Army chief Hulusi Akar’s 7-page testimony to prosecutors is riddled with assumptions that raise many questions.
Akar, in almost every paragraph, makes sure that he is not siding with coup plotters. He highlights over and over that he ¨yelled¨ at coup plotters, asking them to quit throughout Friday night. We’ve analyzed his testimony and will lay out contradictions in another post. Here we will point out his the most egregious claim: He was asked to talk to Fethullah Gulen.
The revelation, first by President Erdogan, and then Akar himself, that he was asked by Gen. Hakan Evrim to directly talk to Gulen was a bombshell story. It was also presented as the single most important evidence that the order to topple down the civilian government came directly from Pennsylvania, where the cleric resides.
Akar, in almost every paragraph, makes sure that he is not siding with coup plotters. He highlights over and over that he ¨yelled¨ at coup plotters, asking them to quit throughout Friday night. We’ve analyzed his testimony and will lay out contradictions in another post. Here we will point out his the most egregious claim: He was asked to talk to Fethullah Gulen.
The revelation, first by President Erdogan, and then Akar himself, that he was asked by Gen. Hakan Evrim to directly talk to Gulen was a bombshell story. It was also presented as the single most important evidence that the order to topple down the civilian government came directly from Pennsylvania, where the cleric resides.
Of course, it is difficult to verify the account, especially given the fact that the talk did not take place. If Akar was smart, he would have perhaps agreed to the conversation so that it would be possible to track if such a phone call went through.
One needs to ask this very vital question: Why would anyone, who is in the midst of a bloody military coup, even consider making Gulen talk to his hostage? And why Akar, who allegedly did everything he can to stop coup plotters, did not take a chance to urge Gulen to give up?
If the directive to overthrow the government came from Gulen, let it be. Why would Gulen want to talk to the army chief, who had allegedly refused to take over the leadership anyway? Why would Gulen, who refused to be associated with the coup attempt, blow his cover by doing something stupid?
According to Akar, Gen. Evrim’s offer to talk to Gulen came after the army chief yelled and asked who their head was. And Evrim allegedly immediately replied that ¨If you want, we can make you talk to our opinion leader Fetullah Gulen.¨
Perhaps the most bizarre part of the situation is how Gen. Evrim refers to Gulen. If the account is true and if Gen. Evrim is a Gulenist, it is not the way how Gulenists refer to Gulen.
Any sympathizer of Gulen usually refers to him as “Hojaefendi” or “Büyüğümüz” not “Kanaat Önderimiz” as Akar’s testimony claims. When Gulenists talk to someone who is not a Gulen sympathizer, they at least use the term “Gulen Hoca.” "Kanaat Önderimiz” sounds way too artificial, damaging the credibility of the account.
To sum it up: It is either completely false that Gen. Evrim offered anything like this or he is not familiar with the jargon of Gulenists -- almost impossible for someone who was with the movement for decades, according to the allegations.
One needs to ask this very vital question: Why would anyone, who is in the midst of a bloody military coup, even consider making Gulen talk to his hostage? And why Akar, who allegedly did everything he can to stop coup plotters, did not take a chance to urge Gulen to give up?
If the directive to overthrow the government came from Gulen, let it be. Why would Gulen want to talk to the army chief, who had allegedly refused to take over the leadership anyway? Why would Gulen, who refused to be associated with the coup attempt, blow his cover by doing something stupid?
According to Akar, Gen. Evrim’s offer to talk to Gulen came after the army chief yelled and asked who their head was. And Evrim allegedly immediately replied that ¨If you want, we can make you talk to our opinion leader Fetullah Gulen.¨
Perhaps the most bizarre part of the situation is how Gen. Evrim refers to Gulen. If the account is true and if Gen. Evrim is a Gulenist, it is not the way how Gulenists refer to Gulen.
Any sympathizer of Gulen usually refers to him as “Hojaefendi” or “Büyüğümüz” not “Kanaat Önderimiz” as Akar’s testimony claims. When Gulenists talk to someone who is not a Gulen sympathizer, they at least use the term “Gulen Hoca.” "Kanaat Önderimiz” sounds way too artificial, damaging the credibility of the account.
To sum it up: It is either completely false that Gen. Evrim offered anything like this or he is not familiar with the jargon of Gulenists -- almost impossible for someone who was with the movement for decades, according to the allegations.
No comments:
Post a Comment