Why the Alawites in Syria Supported Assad?

Could it be because they didn't want to surrender to the Sunni majority which historically has persecuted them, and because the Alawites can't form a state of their own, even if they wanted to? Consider this:

Five Reasons Why There Will Not Be an Alawite State

Will the Alawites try to establish an Alawite State centered in the Coastal Mountains?

Many opposition figures and journalists insist that the Alawites are planning to fall back to the Alawite Mountains in an attempt to establish a separate state. This is unconvincing. Here are the top five reasons why there will not be an Alawite State.



1. The Alawites have tried to get out of the mountains and into the cities. After the French conquered Syria in 1920, the earliest censuses showed a profound demographic segregation between Sunnis and Alawis. In no town of over 200 people did Alawis and Sunnis live together. The coastal cities of Latakia, Jeble, Tartus and Banyas were Sunni cities with Christian neighborhoods, but no Alawi neighborhoods. Only in Antioch did Alawis live in the city and that city was the capital of a separate autonomous region of Iskandarun, which was ceded to the Turks in 1938. In 1945 only 400 Alawis were registered as inhabitants of Damascus. Ever since the end of the Ottoman era, the Alawis have been streaming out of the mountain region along the coast to live in the cities. The French establishment of an autonomous Alawite state on the coast and their over-recruitment of Alawis into the military sped up this process of urbanization and confessional mixing in the cities of Syria. Assad’s Syria further accelerated the urbanization of the Alawites as they were admitted into universities in large numbers and found jobs in all the ministries and national institutions for the first time.

2. The Assads planned to solve the sectarian problem in Syria by integrating the Alawites into Syria as “Muslims.” They promoted a secular state and tried to suppress any traditions that smacked of a separate “Alawite” identity. No formal Alawi institutions have been established to define Alawi culture, religion or particularism. They did not plan for an Alawi state. On the contrary, the Assads bent over backwards to define Alawis as main-stream Muslims, Bashar married a Sunni Muslim in an attempt at nation-building and to stand as an example of integration. He claimed to promote a “secular” vision of Syria. [...]

And you have to wonder if a deeply religious segment of the Sunni population took offense at Assad's "secular vision" for Syria? The same segment that later joined IS/ISIS/Daesh? I say "wonder" because I'm sure there were lots of contributing factors that lead to the Syrian civil war, and I don't pretend to know or understand them all. The whole of Syrian history and it's complex politics is far more than I could ever hope to cover here in a blog post.

The article was published in July of 2012. There is much commentary and embedded links after it, talking about the civil war they could see was coming. Read the whole thing for the other 3 reasons against their being an Alawite state, and the detailed commentary, articles and links that follow.

They saw it coming, and couldn't stop it. Can it even be fixed now? Where would you even start? It's sad for all concerned.

You can read more about the Alawite religion here. Some history and politics too.
     

The French Republic and Religion

Here is an interesting perspective:

I never knew how differently France and America value religion

I made my first trip to France in December 2003, when I visited my French cousins in Paris. At the time, newspapers were headlined with the motto of the French Republic, but with the last word changed: “Liberté, Egalité, Laicité.”

That was the buzzword at the time: laicité, or secularism. A law was being advanced to forbid students at public schools from displaying any religious symbols — no headscarves for Muslim girls, no yarmulkes for Jewish boys. The law passed, and it's still in effect.

I debated the law with my cousins around the dinner table, and it became clear that we came from starkly different societies. If the US enshrined freedom of religion, France seemed to be embracing freedom from religion. People’s religious affiliations should not be present at all in the public sphere, my cousins said.

Now I'm back in Paris. I joined my French cousins Ivan and Katia at the huge march that followed the deadly attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket. Religion was again at the forefront of the national conversation in France.

“I am here because I want the religion and the religious people to stay away from the Republic,” Ivan said. “If we want to live together, we have to respect laws of the Republic and keep religion home.”

My cousin Katia mentioned a recent train ride she took. “A lady came with a black dress. Only her face was not covered … and she had black gloves,” she said. “It hurts me. And the same thing about Jewish people with a [yarmulke] and a hat. I can’t stand that.”

“What does that say to you?” I asked. “What message are those people putting out?”

“I’m different and I’m showing it,” she said. “They want to belong to community, which I understand, but why showing it to others? This I don’t understand.”

The word "community" has come up a lot on my visit here. We often talk in America about the Muslim community or the Jewish community, taking for granted that our ethnic or religious identities don’t negate our identities as Americans. But in France, I’ve learned that “community” is something of a dirty word.

The French Republic rests on the notion of secularism, that your "community" is France itself. To many, belonging to a community in France carries the connotation that you wish to be apart from French society. [...]

Read the whole thing. It would seem that there are many younger people there looking to belong to a community, and some of them are looking for it in religion.

     

What's going on in Turkey?

Turkey clips military's wings in landmark verdict
 

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - The jailing of hundreds of Turkish army officers including top generals accused of plotting to topple Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan underscored how far he has come in gaining control of the country's once all-powerful military.

But Erdogan, 10 years in power, must grapple with suspicions among critics and even some sympathizers that he is using this and other coup investigations to silence opposition as he sets about taming a militant secularist establishment. Far from flinching, he may seek more power in a revamped presidency.

The verdict against 325 officers at the end of the 21-month trial on Friday would have been unthinkable a decade ago, when generals regularly intervened in policy-making as self-appointed guardians of Turkish secularism.

Judges in the case, dubbed Sledgehammer, handed down prison sentences ranging from six to 20 years against the officers for plotting to wreck Erdogan's rule almost 10 years ago, soon after his Islamist-rooted party swept to power with the biggest share of the vote in decades.

Hilmi Ozkok, who was head of the armed forces at the time, rejected accusations the court's decision was driven by revenge.

"The ruling will serve as a deterrent and has a lesson for everyone ... in understanding how much Turkey and the rest of the world has changed," Ozkok told Milliyet newspaper on Sunday.

[...]

 

Under Erdogan, a devout Muslim, curbs on religion have been relaxed. Women are allowed to more freely wear the Islamic headscarf, alcohol is heavily taxed, and students at religious high schools are able to more easily attend university.

Journalists complain of pressure to write favorable stories about the government, and a number of writers are among those arrested under another plot investigation, "Ergenekon".

"This (Sledgehammer) case is an important step towards ending the army's political role but it's not enough to stop it completely," said Sahin Alpay, professor of political science at Bahcesehir University and a columnist for Zaman, seen as close to the government.

"Now we need a new constitution and laws that place the army under civilian supervision and reform military schools to reflect the values of a liberal democracy," he said.

A new constitution is now under consideration to replace a restrictive code inherited from the military after a 1980 coup. Turkey may well emerge from the debate with a presidential republic and a powerful president in Erdogan.

Alpay acknowledged there were questions about the case with so many defendants on trial at once, the judges' refusal to allow in some defense evidence and the lengthy sentences.

A key issue at appeal is likely to be the defense's inability to submit legal expert testimony that computer documents submitted as evidence appeared fake.

Defense lawyers said they would appeal the verdict this week to Turkey's upper court and, if necessary, eventually apply to the European Court of Human Rights. [...]

I've posted before about the complexity of Turkish politics. Both the secular and the religious sides have legitimate complaints and concerns. It's not easy to sort it all out, and even more difficult to guess where it's all going to lead to.
   

NOM wants a "Rainbow Coalition"? To stop other people from... having what they have?

Maggie Gallagher's NOM (National Organization for [straight only] Marriage) created this video to promote their cause. I think they're over-stating their case:



While I can be sympathetic to some of their concerns... this is going to be a losing strategy. The Anita Bryant contingent of the religious right is still alive and kicking, and they apparently haven't learned much from Anita's fiasco. Now they want a "rainbow coalition"? Of all the phrases they could have used... the irony is too rich.

Yes, there is a hard core of Leftists who would like to change the definition of marriage. Those folks will use ANY issue to subvert the status quo, to tear down our society so they can replace it with something else. Gay marriage is just one of many issues they are trying to subvert for advancing their agenda.

However, for the majority of gay people who want to be married, they just want to be... married. To enjoy a domestic life similar to that of their married family and friends, with the same legal benefits. Most people understand that.

Life if full of people, places, and all sorts of things that I don't approve of. I can't fight them all, so I tolerate most of them, and chose my battles carefully, like I think, most people do. The people you become most intolerant of, are the most likely to become your enemies. I try to avoid that when possible.

NOM are likely making enemies for themselves, all in the name of a campaign they cannot ultimately win. Even if they win this battle, they will lose the war.

The idea that some same sex couples getting married makes victims out of heterosexuals will likely strike most people as absurd. Just ask the many former Republicans who are now registered as "Independent". Ask the Vanishing Young Republicans. The polls have steadily showed growing tolerance for gay marriage. You can argue with me all you like, but I don't create the polls. That's the reality. You can argue with reality too, but you'll lose.

Do the people who made this creepy advert think it's going to appeal to a majority of Americans? Good luck with that. Anita Bryant, by any other name, is still "The Scary Juice Lady". And she's hardly an example to follow. Unless you want political failure, divorce, and a string of bankruptcies.

When I lived in San Francisco, the leftists would often say "The religious right will self-destruct; just give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves".

This looks like another knot in the noose. I thought Christian's were against suicide? I guess not all of them.


Related Links:

Cal Thomas gets it right once again
He can be brutally honest, and here, he is.

The End of Christian Politics in America?

The "New Humanism"

     

Change is here, whether you like it or not

Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage

[...] “It’s not ‘Yes we can,’ ” said Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco city supervisor, referring to President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign mantra. “It’s ‘Yes we will.’ ”

Carrying handmade signs with slogans like “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “Straights Against Hate,” big crowds filled civic centers and streets in many cities. In New York, some 4,000 people gathered at City Hall, where speakers repeatedly called same-sex marriage “the greatest civil rights battle of our generation.”

“We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn.

In Los Angeles, where wildfires had temporarily grabbed headlines from continuing protests over Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of about 9,000 people in Spanish and English, and seemed to express confidence that the measure, which is being challenged in California courts, would be overturned.

“I’ve come here from the fires because I feel the wind at my back as well,” said the mayor, who arrived at a downtown rally from the fire zone on a helicopter. “It’s the wind of change that has swept the nation. It is the wind of optimism and hope.” [...]

I understand perfectly well people's concerns about not wanting to change the definition of what a marriage is. But no-fault divorce has already done that. For years I worked for attorneys that dealt with divorce cases, and saw it in action. No-fault divorce has turned marriage, in it's legal definition, into nothing more than a civil contract, to be broken at will.

This is why it's being called a "civil right". As a civil contract, how can it be legally denied to gay people? Arguments against gay marriage as a religious choice will probably still hold up, because no one has to join a religion that they don't like. But that argument does not hold up in the secular sphere, nor does it enjoy popular support there. To continue to try to force it on secular people is only going to create continuing resistance... and resentment.

If conservative Christian churches want to maintain the right to not perform gay marriages in their churches because of their religious beliefs, I believe that is their choice and their right. But secular people also have their right to make their own choices. If the religious right continues to try to control secular civil marriage contracts to reflect their own views, they may find themselves in a very uncomfortable, and losing, position.


Related Link:

The anti-gay marriage votes
     

As in Spain, so also in the world at large?

I've been thinking for some time that the entire world seems to moving Left politically, dragging the Center and Right with it. This recent article by Soeren Kern at the Brussels Journal talks about the conservative party in Spain, but I see a lot of parallels with conservatism in the USA and elsewhere:

Spanish Conservatives Face Identity Crisis, Power Struggle

Spanish conservatives are now in open warfare against each other as two opposing factions seek to gain control over the ideological future of the center-right Partido Popular (PP), the main opposition party in Spain. The internal battle has been brewing for a number of years, but has become a very public affair ever since Mariano Rajoy, the party’s leader, lost the general election on March 9.

The fact that the winner of that election, Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, was at best a mediocre candidate, one who should have been relatively easy to defeat at the polls, has added to calls for a major reform of the PP. And adding injury to insult, the 2008 vote was a virtual replay of the previous general election in 2004, when Zapatero defeated Rajoy by a similar margin. [...]

Spain's conservative party has been trying to hold together a coalition of center right groups, but there is a power struggle within the party between religious and secular elements. Unless they can find common ground for compromise, they may be stuck, and continue to lose elections. Read the whole thing for the details. But I found it not only educational about Spanish politics; I see this same struggle happening in many other countries as well. It's a new global political reality that conservatives everywhere are having to contend with.
     

A Synopsis of Turkey's Political Situation

(Read Cox & Forkum's related commentary and links HERE.)
Now it's official; the AKP Islamist party wins in Turkey. What will this mean for the future of secularism in Turkish government? Why should we care?

For anyone who wants to understand what the political crisis in Turkey is all about, this informative page at MEMRI.ORG by R. Krespin quickly sums up who the major players are, and what the concerns are about. An excerpt:

The Upcoming Elections in Turkey (1): General Background

Introduction

The AKP's refusal to seek a consensus presidential candidate, its uncompromising effort to appoint "a religious [i.e. Islamist] president" from the AKP ranks, the secrecy surrounding who their candidate would be, and the last-minute announcement of Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul from the Islamist Milli Gorus movement as the candidate, have all pushed Turkey into a political crisis.

Rice shaking hands with AKP member Gul
Millions of Turks participated in demonstrations against the AKP government, its Islamist agenda, the appointment of Islamists to key positions in public institutions, and especially against the attempt to nominate an Islamist presidential candidate - a nomination that would jeopardize Turkey's system of checks and balances, creating a situation where both the prime minister and the president belong to the Islamist camp.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's political moves provoked a controversial memorandum from the Turkish military establishment, which is - traditionally and by the power accorded to it in the constitution - the guardian of the secular regime in Turkey.

On presidential election day, members of the opposition parties boycotted the election by not participating in the first round of the vote, and the necessary quorum of 367 MPs (two thirds of the 550-member parliament) was not reached. The matter ended up in the High Constitutional Court, which decided to annul the first round of the vote.

The mass demonstrations, the memorandum by the military and the High Court's decision forced the AKP to declare early parliamentary elections, to take place on July 22, 2007.


"Turkey: Sweeping Victory For Erdogan's Party".
In this cartoon we see the Red Turkish National Flag turning green (a favored color of Islamist extremists), and Erdogan's face is appearing on the cresent.
Source: Al-Mustaqbal, Lebanon, July 24, 2007

The Political Scene

Turkey's election system - which, during its five years in power, the AKP has refused to change - allows only parties receiving 10% of the vote nationwide to be represented in parliament. This threshold, unusually high for a democracy, keeps many smaller parties out of the legislature. It was this factor that brought the AKP to power in November 2002, when it received a two-thirds majority in parliament while receiving only one-third of the national vote. The only other political party that passed the 10% threshold and gained representation in 2002 was the Republican People's Party (CHP).

This system is now placing all the parties of the fragmented opposition at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the AKP.

To overcome the 10% threshold problem, the center-left CHP and the smaller Democratic Left Party (DSP) merged their lists to run together under the CHP. However, unification efforts by the once-powerful conservative center-right Motherland Party (ANAP) and the True Path Party (DYP) under the new name of Democrat Party (DP) were unsuccessful, and ANAP withdrew from the elections process. This failure to produce a strong center-right alternative will probably prove to be the AKP's biggest advantage in the upcoming elections.

The AKP, for its part, included in its candidate list some well-known names from the center right, and even from the social democrats, with the aim of attracting votes from the nonreligious sector.

Among the CHP candidates are also some leading political figures from the center right, who joined the CHP believing it to be the only secular alternative that could challenge the AKP.

Besides the AKP and the CHP, there is the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which has been gaining ground due to the increasingly nationalist sentiment in the country. The MHP - and to some extent the CHP - are being strengthened by the AKP's failure to deal with increased terrorist activity by the PKK, which claims over 60 lives every month. It is also gaining ground due to the government's hesitation to allow the Turkish military to launch a cross-border incursion into northern Iraq where the PKK is based; and by the daily funerals of terror victims that turn into anti-government protests. [...]

It's worth reading the whole thing. There is a lot of tension in the Turkish political arena right now, and no one is certain how this is going to proceed.

Here is a compilation page showing this and all my other prior posts that talk about or mention Turkey. There are lots of photos from the protests in support of secularism.
     

Turkey teetering on dramatic change; will it turn to Europe/America or Russia/Iran? Then what?

Der Spiegel Online has an interesting opinion piece by a Turkish writer:

The Turkish Threat to World Peace

In Turkey, the military and the government are engaged in an all-out struggle for power. The country is deeply divided, and decidedly unstable. Turkish writer Ahmet Altan describes his country's paradoxes and warns of the potentially dire consequences.

Ahmet goes on to describe a large cultural divide between two groups in Turkey: the first, a growing, deeply religious Islamic majority, and the second, a shrinking Westernized secular minority. He then explains the conflict:

[...] The first group has been despised, discredited, and pushed around throughout the years of the Republic. Now this group has become politically organized. It is large. And it now has the political power to win every election.

The second group is in the minority. And it currently has no chance of ever winning another election.

It is at this point that there emerges a historical paradox: Because the more Western, second group knows that it will never come to power again if it observes Western political ideas, it is becoming antagonistic to Western democratic values.

But those in the first group, whose values are inimical to the West, know they will only take power by accepting Western criteria. The result is that they are trying to appropriate democratic values and enhance their relations with the West.

"The army" has an important role in this cultural disintegration. If it supports the first group, and the criteria of Western democracy are observed, the army will lose power as well. In fact the army is made up of children of the first group who are cooperating with the second group, inimical to them, in order hold on to power. In a sense, the army is betraying its own roots.

The two groups now appear to be mobilized for their final battle for power. [...]

The article goes on to discuss the threat of a military coup, and what that would mean politically for Turkey and the rest of the world, and the balance of power in the Middle East.

A military coup could be disastrous for the West. Europe would not accept it; American would be in an extremely difficult position to support it. As a result, if Turkey were to turn towards Russia and Iran as allies rather than Europe and the United States, the balance of power, and the control over world oil supplies, could shift dramatically.

I've been critical of the US policy towards Turkey in the past; but I have to say, this article explains a lot, and makes clear why we are doing what we are doing, and shows why it would be very difficult to do anything else.

Ahmet maintains that the decisions Turkey makes could even lead to a world war! Is that overly dramatic? Is it justified? See for yourself; I recommend reading the whole thing.

Also of interest is another article in Der Spiegel, which asks a crucial question which is causing a lot of anxiety and tension in Turkey presently:

WHO GETS TO PICK THE PRESIDENT?

Turkish Head of State Calls for Referendum

Be sure and read this for more details of the recent events involving the power struggle in Turkey.


Related Links:

Turkish Troubles; are we on the wrong side?

Turks show massive support for secularism
     

Turkish Troubles; are we on the wrong side?

More Turks are pouring into the streets, proudly showing the Turkish flag and marching in support of secular government:

Celebration of Democracy in Izmir; Streets Red With Flags, Banners of 1.5 Million Secular Protestors





(see link above for more photos) So what are we doing? The USA supports the Islamic AKP party, which the protesters warn is trying to institute an Islamic government:

Secular-Centrist Turkish Journalist Voices Thoughts of Many Secular Turks: Americans Have Decided to Hold AKP in Their Hearts

I don't know about Americans embracing AKP; maybe the State Department does, but I suspect that most Americans don't even know much about what's going on in Turkey.

Rice shaking hands with AKP member Gul

Islamist Turkish Dailies Encouraged by Rice's Support For AKP

Their are claims by the opposition that the US is supporting AKP against them. It would seem that the US has reversed itself, or at least become less neutral, toward AKP. In so far as they are elected, you can't just bypass them and deal only with the oppositon. Yet should we be so enthusiastically endorsing them? They have been doing some scary things.

The AKP claims to support secularism in government, but is it true? Certainly many people in Turkey believe their secular government is threatened. Here are some of the reasons why:

AKP party leaders with their wives, with heads fully covered
Turkish High Administrative Court, Danistay: Turkey Threatened by Reactionaryism and Fundamentalism
The highest administrative court in Turkey is reaffirming it's support of the principles and reforms of Ataturk in support of secular government, warning that any action against these principles would be defined as "irtica," that is, reactionaryism, backwardness, and fundamentalism.

The court was physically attacked by Islamists in May of last year, resulting in the death of one of it's judges.

Turkish Education Minister: Under AKP, Hundreds of Imams Were Transferred From Religious Affairs Directorate To Teach Public School
Since the AKP came to power in 2002, 836 trained imams, graduates of madrassa-style Imam Hatip schools that train imams, work as teachers in Turkey's public schools.

Opposition and secular circles in Turkey claim the AKP has been filling most public positions in Turkey with "their men".

AKP Makes Radical Changes in Turkish Constitution in the Last Weeks of Current Parliament
Here I think you have the major issue behind the protests; AKP is trying to make major changes to Turkey's form of government. It's being seen as a power grab by Islamists, circumventing protections built in to the current system to prevent tyranny by a majority.

AKP may believe that if it can get a majority of votes in parliament, it should be able to do whatever it wants. They may claim that is Democracy. But Democracy alone, without the rule of law, is nothing more than mob rule, which always self-destructs without restraints. I think the opposition parties want the restraints to remain in place, lest they get trampled.

Turkish radio is also having it's share of troubles. Some really disturbing comments being made from AKP members... what IS Rice doing? Does she have a clue? I sometimes fear she is too academic in her approach to these issues, without considering enough the reality of circumstances on the ground. I could be wrong about that. History will be the final judge.

It's worth noting that Turkey's secular opposition is not without it's blemishes either; AKP can make good arguments in it's defense, too.

Whichever party leads, I hope secularism in government is maintained.


Related Link:

Turks show massive support for secularism
     

Turks show massive support for secularism

As the presidential elections draw near, demonstrations have been increasing. The crescent and star, an Islamic symbol, is also the national flag of Turkey, which has been displayed prominently as Turks rally in support of their secular democracy.


I've wanted to post about this for a while now. Turks have been taking to the streets in massive demonstrations, in support of keeping their government secular. Here are a selection of posts and photos that have been appearing on Memri.org.

No Hijab for these Turkish ladies.

Demonstrations by Secular Turks Spread Throughout Turkey

[...] Tens of thousands rallied yesterday, May 5, in cities in western Turkey to protest against the AKP party and Islamist fundamentalism, and to assert that the Turkish people desires a secular, democratic Turkey.

Following the giant demonstrations in Ankara (April 14) and in Istanbul (April 29), the protests have spread throughout Turkey. The western Turkish cities of Amasya and Canakkale witnessed today the largest demonstrations in their history. These protests, like the previous demonstrations, were organized and supported mainly by women’s organizations.

A third protest rally took place yesterday in Marmaris, a resort town on the Aegean coast. The messages delivered by demonstrators there were the same as protestors expressed in previous rallies: "Turkey is secular and will remain secular," "No imams and mullahs in Cankaya," "No to Shari’a."[...]

I had wondered these photos some of the demonstrators were carrying. The explanation is given below:

[...] Among the tens of thousands of flags that filled the streets with red was a large poster showing a 1986 photo of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan kneeling before terrorist leader Hikmetyar, with the caption "This is You [AKP]," alongside a 1930s photo of Ataturk with the ruling government of his time, in modern Western attire, with the caption "And This is Us."[...]

This is just the latest, there have been earlier demonstrations as well:




Mass April 14 Demonstration in Ankara Against Erdogan Presidency

Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated peacefully to protest against Turkish PM Erdogan as president, the policy of the AKP government, and the Islamization of Turkey, and in defense of the core values of the republic and of the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The crowd included large numbers of women and children, and the streets were red with Turkish flags – some of them miles long. All the speeches were by academicians and officials of NGOs.

Signs carried by demonstrators read: "We don't want an imam in Cankaya (the presidential residence)"; "Turkey is secular and will remain secular"; "I am aware of the danger and I am here" (see relevant clips at Turkish Elections Ad ; More Turkish Elections Ad) [see article for links]; "We are aware of the danger and of our strength"; "No mullahs in Cankaya"; "The road to Cankaya is closed to shari'a"; "Those who kneel at the feet of Gulbettin Hikmetyar cannot sit in Cankaya"; "We respect faith but not fundamentalism"; "Democracy is not tolerance of fundamentalism"; "No military boot and no takunya [slippers worn by Islamists]; "Canyaka belongs to the [Turkish] people"; and "The Turkish people are called to duty!" [...]

There were also demonstrations against the murders of three Christians by Islamist extremists:

The signs say: "We Are All Christians".

Turkey Shocked By "Savage" Triple Murder of Christians

Turkey's mainstream media is headlining its front-page stories on yesterday's murders in Malatya "Savagery" (see "Turkish Daily: Three Dead in Grisly Attack at Bible Publishing House").

Protestors at a demonstration in Istanbul hours after the murders carried signs saying "We Are All Christians" (see photo).

While foreign media have been attributing the execution-style murders to increasing Turkish nationalism, the Turkish press is pointing fingers at the growing Islamism and intolerance over the last few years.

The three Christian victims, two Turks and a German citizen, worked in the city of Malatya at a branch of the Zirve publishing house, which prints and distributes Christian Bibles. According to reports, five assailants entered their third floor office, bound the victims' hands and feet, and slit their throats. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) This is all quite amazing. While Turkey is hardly a liberal paradise by Western standards, it IS liberal by Muslim standards; it is unique in the Muslim world.

The Turks, the majority hopefully, value their secular government, and they know they have to fight the extremists to keep it. There have been increasing attempts to curb free expression in Turkey. The Turkish courts seem to be ruling mostly in favor of the defendants thus far. The people are aware of the danger. My hopes are with them for success.

Here is video footage, via YouTube:

What is that music? Turkish "rock"?