuba. It's a matter of opinion.

They are right in labeling them as rebels. Aren't they rebelling. Of course all we can deduce from rebel is that they are outlaws but the guy J-walking and the guy bombing Turkey from "Kurdistan" are committing 2 different crimes and yet they are rebels. The term isn't unjust, it's simply vague. And believe me, people rarely think about every word they write. It's mainly readers that try to find a meaning behind them.

-I have just searched pkk on the BBC web page.. All news shows PKK as rebels...
That makes me think "why"?? Doesnt it make u think?

If u show terrorist as hero to one group u make more supporters to them.
Thats why in American or in English media u cant find a article about Osama is hero to Al Quaeda ,even it is...

-A rebel isn't a hero!!!!

-The thing I m trying to say is u cant say one of them is terrorist and the other is not.
Al Quaeda is a terrorist group there is no doubt because they killed innocent people whether they have got a reason or not. But why they cant see PKK is a terrorist group with the same reason...

Some of the media say like all Kurdishs in Turkey are supporting PKK which is not true at all... These type of news doesnt bring peace to the region. But ofcourse it hard to understand for people who is watching it from outside. Because it is not ur family members, brothers who is dying

-"The term isn't unjust, it's simply vague..."

-the problem is whether that vagueness is deliberate or indeliberate...

"Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilizing an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause."


PKK perfectly fits the above definition, the use of which would alleviate the vagueness of the term rebel and would not cause misinformation or confusion in the foreign public opinion.

The term rebellion on the other hand is defined as:

"A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as "rebels"."


Please note "It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements". So it is possible that there might be a deliberate attempt to sway the foreign public opinion in favour of the latter in regards to PKK.

"...deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." E.g.: PKK planted and exploded a bomb in a mall this year ANKARA city killing and injuring several civilians.

As I stated in my earlier post, as far as the articles Justin provided are concerned, the authors of the articles regarding Al-Qeada and Bin Laden refrain from directly referring to them as "rebels" or "heroes" but just mention that they are regarded as such by their sympathizers and countrymen whereas in the article about PKK in the first post, the author sees nothing wrong in defining PKK members as "rebels", though he provides a caveat that they are regarded as terrorists by EU and US (he does not mention it but by UK also).

There appears to be a double standard when it comes to PKK (or when it comes to Turkey, to be more accurate).

-Here is what I found on BBC's profile of ETA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3500728.stm)

The profile introduction in bold letters start as follows (asterisks added by me):

"For more than three decades the armed organisation Eta has waged a *bloody* campaign for independence for the seven regions in northern Spain and south-west France that Basque *separatists* *claim as their own*."

Furthermore: "Its *violent* campaign has led to more than 800 deaths over the last 30 years, many of them members of the Guardia Civil, Spain's national police force, and both local and national politicians who are opposed to Eta's "separatist" demands."

"Certainly the days in the late 1970s, when the group was able to *kill 100 people per year on average* - just as Spain was awakening from a long dictatorship and moving towards democracy - appeared to be over."

"The Eta of today has some logistical networks in France and a pool of a few hundred youths scattered across the borders of the Basque Country, in France and Spain, willing to engage in *deadly* missions."

"There has also been less and less backing for Eta and its *extremist* followers. This is not only because of the gains made in recent years by moderate Basque nationalists, but also because there is a growing feeling that Eta is desperately out of touch with public opinion."

"*Horrified* by the young councillor's death, more than six million people across Spain took to the streets over four days to demand an end to Eta *violence*."

"The *massive public mobilisation* was likened to the *marches for democracy* that took place towards the end of Franco's regime, and in an unprecedented move some of Eta's own supporters publicly condemned the killing."

"The Spanish government had always *maintained* it would never consider entering talks with the armed group unless it renounced violence*."

Occurence of the word rebel: NULL
Occurence of the word terrorist: NULL
Occurence of the word militants: NULL
Occurence of the word guerillas: NULL
Occurence of the word separatist: SOME
Occurence of the word armed: SOME

-Now let's have a look at BBC's profile on PKK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7044760.stm):

"The group, which has Marxist-Leninist roots, was formed in the late 1970s and launched an *armed* **struggle [ as opposed to bloody campaing in the ETA version]** against the Turkish government in 1984, calling for an independent Kurdish state within Turkey."

"Since then, more than 37,000 people have *died* [ as opposed to ETA's violent campaign led to XXX deaths/group was able to kill 100 people per year on average in ETA version]. During the *conflict* [F?rat: as opposed to violent/bloody campaign in ETA version], which reached a peak in the mid-1990s, thousands of villages were destroyed in the largely Kurdish south-east and east of Turkey, and hundreds of thousands of *Kurds [F?rat: No mention of Turks in the region again as it was a monolithic Kurdish body]* fled to cities in other parts of the country."

"In 2004, the PKK resumed its *violent* ( Here is an unexpected example of attaching some negativity to PKK] campaign, which has escalated steadily over the past two years despite several other short-lived, unilateral ceasefires."

"Two recent attacks - the *killing* [ Here is another example of a negative term used but the sentence intriguingly does not contain the term PKK] of 13 Turkish soldiers in a single clash and the killing of 12 civilians in a bus ambush - were regarded as being among the worst over recent years."

"With violence in south-eastern Turkey rising and the US and the Iraqi Kurds apparently unwilling, or unable, to take action against PKK bases in Iraqi territory, the Turkish government is now *threatening* [ something like "has now no other option than" could very well be used instead of threatining] to take matters into its own hands."

"But Turkey, which, *like **a number of** Western countries*, regards the PKK as a *terrorist organisation*, *refused* [ as opposed to The Spanish government had always *maintained*... ] to negotiate with it and has offered *only a limited* amnesty to its members."

Occurence of the word rebel: PLENTY
Occurence of the word terrorist: ONE :)
Occurence of the word militants: NULL
Occurence of the word guerillas: NULL
Occurence of the word separatist: NULL
Occurence of the word armed: SOME

-Please also take special note that the wording in ETA version is active, i.e. it puts charges and blames directly on ETA, whereas the wording used in PKK is passive and indirect, i.e. ETA killed as opposed to …was killed, conflict led to deaths; and also pays specific attention not to attribute any blame to PKK and insistently reminds that the arguments in the articles are claimed by the Turkish government or by Turkey. To the contrary, it never uses sentences like Spain argues/claims or The Spanish government says etc. I cannot believe that BBC has the resources to identify and verify the facts when it comes to ETA but not in the case of PKK. Therefore, this indicates bias or a refusal to accept Turkey’s presentation of the story.

Furthermore, another article titled "*Turkish* *anti*-PKK *anger* mounts" regarding PKK says (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7073718.stm):

"Ankara *argues* that the mountains of northern Iraq have become the PKK's safe haven and command centre." [F?rat: That is not something argueable, BBC must definitely have resources at hand to easily verify such a claim [from UK government for instance] but somehow refrains from doing so.]

"*Nationalist* feeling is running at *fever* pitch. Turkish flags - already prominent - now adorn most buildings, many cars and businesses."

"Turkish *protesters* [F?rat: as opposed to The *massive public mobilisation* was likened to the *marches for democracy* in ETA version] remember the dead soldiers."

And also referring back to my earlier post regarding "What terrorists want from media", an article of which was as follows:

"* They seek a favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act. One may not agree with their act but this does not preclude being sympathetic to their plight and their cause. Terrorists believe the public "needs help" in understanding that their cause is just and terrorist violence is the only course of action available to them against the superior evil forces of state and establishment. Good relationships with the press are important here and they are often cultivated and nurtured over a period of years."

In light of the abovegiven please also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7065431.stm , which includes sentences, and also allegations by PKK members such as:

"Last Sunday the PKK was *blamed* [F?rat: PKK most of the time claims credit for such attacks, through agencies or through their web pages, this could have been easily verified] by the *Turkish military* (F?rat: please take special note as to the referral to the Turkish military again] for a bomb explosion which injured 17 people who were part of a wedding party."

"However, the PKK men refused to acknowledge that they were responsible for the deaths of civilians, instead blaming the government.

At this stage the younger and quieter of the two men spoke up. "They [the Turkish government] have special units who dress in our uniforms and kill civilians," Yilmaz Sardar said. "Then they blame us." [F?rat: yeah that's what the government is set up for, to kill its own civilians]

-EU court annuls PKK terror ruling:

"...The court said the EU had failed to tell the PKK in advance of the decision, as it was required to do.

The PKK, or Kurdistan Workers' Party, has been fighting **Turkish troops** (F?rat: It has been fighting against people besides the military as well, such as the teachers in the area and civilians obstructing their progress) in its campaign for **greater autonomy.** (F?rat: greater autonomy or seperatism???)

Turkey has recently launched a series of cross-border attacks on Kurdish rebels who **it** says have used bases in northern Iraq to launch raids into Turkey. (F?rat: Can BBC not verify whether or not they have bases in Northern Iraq?? Poor BBC)

'Procedural grounds'

A court spokesman said the ruling had been made "on procedural grounds" because the council of the EU had "failed to give the PKK an adequate statement of reason as to why they are on the list, which they are required to do". (F?rat: Why did they fail to do that? Can Turkey take EU's misconduct to a higher court in EU apparatus?)

A number of groups are listed by the EU as terrorist organisations, including the Basque separatists, Eta, the Tamil Tigers and Hamas.

Similar technical rulings have been made regarding other groups whose funds had been frozen: the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a Philippines' Communist Party official and Dutch group Stichting Al Aqsa.

The spokesman added that in the case of the People's Mujahedin, the council of the EU had responded to the ruling by keeping the group on its list but giving the group its reasoning for doing so. (F?rat: Perhaps and hopefully they may apply the same to PKK)

That decision is currently being considered by the court. "


It appears, the court overruled the decision in terms of format/technical compliance...

The important question is why EU did not inform PKK in advance as per the pertinent legislation? Was it a deliberate action or not?

-The only reason they do this is to somehow give a reason to critisize Turkey for 'human rights oppression' or something.

-...In that regard, the seemingly independent broadcasting organizations such as BBC, CNN and the Washington Post can easily transform into a spy or a soldier within quite a short time. We have experienced the most animate examples of this issue in the fight against PKK terrorism, and we are still continuing to experience. Almost all the Western media organizations reject to call PKK as a ‘terrorist organization’. In spite of the tons of protest letters sent to BBC, the so called independent British press organization, which has the full public support for its expenditures, states that they choose to use impartial language with regard to such issues.

The BBC Editorial Guideline states that when reporting terrorism “other people's language should not be adopted” and “the use of the term of terrorism should be avoided, other people should be let to characterize.”[1]

Even if it seems quite nice on paper, the organization in question (PKK) is the one labeled as ‘terrorist’ and accepted **as such in the laws by almost the whole world**. **The British Anti-Terror Law is not immune** to this general rule. **Therefore, there exists no situation according to which BBC would act with the fear of treating unjustly to anybody**. Nevertheless, if BBC has not been able to **comprehend** whether PKK is a terrorist organization or not, there is something strange here. What is more, **BBC has not demonstrated the same sensibility in the case of IRA, whose activities have been labeled as ‘terrorist’ by the same BBC**. It has been BBC which quite easily censored the news related to IRA, and which could not stand hearing even the voices of the IRA leaders, but instead replaced them with the voices of machines. In other words, the principles of BBC Editorial Guideline do not apply when it comes to the members of IRA.

For instance, in the news of 15 April 2001, entitled as “Real IRA Linked to Post Office Blast”, it was stated that the blast “is thought to have been the work of dissident **Irish republican *terror* group the Real IRA**”.[2]

In another case of 26 January 2006 news, the activities of IRA were presented as “the IRA **terror** campaign”. In line with such examples, according to BBC, there is no doubt about **Al-Qaeda’s being a terrorist organization**. Almost in each and every news, the expression of “**terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden**” is utilized for the leader of Al-Qaeda.[3]

BBC, with regard to ETA, utilizes the same approach and easily calls it as a ‘**terrorist organization**’.[4] The examples are so of a mass amount that it is impossible to cite each and every of them.

In short, BBC does not take it hard to label those terrorist organizations, other than PKK, as ‘terrorist organization’. With regard to those organizations, the principles of Editorial Guideline do not cause any problems. However, when it comes to a terrorist organization pouring the bloods of Turks and Kurds, **BBC feels the necessity of being impartial**. It seems the blood of 5.247 civilians murdered by PKK is not so enough that BBC mentions about its being not ready to call PKK as a terrorist organization. PKK is such a terrorist organization that it can bomb in front of an education institution in the middle of a crowded city in which many Kurds live. And, BBC happens to find regarding PKK as a terrorist organization as incompatible with its principles…

In this case, is BBC the only one acting on double standards?

Of course, not!

Those so called respectable newspapers and channels do not use the expression of ‘terrorist organization’ for PKK while it is utilized for Al-Qaeda unhesitatingly.


Keep aside the utilized language, in the last operation (Operation Sun), some broadcasting organizations, primarily BBC and the Washington Post, went well beyond this language and produced news that can be rightly regarded as being **clear psychological support to PKK**. While the Operation was underway, the Iraq-originated news of BBC seemed just like a **PKK campaign conducted in an explicit, planned and programmed manner**.

To exemplify, if the news written by Crispin Thorold under the title of “Sympathy for *Rebels* in Northern Iraq”[5] were penned by the PKK, there would be not much of a difference. ... On the contrary, according to Mr. Thorold, PKK is quite popular and welcomed in Ranya. “In Ranya, local people have got used to their neighbors in the PKK”, says the ‘journalist’ of BBC. **One man** with whom Mr. Thorold talked states: “I like the PKK. They are very good people. They look after people here. The PKK are fighters but they are not dangerous people like other people, like Islamic people. Like Osama bin Laden.” The British journalist talked with **one man in enormous Northern Iraq without mentioning his name**, and, this one man praised PKK in an unbelievable manner. What is strange here is that this ‘one man’ used the expression of ‘dangerous’ for the Islamic people. Then, is this ‘one man’ non-Muslim?

Another person with whom the British journalist talked is again **unnamed one** middle-aged man. This middle-aged man states: “The Turkish government wants to attack all the Kurdish people and not just the PKK. Turkey just wants to make things complicated here in the Kurdish region of Iraq.” **The British journalist does not give the name of this middle-aged man, but does not hesitate to add: “That view is shared by many local politicians...**”

The third man with whom BBC talked in this region again does not have any name. The person is presented as an elderly man in the news. This elderly man says: “The PKK are human beings like us. They just want to stay in their country. The Turkish government is like Saddam Hussein's regime. In the south of Turkey they cannot even study their own language. The situation is getting worse. We just want it to improve and for there to be peace.”

How is it possible to mention about the **good will** and independent journalism of BBC after seeing such expressions? ***If we, by stating to have talked with three unnamed people, publish those writings praising Al-Qaeda and make a comparison between the British government Saddam Husain, how would be the reaction of London to such condemnation?*** By the way, let’s to remind, the article of Thorold was just only **one example that can be regarded as BBC’s explicit support to PKK**.

The Washington Post

The Washington Post was among the newspapers ‘supporting’ PKK during and after the Operation. The news entitled as A Kurdish Society of Soldiers[6], written by Joshua Partlow and photographed by Andrea Bruce, constitutes on its own such an excellent example that it can serve as the basis of the book to be prepared for **the course on the issue of how to support terrorism with media**. ** Partlow portrayed PKK as ‘a Kurdish movement and army seeking for justice’**. What is more, he presented PKK as a civilized movement far from the violent culture of the Middle East, and went even to a point to state: “They relate their struggle to those of the American revolutionaries who fought the British crown.” The Andrea Bruce’s camera tried to create an image of poor but proud people who are romantic, civilized and in a struggle for right. The journalists claim to follow the operation with PKK terrorists for 5 days. I say ‘they claim to’ because there is no sign of clashes in their photos. In the writings of Partlow and the photos of Bruce, instead of a harshly devastated Zap region, there exist the terrorists of PKK who stand to challenge Turkey and behave so calm and romantic to feed a little bear with baby bottle. Additionally, Partlow noted that the ‘guerrillas’ of PKK received no salaries. It is obvious that Partlow regards PKK members not as terrorists, but as laborers who should get salaries in return for their jobs.

Especially Andrea Bruce’s photo showing a member of PKK feeding a little bear with a baby bottle should be analyzed more closely. Of course, Bruce did not put the expression of ‘terrorist’ under this photo, too. This person called as ‘A PKK rebel’ smiles while feeding the baby animal with the compassion of a mother. He has a Kalashnikov put on the rocks, but Bruce stated that PKK is a self-sufficient society, and bears no resemblance to the rest of Iraq. Within such a portrayal, the one looking at the photo either feels sorry for PKK or admires it...>>

Full text available at:

-If I am not mistaken, one of the terrorists in one of the photos within the abovegiven article has a US manufactured rifle leaning on the wall...How did he acquire it?

Anti-Turkism, Turkophobia, Turcophobia or anti-Turkish sentiment is the hostility towards Turkish people, Turkish culture, the Ottoman Empire (Turkish Empire) and the Republic of Turkey. In late 19th century, William Ewart Gladstone firmly established Turcophobia as a shift in the British policy directed against Ottoman Empire.[1]

Anti-Turkism does not always refer to just the Turks of Turkey but it can refer to various Turkic peoples and Balkan Muslims. This includes the Turkic peoples living in the Russian Federation, the Turkic states of the former Soviet Union, the autonomous Xinjiang Uyghur region of the People's Republic of China, the not recognized "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and even also non-Turkic Balkan Muslims, particularly Bosniaks and ethnic Macedonians.

Turkophobia has its origins dating back to the Crusades. The desperate situation of the Byzantine Empire following the Seljuk Turkish invasion of Anatolia led Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095 to call upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks.

By the middle of the 1400s special masses called missa contra turcas (translated as "mass against Turks") were celebrated in various places in Europe,[2] the message of these masses was that victory over the Turks was only possible with the help of God and that a Christian community was therefore necessary to withstand the cruelty of the Turks.

Bishop Fabri of Vienna (1536–41) claimed that:
"There are no crueller and more audacious villains under the heavens than the Turks who spare no age or sex and mercilessly cut down young and old alike and pluck unripe fruit from the wombs of mothers".[2]

In the 16th century about 2,500 publications about the Turks were spread around Europe (over a thousand of which were in German), in these publications the image of the 'bloodthirsty Turk' was imprinted on reader. In fact in the period of 1480 to 1610, twice as many books were published about the Turkish threat to Europe than about the discovery of the continents of America.[2]

During this time the Ottoman Empire had conquered the Balkans and had been besieging Vienna. There was much fear in Europe about the Ottoman spread.

Philipp Melanchthon claimed that the Turks were the Red Jews - Jews because they circumcised their sons and had other Jewish manners and Jewish customs and Red because they were bloodhounds that murdered and warred.[2]

Martin Luther had the view that the Turks invasion of Europe was Gods punishment of Christianity because it had allowed the corruption of both the Holy See and the Church. In 1518 when he defended his 95 theses, Luther claimed that God had sent the Turks to punish the Christians in the same way as he had sent war, plagues and earthquakes. The reply of Pope Leo X was the famous papal bull in which he threatened Luther with excommunication and attempted to portray Luther as a troublemaker who advocated capitulation to the Turks.[2]

According to some theologians the word Turk came from "torquere" ("torture"), and according to another popular theory the Turks were identical with the Scythians who were considered a particularly cruel race.[2]

Stories of the dog-Turk also gave Europe this negative image of the Turks. The dog-Turk was claimed to be a man-eating being, half animal half human with a dog’s head and tail. Military power and cruelty were the recurring attributes in all these claims about the origins of the Turks.[2]

In Sweden, the Turks were designated the arch-enemy of Christianity. This is evident in a book entitled Luna Turcica eller Turkeske måne, anwissjandes lika som uti en spegel det mahometiske vanskelige regementet, fördelter uti fyra qvarter eller böcker ("Turkish moon showing as in a mirror the dangerous Mohammedan rule, divided into four quarters or books") which was published in 1694 and was written by the parish priest Erland Dryselius of Jönköping. In sermons the country's clergy preached about the Turks' general cruelty and bloodthirstiness and of how they systematically burned and plundered the areas they conquered. In a Swedish school book published in 1795 Islam was described as "the false religion that had been fabricated by the great deceiver Muhammad, to which the Turks to this day universally confess".[2]


Many vices in the world were associated with the Turks. Some sayings:
In Italian phrases such as "bestemmia come un Turco" ("he swears like a Turk") and "puzza come un Turco" ("he stinks like a Turk") were used often.[2] One of the most infamous Italian phrase (and one much used by headline writers) was "Mamma li Turchi!" ("Oh my, the Turks are coming!") this is used to suggest an imminent danger.[3] In addition, Italians regularly use the expression "Fumare come un Turco" ("To smoke like a Turk"). In German[2] and in Serbian,[citation needed] there are phrases that mean "he smokes like a Turk".[4]
In French, the word Turc was once used in proverbial expressions such as C'est un vrai Turc ("He's a real Turk"), used to indicate that a person was harsh and pitiless.[5]
When the Spanish wanted to make disparaging remarks about a person, he/she was called "turco".[2]
In Austrian rural areas you can sometimes still hear today how children are called in from play: "Es ist schon dunkel. Türken kommen. Türken kommen" ("It’s already dark, The Turks are coming. The Turks are coming").[2]
In Persian, "Tork-e khar" ("Turkish ass/donkey") is a derogatory joke usually directed against Turkic-speaking Iranian Azeris.[6][7]
In Russian there is a proverb ???????? ????? ???? ???????? ("An unwanted guest is worse than Tatar").[8]

Dictionaries presenting an Anti-Turkish bias

Below are definitions given in dictionaries that can clearly demonstrate Anti-Turkism. It should be noted that since dictionaries are by definition descriptive and not prescriptive, this does not necessarily reflect an anti-Turkish bias of the editors, but rather anti-Turkish usage.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary: One who is cruel or tyrannical. (noted as archaic)[2][9]
Concise Oxford Dictionary: Ferocious, wild or unmanageable person.[2][10]
Random House Dictionary: A cruel, brutal or domineering man.[2]

Within the Ottoman Empire

Within the Ottoman Empire, the name "Turk" was insulting to some and used to denote backwoodsmen, bumpkins, or the illiterate peasants in Anatolia. "Etrak-i bi-idrak", for example, was an Ottoman play on words, meaning "the stupid Turk".[11]

Özay Mehmet in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions[12]:“ The ordinary Turks did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: "in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." (Lewis 1968: 1)

In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: "The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended."(Davey 1907: 209) ”

Handan Nezir Akmese, who describes the attempts of the Young Turk movement to ingrain nationalism among the Turkish speakers of the Ottoman empire prior to WWI[13]:“ One consequence was to reinforce these officers sense of their Turkish nationality, and a sense of national grievance arising out of the contrast between the non-Muslim communities, with their prosperous, European-educated elites, and "the poor Turks [who] inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plough." Unlike the non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities, they noted with some bitterness, the Turks did not even have a proper sense of their own national identity, and used to make fun of each other, calling themselves "donkey Turk" ”

Anti-Turkish examples in film and theatre

Shakespeare's famous play Othello, Othello says the following before stabbing himself
Set you down this;
And say besides, that in Aleppo once,
Where a malignant and a turban’d Turk
Beat a Venetian and traduc’d the state,
I took by the throat the circumcised dog,
And smote him thus.

Lawrence of Arabia who helped the Arabs during Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War made claims that he was raped by a Turkish soldier, but this was proved to be incorrect. Some people view Lawrence's accusations as slanderous against Turkish people.[14][15] What caused the most controversy was the film called Lawrence of Arabia. The film caused a storm of protest and indignation in Turkey.[citation needed]

Another example was the Oscar winning film Midnight Express written by Oliver Stone, based on the book of the same title. The film is about a young American called Billy Hayes who has been given a long prison sentence after being arrested for possession of hash. All the Turks in the film are portrayed as bloodthirsty and sadistic torturers with homosexual inclinations, unshaven and swarthy with unkempt moustaches. In fact, none of the actors were Turkish and many of the most obnoxious roles were played by Greek and Armenian actors. Istanbul is also changed beyond recognition. All the buildings are dilapidated, laundry hangs over dark and ominous alleys full of people of menacing appearance and on the pavements idle men with dull eyes sit smoking their hookahs. Istanbul was changed into a third world city characterised by violence, disorder and chaos. All through the film, the imprisoned Billy Hayes and his family talk of the Turks as "pigs". The film had scenes where Billy Hayes was raped by fellow Turkish prisoners, though the book written by Hayes doesn't mention getting raped, but does admit consensual sex. Oliver Stone has apologized for any offence, saying "many hearts were broken in Turkey" because of the movie.[16]

In the 1962 movie Lolita by Stanley Kubrick, Mrs. Charlotte Humbert says to her husband:
I wouldn't care if your maternal grandfather turned out to be a Turk... But if I ever found out that you didn't believe in God, I think I would commit suicide.

In 1988 movie "Mississippi Burning" by Alan Parker, the head of the Ku Klux Klan tells reporters: "…we do not accept Jews because they reject God…and Turks, Mongols, Orientals, nor Negros because we’re here to protect the Anglo-saxon Christian democracy and the American way…".

In an episode of the Simpsons entitled Mobile Homer, Homer says to a Turk:
Bring back our children, you Cyprus-splitting jerks!

Many Turks and especially Turkish Cypriots took offence to this considering the sensitivity of the Cyprus dispute.

Anti-Turkish quotes

Voltaire characterised the Turks as:
"tyrants of the women and enemies of arts".

He also spoke of the need:
"to chase away from Europe these barbaric usurpers"

He accused the Turks of having destroyed Europes ancient heritage from :"the Orient’s Christian realm" and wrote:
"I wish fervently that the Turkish barbarians be chased away immediately out of the country of Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Sophocles and Euripides. If we wanted, it could be done soon but seven crusades of superstition have been undertaken and a crusade of honour will never take place. We know almost no city built by them; they let decay the most beautiful establishments of Antiquity, they reign over ruins."

Cardinal Newman described the Turks as:
the "great anti-Christ among the races of men."[17]

He also said:
“The barbarian power, which has been for centuries seated in the very heart of the Old World, which has in its brute clutch the most famous countries of classical and religious antiquity and many of the most fruitful and beautiful regions of the earth; and, which, having no history itself, is heir to the historical names of Constantinople and Nicaea, Nicomedia and Caesarea, Jerusalem and Damascus, Nineva and Babylon, Mecca and Bagdad, Antioch and Alexandria, ignorantly holding in its possession one half of the history of the whole world.”[17]

William Ewart Gladstone, a 19th century British Prime Minister was quoted in the same book as saying:
“Let me endeavor, very briefly to sketch, in the rudest outline what the Turkish race was and what it is. It is not a question of Mohammedanism simply, but of Mohammedanism compounded with the peculiar character of a race. They are not the mild Mohammedans of India, nor the chivalrous Saladins of Syria, nor the cultured Moors of Spain. They were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force as opposed to government by law.—Yet a government by force can not be maintained without the aid of an intellectual element.— Hence there grew up, what has been rare in the history of the world, a kind of tolerance in the midst of cruelty, tyranny and rapine. Much of Christian life was contemptuously left alone and a race of Greeks was attracted to Constantinople which has all along made up, in some degree, the deficiencies of Turkish Islam in the element of mind!”[17]

David Lloyd George former British Prime Minister said in 1914 that:
The Turks are a human cancer, a creeping agony in the flesh of the lands which they misgovern, rotting every fibre of life ... I am glad that the Turk is to be called to a final account for his long record of infamy against humanity.[18]

When Venizelos dined at Downing Street, Lloyd George proposed the toast: “May the Turk be turned out of Europe and sent to . . . where he came from.” Lord Curzon agreed: “For more than five centuries, the presence of the Turk in Europe has been a source of distraction, intrigue, and corruption . . . Let not this occasion be missed of purging the earth of one of its most pestilent roots of evil”.[19]

The New York Tribune told its readers in the year 1919:
the Turks have always been a parasite and a stench in the nostrils of civilization[20]

A former American ambassador to Berlin suggested that: the Turks could be dealt with by adopting the US system of parklike reservations such as were used for the American Indians.[21]

Ziya Gökalp, prominent Turkish ideologue of Pan-Turkism, in his writings heavily criticizes officials of the Ottoman Empire for always using the term "donkey Turk" regarding its Turkish subjects. [22]

^ M. B. Cooper. "British Policy in the Balkans, 1908-9", The Historical Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2. (1964), p. 258
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Turkey, Sweden and the EU Experiences and Expectations", Report by the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, April 2006, p. 6
^ The View from Bologna: Mama, the Turks! European integration and the burden of history
^ German: "er qualmt wie ein Türke", Serbian: "On puši k'o Turčin"
^ http://portail.atilf.fr/cgi-bin/getobject_?a.15:74./var/artfla/dicos/ACAD_1694/IMAGE/
^ Fereydoun Safizadeh. "Is There Anyone in Iranian Azerbaijan Who Wants to Get a Passport to Go to Mashad, Qum, Isfahan or Shiraz? - The Dynamics of Ethnicity in Iran", Payvand's Iran News, February 2007
^ Brenda Shaffer. "The Formation of Azerbaijani collective identity in Iran", Nationalities Papers, 28:3 (2000), p. 463
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=iWy0clZRkQwC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C+%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5+%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0&source=web&ots=MmWrMBvinZ&sig=kRRnzUHXkR9PlEdDANKzwPigXBc&hl=en
^ Webster (Internet Archive)
^ AENJ 1.1: Stigma, racism and power
^ Alfred J. Rieber, Alexei Miller. Imperial Rule, Central European University Press, 2005. pg 33
^ Ozay Mehmet, Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery, Routledge, 1990. pg 115
^ Handan Nezir Akmeshe, The Birth Of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military And The March To World War I, I.B.Tauris, 2005. pg 50
^ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp
^ News - Telegraph
^ Stone sorry for Midnight Express | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
^ a b c Chapter 2 in George Horton's book The Blight of Asia
^ Quoted from a speech by the British Prime Minister, D. Lloyd George, 10 November 1914, cited in H.W.V. Temperley (ed.), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, Oxford 1969, VI, 24.
^ Paradise Lost Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of Islam’s City of Tolerance by Giles Milton
^ Nicole and Hugh Pope, Turkey unveiled : a history of modern Turkey, Woodstock, N.Y. : Overlook Press, 2004, p. 60 ISBN 1585675814
^ Nicole and Hugh Pope, Turkey unveiled : a history of modern Turkey, Woodstock, N.Y. : Overlook Press, 2004, p. 60 ISBN 1585675814
^ Gençtürk Haber
"Turkey, Sweden and the EU Experiences and Expectations", Report by the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, April 2006, p. 6


Post a Comment

The form below could be used for:
# Anonymous Dob In Line,
# your comments & feedback,
# pasting your several pageful of articles to be published here at this site.

# also leave your name & email address, if you want to be contacted
# and write "Confidential" at the top and bottom of your message if you do not want your comment or feedback to to be published here

Anonymous Posting Details:
(We publish Your IP address & tracking info if anonymous)
After entering your text in the comment box,
Please select profile as "Anonymous" within the "Comment As" DropDown Menu, or just select Name/URL & enter your name or your web address,

Then publish it by clicking on the "POST COMMENT" button, below.