Orhan Kemal Cengiz, again

Orhan Kemal Cengiz gets his facts wrong (again).  In his column today, he states that we have accused the police of fabricating the Sledgehammer evidence.

“Among others, are allegations that police fabricated evidence against the accused.”

(Even though he does not name us, it is evident from reading his column that he has our arguments in mind.)

This is wrong of course.  We do not know who has fabricated the Sledgehammer documents.  So we have certainly not pointed to the police as the culprit.  We have no idea where Cengiz gets this idea from. We have referred instead in generic terms to an “organized gang” (çete, in Turkish) as the source of the forged documents.

We do believe the prosecutors have misused their authority in a number of respects.  As we have repeatedly pointed out here, they have misinterpreted the available forensic reports, overlooked clear-cut inconsistencies, hid important pieces of documentary evidence from the defense, misrepresented their contents in the indictment, and have failed to interview key witnesses, such as Aytaç Yalman.  We have filed legal complaints on these matters, with no response to date.  (By the way, we have been consulting with numerous experts on the European Court of Human Rights, and are following up on all avenues that can be pursued.)

Cengiz also writes something that is quite astounding:

“Let me explain my position. I know most of these allegations are false and are a classic defense strategy by the accused in such cases.”

“I know most of these allegations are false,” he says.  His certainty is astonishing.  We would love to hear from him how he can explain the dozens of anachronisms we have identified in the Sledgehammer documents.  In fact, we would be pleased to correct any “allegation” we have made in this blog that he can show to be false.

Cengiz was one of three authors of the July 2010 report titled “Ergenekon is Our Reality.”  We wrote a series of critiques of this report (see here and the links therein), which we found to be an evident attempt to obfuscate the inconsistencies in the prosecutors’ charges.  But we also went one step further and invited Cengiz (and his co-authors) to an open debate.  We received no response.

We actually doubt that Cengiz knows much about the details of the Sledgehammer case – and if he does, we would ask that he respond to the questions we posed above.  So we are puzzled that he would be so sure about his facts (“I know most of these allegations are false”).  In any case, we are happy to renew our invitation to him for an open debate and discussion.

Abone Ol

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

25 Yorum “Orhan Kemal Cengiz, again”

  1. Hacemmi Says:

    Freudian slip: A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious (“dynamically repressed”) wish, conflict, or train of thought.
    (from Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip)

    Cevapla

  2. fmerakli Says:

    Dogan and Rodrik,

    You say that you do not know who fabricated the Sledgehammer documents, which is fine. But you also say that you have no idea where Cengiz got the idea that police fabricated the evidence against the accused.

    I also don’t know where Cengiz got that idea, but one of the possibility would be the comments posted under your blog entries by the followers. Indeed such allegations targeting the police, or the so-called Gulenists in the police force, have been voiced various times in this blog. So I wouldn’t surprise if Cengiz got the idea from the comments posted to this blog by certain followers. Here is a recent example:

    “Cemaatci polisin Vatan caddesine yakin bir internet cafe’den yine emniyetin ihbar mail adresine gonderdigi, icinde yalan yanlis dezenformasyon olan ve sakirtlerin, o butun dunyaya Turkce ogreten, Beninli’ye, Uruguayli’ya, Kalimantanli’ya, Timbuktulu’ya Istiklal Marsimizi evelallah ezberletebilen o böyyük Fethullahci okullarda aldiklari Turkce egitminin kalitesini (!?) gosteren bir “ucube” var karsimizda.”

    Cevapla

    • acracia Says:

      If Cengiz got the idea from the blog commentators’ that would imply two things:

      1) That he read the blog.

      But then, if he read the blog, he would not confuse Sledgehammer with Ergenekon now, would he? (Or maybe he knows something we don’t? Who knows.) And he also wouldn’t have called Rodrik the lawyer of Ergenekon that spreads lies; because only documented hard evidence is the basis of fake evidence here. And, he would have known that the blog owners don’t say the police fabricated the document but call attention to the problems of issuing such fake evidence by the law enforcement.

      2) That he might be confused and doesn’t realize Rodrik and Dogan alleged something *is not* the same as some commentators who, using their right of freedom of speech and opinion express them here.

      They may always be expressed in the most elegant way, and I may not always agree with them, but it is commentators’ right to express their opinions. What is being said is nothing in the face of the lies spread by Today’s Zaman, Zaman and the likes. And if Cengiz confuses the bloggers with the commentators, that would mean he doesn’t know how to interpret what he reads; so I highly doubt that, since I think he is a pretty smart man.

      As for the freedom of speech: after all the horror spread about certain targets, the subsequent internet censorship and the problematic status of the freedom of speech in Turkey, I guess it is hard to understand that everyone has the right to express what they think and their opinion. What I get from all this, on the other hand, is a feeling of being disturbed from the comments being made here.
      This is the second insinuation here on this subject.

      If so, USA is a country where even such groups as Westboro church members are free to express what they think. I say “even” because they stand against everything I stand for, but they are free to express their opinion. Only a person who thinks thought is a crime would insinuate the comments here are a crime.

      And finally: in the face of all the accusations, Fmerakli, let me remind you that in the past you accused the blog owners Rodrik and Dogan of being the spy of the army, for which you had to apologize for having jumped to a conclusion because of a document here. And that was your opinion. And it wasn’t worse or better than the comment you have quoted about the police officers above. That is their opinion.

      Regards.

      Cevapla

      • acracia Says:

        Correction: “they may always be expressed in the most elegant way…” should read “they may *not* always be…”

        Cevapla

      • fmerakli Says:

        Acracia,

        YOu mentioned that before but I have missed Cengiz’s statement accusing Rodrik of being the lawyer of Ergenekon that spreads lies. The closest statement of him that I can remember is one his tweets:

        “@rodrikdani Asil siz bir bilim adamı olarak, biraz objektif olup, butun Ergenekon saniklarini aklamak icin giristiginiz cabayi gorseniz.”

        I am sure this is not his statement you were referring to, so I appreciate if you can let me know about where he stated that Rodrik is spreading lies as the lawyer of Ergenekon.

        ALso I don’t recall myself calling Dogan and Rodrik as being the spies of the army. I also appreciate if you remind me exactly where and how I called them as such. I really doubt that it was how you perceived whatever I said, because I did not (and cannot) call them as the spies of the army because i. I don’t believe that they are/were ii. I also know that such false allegations might have legal implications.

        I recall myself pointing out a possibility that one of the documents, of which I cannot remember the content now, might have given to Dogan and Rodrik before it became public, but it has nothing to do with accusing them of being spies, so I appreciate if you clarify how and when I called them the spies of the army…

        Cevapla

        • acracia Says:

          Twitter:

          “orhan kemal cengiz
          orkece orhan kemal cengiz
          @
          @rodrikdani Asil siz bir bilim adamı olarak, biraz objektif olup, butun Ergenekon saniklarini aklamak icin giristiginiz cabayi gorseniz.
          5 May
          orhan kemal cengiz
          orkece orhan kemal cengiz
          @
          @rodrikdani o kadar militan tarafgirsiniz ki, Turkiyeden gelen misafirleri insanlarin dinlememesi icin kampanya yurutuyorsunuz.
          5 May”

          I translate: “If only as a scientist you could be objective and see [all the] effort you have put yourself into exonerating/proving the innocence of all Ergenekon suspects.”

          Key words: exonerating/proving the innocence, *all*, Ergenekon suspects.

          Only a lawyer would do these things.

          You claimed they had direct information flow from within the army and that this shouldn’t be surprising because it is against the law of the nature (esyanin tabiatina aykiri, but I cannot translate) to think that this would have been otherwise. At the time I corrected you telling what it was that you were insinuating, that this meant they were the representatives of the army, which when done in hiding as you were insinuating, is the definition of spying activity. I reminded you what this allegation implied at the time, very clearly.

          “Anlasilan o ki Dogan ve Rodrik’e yargi surecini aksi telkinlere ragmen sukunet ve itidal
          ile izleyen TSK icinden ciddi bir bilgi akisi saglaniyor… Bu yanlistir ve olmamalidir demiyorum, zaten olmamasi esyanin tabiatina aykiridir, ama artik “celiskileri herkese acik kaynaklardan edindigimiz bilgiler ile saptiyoruz” iddiasi inandiriciligini kaybetmis gorunmekte ve ordunun Balyoz plani ile iliskili olarak sesini bu blog araciligi ile duyurmayi tercih ettigi gibi bir izlenim dogmaktadir.”

          https://cdogangercekler.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/yine-gelecege-donus-belgeler-bu-defa-golcuk%E2%80%99ten/#comment-2045

          In other words, in both cases, you can call somebody something without using those exact words and implying it. Mine was simply to put their meaning upfront and skipping the niceties.

          Cevapla

          • acracia Says:

            Correction:

            “…law of the nature (esyanin tabiatina aykiri, but I cannot translate)”

            should read:

            “…law of the nature (esyanin tabiatina aykiri, but I cannot translate and find an exact counterpart of this idiom–this is the closest).

            Cevapla

          • acracia Says:

            And let me add one more thing: Secretly representing and working for an institution like the army and getting inside information, documents,etc (whether collecting it from an opposite camp or one’s own camp to spread information) to fight against something is the definition of spying activity in my mind.

            So: Thank you for your statement that allowed me to elaborate on this issue. And as you indicate above, if you say this is not what you meant, then no problem on my account, I would stand corrected.

            And yet, whether it is words or not, the subject matter I was emphasizing doesn’t change: making unfounded allegations and accusations here have been done numerous times by commentators, including you. The statement still doesn’t change.

            Cevapla

            • acracia Says:

              Just so that there is not misunderstanding: “own” and “opposite” were supposed to be in quotation marks to denote the problem here.

              Cevapla

          • fmerakli Says:

            I see that both instances reflect how you perceived the statements not what was said exactly.

            For Cengiz’s statement, apparently he did not explicitly call Rodrik as the lawyer of Ergenekon, and even after your comment Cengiz’s accusation of Rodrik “spreading lies” is yet to be explained. You explained your understanding of how Cengiz regarded Rodrik as the lawyer of Ergenekon without explicitly saying that (so it is your perception, not the fact), but you did not explain ‘spreding the lies’ bit, and given that what he wrote in his tweets, it seems to me that it was your addition to what he actually said. Sorry to say, but from his tweets I don’t come to conclusion that Cengiz called Dani as the lawyer of Ergenekon that spreads lies.

            For my statement, again it is about how you perceived it. I did not call Dogan and Rodrik as the spies of the army in the quotation you gave above even implicitly. I simply talked about the flow of information to Dogan and Rodrik from within the army, and expressed my perception that the army might have chosen to voice some of its concerns through this blog. I also thank you for the link to our earlier discussion Acracia. After reading our replies to each other, I also found interesting that in our discussion in Turkish you neither accused me of saying, or implying, Dogan and Rodrik being the spies (casus) of the army, nor you explained what spying means to you. But now, five months after that discussion, you are saying that I “accused the blog owners Rodrik and Dogan of being the spy of the army, for which you had to apologize”

            So the fact is that I did not call them as being the spies of the army, therefore I did not apologize them for that. Under that thread, I apologized them not for calling them as being spies (because again I did not do so) but for an entirely different thing:

            “Acikca ifade edeyim ki bu surecte Dogan ve Rodrik’in acik olmayan kaynaklardan edindikleri bilgiyi kullanmalarini sanki yanlis bir seymis gibi gostermek amacim da yoktu. Boyle anlasildigi ise Dogan ve Rodrik’ten de ozur dilerim.”

            If you think I apologized here for accusing them of being the spies of the army, what can I say?

            But after reading your comments in English and Turkish on the exactly same statement of mine, I wonder whether you think differently in these languages, because in Turkish you never used the words spy/spying; you did not need to elaborate on what you understand from these words, and basically you did not accuse me of calling them as being the spies of the army.

            Cevapla

            • acracia Says:

              Fmerakli,

              1) There is a missing piece in Twitter. Because the statements were also in response to this:

              “rodrikdani Dani Rodrik
              @
              @orkece kendinizle celisiyorsunuz. Son birkac mesajinizi okuyun
              6 May
              Dani Rodrik
              rodrikdani Dani Rodrik
              @
              @orkece ayrica gercekten cok buyuk iddialarda bulunuyorsunuz hakkimda. Bana davalar ya da baska konuda bir yalanimi gosterir misiniz.
              6 May”

              Rodrik was answering him with the following:

              “Also, you are making very big statements about me. Can you show me one lie I have said about the trials or something else?”

              This was in response to Orhan Kemal Cengiz’s statement about lies, but what he responded to is not there anymore. Here Rodrik was answering against the allegation that he was telling lies. I wish I had archived the twits right at that time, but I haven’t. (If anyone else did, please enter that here.)

              2) You can try to make this about something that this is not, all the way you want. I have given examples, and explained why I thought so, you can now try to go after the examples and explain why these “words” are this or that. I would humbly stand corrected if you say “spy” implication was not what was on your mind. Nonetheless, it doesn’t change the fact that you made a serious allegation without basis, just like other commentators’ you are showing as examples here.

              And I will not enter into that kind of discussion; this is not the subject.

              The subject is your showing the commentators as target here, implying that Orhan Kemal Cengiz might have “confused” the blog owners with commentators who accuse people of this or that. And all I said is:

              a) your own allegations were not less unfounded than those.
              b) you are showing commentators’ statements as targets.
              c) as part of freedom of opinion, people can interpret facts in their own way.

              Besides, as I have shown in the (in Turkish) analysis I posted, there are good reasons to be suspicious about the police and the intelligence bureau.

              I repeat, to criminalize an opinion is only something that someone who thinks thought is a crime would do.

              Cevapla

              • fmerakli Says:

                Acracia,

                I can see Cengiz’s all tweets from 2 May to present, but I am not quite sure which twits you were referring to. I copy the merger versions of his twits that you might be referring, but unfortunately I don’t have time to translate them for non-Turkish followers:

                “bunu avukatlariniz soylemedi ise ben soyluyorum. Su ana kadar kirk defa Aihm ye gidebilir ve hatta Mahkeme kurallarinda ozel / hukumleri kullanarak o davayi da coktan bitirebilirdiniz. Aihm size hak verir vr evet bu deliller sahte derse balyoz davasi / cokerdi. tabi amaciniz propaganda yapmak yerine gercekten hak aramak olsaydi butun bunlari yapardiniz. siz hak falan aramiyorsunuz, / hakikatide aramiyorsunuz. Sizin icin bu buyuk bir savas, bu savasta her turlu yalani soylemeye ve o yalanlara inanmaya da hazir gorunuyorsunuz. insanlari yalancilikla suclamak yeribe donup kendi pozisyonunuza bir bakin. / ben hakkinizda hic bir iddiada bulunmuyorum. sadece bana yonelik kullandiginiz rahatsiz edici uslubu siz yonelttim.”

                Here Cengiz is not saying that Dani Rodrik is spreading the lies as the lawyer of Ergenekon, but says Dani seems to be ready to tell and believe any lies, but no reference to either Ergenekon or Dani being the lawyer of Ergenekon…

                SO again it was more of your perception of what he wrote rather than what he exactly wrote. But please don’t misunderstand me, I do not question your perception, you are of course free to perceive whatever way you like, but I just highlight the fact that “Rodrik spreading the lies as the lawyer of Ergenekon” was not his statement but just your perception. And I am not in the position to decisively assess the validity of your perception, only Cengiz can do so.

                But for your perception on my statement you quoted above, of course the things are a bit different. Now you accuse me of making “this about something that this is not”. Well, I really doubt it, I think this is exactly what you tried to do. I did not say or imply that Dogan and Rodrik are/were the spies of the army in that quotation, you did not state that I called them as such in your replies to that statement in Turkish, but now after five months you suddenly came up with the idea that that was the case. Sorry, but isn’t it to make my statement about something that this is not?

                Yes Acracia, spy implication was not in my mind, and apparently it was even not in your mind either when you wrote in Turkish five months ago! You were true in saying that as part of freedom of opinion, people can interpret facts in their own way, and you can free to do so for these facts: the facts that i. I did not call Dogan and Rodrik as being the spies of the army; ii. and naturally I did not apologize them for doing that.

                ———————-

                ps. I did not show any commentator as targets either. I just gave an example of the fact that there have been comments in this blog suggesting that the police fabricated evidence. Dogan and Rodrik apparently had no idea where Cengiz got that idea, and by giving that example I just said that it could be certain comments posted in this blog. It has nothing to do with showing anyone as targets, and it doesn’t mean that I criminalized that opinion either.

                Cevapla

                • fmerakli Says:

                  Correction:

                  “[Cengiz says] Dani seems to be ready to tell and believe any lies *in relation to Balyoz*”

                  Cevapla

                  • acracia Says:

                    I see. Instead of looking into my points, and not the examples, you prefer discussing the examples. And so you are still insisting on the matter, and I went back and reread all that there is available more carefully and found it:


                    orkece orhan kemal cengiz
                    @
                    @rodrikdani da hazir gorunuyorsunuz. insanlari yalancilikla suclamak yeribe donup kendi pozisyonunuza bor bakin.
                    6 Mayorkece orhan kemal cengiz
                    @
                    @rodrikdani sunuz, hakikatide aramiyorsunuz. Sizin icin bu buyuk bir savas, bu savasta her turlu yalani doylemeye ve o yalanlara inanmaya
                    6 May
                    orhan kemal cengiz
                    orkece orhan kemal cengiz
                    @
                    @rodrikdani cokerdi. tabi amaciniz propaganda yapmak yerine gercekten hak aramak olsaydi butun bunlari yapardiniz. siz hak falan aramiyor
                    6 May”

                    Basically, after repeating that if what Rodrik was looking for justice instead of doing propaganda, he would have gone to the European Human Rights Court (and there are Sledgehammer defendants who did apply to this Court as some commentators pointed out; so Cengiz is wrong–#1).

                    And the rest follows, here is a more complete translation; he says the following:

                    “You are not looking for justice, you are also not looking for the truth/facts. For you this is a big war, and in this war you appear to be ready to tell lies and to believe in them. Instead of accusing people of being liars, look at your own position/self.”

                    This means, Rodrik is a liar according to Cengiz and that in Cengiz’s opinion, this “big war” in which Rodrik is, is not about justice or facts but about propaganda (since in his opinion Rodrik didn’t go to the European Human Rights Court, and didn’t complain legally–which Rodrik said they actually did file complaint–Wrong#2). And besides many people here have commented here that he confused Ergenekon and Balyoz. I have also shown above:

                    “If only as a scientist you could be objective and see [all the] effort you have put yourself into exonerating/proving the innocence of all Ergenekon suspects.”

                    He clearly confuses Sledgehammer with Ergenekon. Reading the statements together, the conclusion to draw is very clear.
                    Wrong#3.

                    Today, if I read the kind of statement you wrote about the blog owners, I would still think what is said means spying activities. I have explained why, and if you do say that no, this is not what you meant, I will stand humbly corrected about your intentions. As for OKC, I already said there are many problems with both his statements and yours. Since you are so keen to take the conversation elsewhere, let me bring it back to the main point, removing my final paragraph, which you conveniently choose to make all of this about:

                    “If Cengiz got the idea from the blog commentators’ that would imply two things:

                    1) That he read the blog.

                    But then, if he read the blog, he would not confuse Sledgehammer with Ergenekon now, would he? (Or maybe he knows something we don’t? Who knows.) And he also wouldn’t have called Rodrik the lawyer of Ergenekon that spreads lies; because only documented hard evidence is the basis of fake evidence here. And, he would have known that the blog owners don’t say the police fabricated the document but call attention to the problems of issuing such fake evidence by the law enforcement.

                    2) That he might be confused and doesn’t realize Rodrik and Dogan alleged something *is not* the same as some commentators who, using their right of freedom of speech and opinion express them here.

                    They may always be expressed in the most elegant way, and I may not always agree with them, but it is commentators’ right to express their opinions. What is being said is nothing in the face of the lies spread by Today’s Zaman, Zaman and the likes. And if Cengiz confuses the bloggers with the commentators, that would mean he doesn’t know how to interpret what he reads; so I highly doubt that, since I think he is a pretty smart man.

                    As for the freedom of speech: after all the horror spread about certain targets, the subsequent internet censorship and the problematic status of the freedom of speech in Turkey, I guess it is hard to understand that everyone has the right to express what they think and their opinion. What I get from all this, on the other hand, is a feeling of being disturbed from the comments being made here.
                    This is the second insinuation here on this subject.

                    If so, USA is a country where even such groups as Westboro church members are free to express what they think. I say “even” because they stand against everything I stand for, but they are free to express their opinion. Only a person who thinks thought is a crime would insinuate the comments here are a crime.”

                    Finally: Implicating the commentators as you did insinuates other things, but if you say this is not your intention, then fine.

                    You are wasting my time and yours. Everything is clear.

                    Cevapla

                    • fmerakli Says:

                      Well Acracia, I think I did not waste your time much, as you basically copied and pasted pretty much your earlier comment. And I am not sure that everything is clear.

                      For example you said that:

                      “since in his opinion Rodrik didn’t go to the European Human Rights Court, and didn’t complain legally–which Rodrik said they actually did file complaint–Wrong#2”

                      Not in another blog entry, but just above this page Dogan and Rodrik stated that:

                      “we have been consulting with numerous experts on the European Court of Human Rights, and are following up on all avenues that can be pursued”

                      My impression from the above statement that the complaint has not been lodged to the European Court of Justice, but they consult with the experts to find out potential avenues to be pursued. I got such an impression because I believe one doesn’t need to explore all avenues if the file was officially lodged to the court. Also as being someone following the Turkish media quite closely, I can’t recall any report saying that Cetin Dogan has lodged an offical complaint to the court. But there are other Balyoz defendants, namely Tugamiral Gurdeniz, Tumamiral Cakmak and Tumamiral Cetin, whose applications have been accepted by the ECtHR in March. (http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25197521/)

                      I also wrote in the clearest terms that I did not question how you perceived Cengiz’s statements, but simply highlighted the fact that “Rodrik spreading lies as the lawyer of Ergenekon” was not Cengiz’s statement but your own perception.

                      Regarding to my statement that you quoted, you wrote that:

                      “Today, if I read the kind of statement you wrote about the blog owners, I would still think what is said means spying activities.”

                      But it doesn’t explain why you did not think that it was a spying activity when you replied my comment in Turkish five months ago. If there has been no change in how you define spying activities since last January, you should have written what you wrote in English now in Turkish then. This basically means that we would be having this discussion not today but five months ago, right? We did not have such an argument then, because you did not accuse me of calling Dogan and Rodrik as the spies of the army. So one wonders what has changed since you first wrote your comment in Turkish in January.

                      I also find rather interesting that you keep saying that you would stand corrected about my intentions in the statement you quoted if spying thing was not what I meant. I have already and clearly expressed that neither I had such an intention at all, nor did you state in your Turkish reply that I called them as being the spies of the army.

                    • acracia Says:

                      Actually, yes you did. We both are wasting our time, Fmerakli. And not because there is a misunderstanding. If there were, I would do my best to work on these obscure points. But because:

                      It is very clear what I argue; it is very clear what my stand point is; it is very clear why I interpreted certain things the way I did. You corrected me on your intentions, and that’s fine. What else is there to argue?

                      Copy-pasting is not hasty way of spending less time; copy-pasting is to bring back to your lens what the main point I was making was. It was very simple. The one paragraph you chose to engage is already over-explained for both us.

                      Let me tell you this: I am standing behind every word I said of my own interpretation and my comments regarding what I read of Orhan Kemal Cengiz. I already explained why and I am not going to apologize if this is the meaning I get from his statements. He is the one who confuses things, not me. And it certainly is not my job to decipher what underlyingly he truly meant. He is a smart adult, if he thinks his words do not mean what I made of them, he can correct himself; at least the un-understandable part regarding his mixing Dani Rodrik with Ergenekon and then Sledgehammer. Anyhow, this is all I have to say on this matter. I have no other things to say.
                      Selametle.

                    • fmerakli Says:

                      Acracia,

                      I already said various times above that I did not question your perception on Cengiz’s statements, and did not say that you should apologize for what you wrote. I simply pointed out the difference between your perception and his actual statement, yet you are of course free to perceive his statements any way you like.

                      Regarding my statement, I corrected you regarding my intentions and also questioned why you accused me of calling Dogan and Rodrik as being the spies of the enemies given that you did not make such accusation when you replied my comment five months ago. This is still unanswered, but that’s fine. Also you seem to see apologizing for accusing me of saying something that I did not say as an unnecessary nicety, that’s also fine.

                      Sen de kal selametle…

                    • acracia Says:

                      Ok, I understand and did understand this point. One thing I can say is this: you may be taking it too literally, as I had the Turkish idiom “bir seyin avukatligina soyunmak” (to take undertake the task of lawyership meaning defending something to such an extent that one becomes the lawyer–so-to-speak) here in mind. Maybe this is the missing link between your statements and mine. As this is what I think he accuses Rodrik of.

                      Thanks for your time.

                • fmerakli Says:

                  Important correction

                  “SO again it was more of your perception of what he wrote rather than what he exactly wrote, *if you were referring to his above twits*”

                  Cevapla

    • trssby Says:

      Have your read what you had commented. Pephaps you are an expert on Cengiz ideas, you have the right to speak on behalf of Cengiz, how he got the idea that police has fabricated the evidences against accused from the blog posters. It is full of nonsense. Why don’t you comment on your name, rather prefering to comment on how Cengiz got these ideas to begin with. Don’t you have to ask to Cengiz this questions, than if it is true you have to claim here. As always you are choosing delibaretly an assumption, assuming that is true, and arguing it endlesly.

      Cevapla

      • fmerakli Says:

        Yes I have, but I am not quite sure whether you did so. It seems to me that you wrote your comment after seeing fmerakli as the author without reading carefully what I wrote.

        I am not an expert on Cengiz’s ideas, but nor are Dogan and Rodrik, as they alleged that Cengiz had their arguments in minds when he referred to the allegations of the police fabricating evidence without explicitly mentioning them.

        I did not comment on how Cengiz got these ideas as you claimed. Dogan and Rodrik wrote that they didn’t understand where he got that idea, and I simply pointed out that the possibility that it might have been the comments posted in this blog.

        You might find what I wrote nonsense, that’s fine. But you cannot my view that while such allegations have been made by the commentators in this blog various times for months, to me it is also nonsense to say that they “have no idea where Cengiz gets this idea from”…

        Cevapla

  3. acracia Says:

    I want to interject briefly here, and assert the following:

    Over the last few days, there have been some insinuations and showing commentators as a potentially new target, including that of Fmerakli’s assertion above make me wonder whether my media analysis posted a few days ago that was not aimed at a conspiracy theory, but rather through this analysis, was showing that there were indeed legitimate questions pending that needed to be clarified. The involved parties were particularly Zaman, Today’s Zaman and their general approaches to certain things especially Hrant Dink murder, Zirve missionary assassinations, and the Priest Santoro murder as well as books written about them and the Gulen movement.

    Cevapla

  4. Gurbetci Says:

    Paid intellectuals, i am talking about big money. With that amount of money you can transform an extreme leftist into a liberal rightist. These intellectuals get paid by the us and eu government funds and of course Turkish government money.

    Their god is money. They know the truth themselves, but they are paid hitmen and you can come with the best arguments and proof. They will still continue on defending the akp government mistakes.

    Cevapla

Bir Cevap Yazın

Aşağıya bilgilerinizi girin veya oturum açmak için bir simgeye tıklayın:

WordPress.com Logosu

WordPress.com hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap / Değiştir )

Twitter resmi

Twitter hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap / Değiştir )

Facebook fotoğrafı

Facebook hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap / Değiştir )

Google+ fotoğrafı

Google+ hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap / Değiştir )

Connecting to %s

%d blogcu bunu beğendi: