“In recent years, the deteriorating Turkish-American relations have reached another stage as of yesterday.
America deliberately shot down a Turkish drone in northern Syria.
According to the statement by the U.S. Department of Defense, the Turkish UAV was shot down on the grounds that it posed a threat to American soldiers’ safety. In other words, the Americans intentionally and willingly shot it down.
So, what does this incident mean? What can we expect from now on?
As it is known, the agenda in Syria heated up after the bomb attack on the General Directorate of Security on October 1st.
MIT (Turkish National Intelligence Organization) and the Turkish Armed Forces claimed that the attackers received training in Syria.
The incident that escalated tensions was the ‘legitimate target’ statement made by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan on October 4th.
Fidan said, “Especially in Iraq and Syria, all infrastructure, superstructure facilities, and energy facilities belonging to the PKK/YPG are now the legitimate target of our security forces, armed forces, and intelligence elements as a whole. I recommend that third parties stay away from PKK/YPG facilities and individuals,” causing eyes to turn to Washington.
It was clear that the ‘third party’ referred to here was the U.S.
Fidan’s statement was followed by a ‘war cabinet’ meeting held at the Ministry of Defense.
Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya, MIT Director İbrahim Kalın, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Defense Minister Yaşar Güler, and Chief of the General Staff Metin Gürak attended the meeting, delivering a message of determination.
However, an unexpected development occurred at this stage.
In response to Fidan’s reference to the ‘third party,’ which was clearly the U.S., the U.S. directly shot down a Turkish UAV.
Although the ruling media tried to close the incident by saying, ‘The UAV is not ours,’ this incident could be a historic turning point. Because, for the first time in history, the U.S. shot down an aircraft belonging to a NATO ally.
The insinuations in the statements made by the U.S. were very remarkable.
Without twisting words, the Pentagon said, “Your Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) had approached dangerously close to the safety of U.S. troops, so we shot it down,” despite using the term ‘Turkish UAV.’ However, Ankara made a statement saying, “The shot-down UAV does not belong to us.”
Ankara’s statement can be interpreted in two ways.
First, they are not in favor of escalating tensions with the U.S. Especially considering that Erdogan, who does his best to secure an appointment with the White House, would be the last person to want to fight with Washington.
Second, the allegations that Turkey provided drones to jihadist groups in the region have taken on a new dimension. According to the allegations, Turkey was providing drones to jihadist groups and conducting operations through them, with the plan to disown them in case something went wrong.
I don’t think this cunning plan will work, to be honest. Because everyone knows the identity of every aircraft in the sky. Moreover, we are talking about a region with a very high number of intelligence personnel per square meter.
While everyone was waiting for statements from Erdogan or AKP officials, they contented themselves with inflating the air operation in northern Syria with their troll armies and propaganda tools.
So what does this incident herald, and what should we expect from now on?
First of all, it is worth noting that the shooting down of a Turkish aircraft by the U.S. is as important, if not more important, than Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet. Just as the downing of the Russian jet led to significant changes in both domestic and foreign policy, similar results can be expected from this incident.
Secondly, by responding firmly to Turkey, the U.S. has sent a message of ‘know your limits.’ This can be interpreted as the beginning of changes in Ankara-Washington relations.
Erdogan doesn’t have many options.
He won’t engage in a fight with the U.S., from which he expects both money and political support. Moreover, Erdogan’s animosity towards America is related to domestic politics.
Otherwise, there is a significant difference between his behavior when he visits Washington and what he says in Turkey.
In the end, we are at a historical crossroads, but what will determine the course of the process is not Erdogan’s attitude but the method the U.S. chooses.
If only you cared about the martyrs, right?
This situation is actually a classic example of Turkey. During the February 28 period, the powerful generals of the time and the politicians who relied on them used to sing the ‘fight against religious fundamentalism’ song whenever they were in trouble.
Whenever someone committed a heinous crime or a corruption scandal broke out, they would defend themselves by saying, ‘We fought against religious fundamentalism.’
Time has passed, and nothing remains of those powerful generals. The victims of that era have become the rulers of today.
But the irony is that today’s victims, by copying and even enhancing the tactics of yesterday’s oppressors, have become today’s oppressors.
When they are cornered, they immediately start chewing the ‘Gülenist’ gum. And there is a different version of that gum for every situation and circumstance.
Well, AKP supporters don’t stop at anything; they even use the ‘Gülenist’ gum for no reason.
So much so that now we can say this with confidence: if someone keeps saying ‘Gülenist’ for no reason, they are either a thief or immoral. This rule has hardly ever been broken so far.
We experienced the same thing with Yusuf Kerim. Anyone with even a crumb of conscience could not remain indifferent to the drama that unfolded. But we saw that most AKP members didn’t have even a crumb of conscience.
Especially the scenes that occurred in the Turkish Grand National Assembly the other day will not be forgotten.
No one with a conscience could remain indifferent to the tragic death of a 6-year-old child. But we saw that most AKP members didn’t have even a crumb of conscience.
If they really cared about the 251 martyrs, they would first try to understand and illuminate every aspect of what happened on that strange night.
For example, Leyla Şahin Usta could have asked what happened to the TBMM Coup Investigation Commission report, who destroyed it, and how.
If they had the slightest concern about the 251 martyrs, they would ask about the bullets that were not in the inventory of the Turkish Armed Forces but caused at least 63 of the martyrs’ deaths, according to the research of the July 15 Deaths Investigation Platform (www.15temmuzplatformu.com).
They would investigate who killed Erol Olçok with a sniper shot, for example, rather than treating Zekai Aksakallı as a hero. They would ask how Semih Terzi was brought to Ankara despite the flight ban, why he was killed, and why Mihrali Atmaca, who killed Ömer Halisdemir, was congratulated.
If they had any concern for the martyrs, they would question the strangeness of dozens of generals dancing at weddings when a coup was about to happen, and why the President, Prime Minister, MIT Undersecretary, Chief of General Staff, and force commanders did not call each other and take no steps to prevent the easily preventable coup. They would not consider these normal and would question them.
In short, the ‘251 martyrs’ narrative is just a lie. Because, according to the research of the July 15 Deaths Investigation Platform, at least 63 of the 251 martyrs had no connection to the coup.
The ‘251 martyrs’ narrative is just a lie.
In short, those who keep saying ‘but 251 martyrs’ whenever they are in trouble, forgive me, are two-faced and opportunistic. Your concern is neither the martyrs nor their bereaved families.
Your only agenda is to maintain your power and fill your pockets. Some of you soothe your consciences with ‘251 martyrs.’
As Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu said, you fear Erdogan, not God.”
