Why Would Gulen Talk To Akar In Midst of Coup

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.

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.

Major Akkurt: First Hero, Then Traitor

In the previous post, we tried to dissect the testimony Lt. Col. Levent Turkkan and laid bare many contradictions that basically rendered the confession useless.

In that testimony, Turkkan mentions about Major Mehmet Akkurt and particularly highlights his ties to Gulenists. As soon as he reveals that Akkurt is allegedly a Gulenist, the major turns from a major hero into a traitor.

A day after the coup attempt, one of the deceased army officers was Mehmet Akkurt. Akkurt is from Aydinli province of Turkey, where the news of his death was received with overwhelming grief, with local news outlets declaring that he is the hero of the province.

Soon after, a local mosque in a village where Akkurt was supposed to be laid to rest recited a na’at, a religious song sung in praise of Prophet Muhammad usually to announce the death of someone (sela in Turkish). The imam announced that their village has a ¨martyr¨ and called everyone to participate in the funeral prayer. Turkish flags were raised and preparations were made to receive and bid farewell to the martyr. Many people soon filled the house of Akkurt’s family.

Meanwhile, major national Turkish media outlets published stories detailing the heroism shown by Major Akkurt. Milliyet, for example, wrote that Akkurt was killed while trying to defend army chief Hulusi Akar and his deputy Gen. Yasar Guler.

All hell broke loose when the testimony of Lt. Col. Turkkan was revealed. Turkkan claimed that (or at least in the document that allegedly said was his confession) Akkurt was a Gulenist. The mosque where Akkurt’s funeral prayer was supposed to take place rejected his body. He was taken to a graveyard directly. Many people who came to attend his funeral returned home. Turkish flags were removed. Milliyet and other news outlets deleted their stories. Soon pro-government news websites published stories about ¨treacherous¨ major. He was repeatedly blasted for helping the putschist soldiers.

The situation is very confusing. It is hard to draw concrete conclusions, but it seems highly likely that Akkurt was not a putschist and in fact died while confronting them. If Turkkan’s information is true that he was a Gulenist, it is possible that the government tried to hide his death as a hero because that would destroy their narrative.

Authorities must be able to explain why they first announced Akkurt as a hero and then cast him aside as a villain once Turkkan said he was a Gulenist.

Levent Turkkan's Testimony: Contradictions

This week, Turkish state news agency Anadolu published the confession of Lt. Col. Levent Turkkan, aide-de-camp of Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar. Turkkan’s confession is considered to be the highest-level ‘evidence’ that Gulenists are behind the coup.

We have to emphasize that Turkkan’s remarks were shared with this photo that shows bruises and injuries in his face, stomach, shoulder and hands. It is possible that he was forced to make these remarks under torture. If these bruises and injures happened while police tried to take him under custody and that they are not from the torture, it seems that he should have been unable to write such a long testimony by his injured hands. His testimony, however, says that he asked for a pen and a paper and wrote the testimony while he was waiting in the police station.

The crux of Turkkan’s statement is centered on a fact that he is a Gulenist and that he was in contact with Gulenists during the planning and the execution of the coup attempt. According to Turkkan, he knew about the coup plot a day before, on July 14.

Turkkan made it clear that he was part of the Gulen movement for more than 30 years now and that he hid his identity for at least 27 years. According to Turkkan, he made many illegal acts during his service to the Gulen movement, but did not view it problematic until he was captured. It was not clear why.

Take a look at this excerpt:

¨I had never believed that Fetullah Gulen community was a traitor until today. I thought they had always been working to please God. But I understood who they are during the coup attempt and afterwards. It is even not enough to describe this structure and members of this structure as traitors. Now I know that members of this structure are people with criminal souls. I have never seen Fetullah Gulen, but I also say these things about him too.’’

Throughout his testimony, Turkkan talks about how devout he was to the movement, how he carried out many, many illegal works for them. It is quite clear that he understood that his actions, from stealing admission exams in 1989 to wiretapping his superiors, were in grave violation of army’s as well as country’s rules. Yet he committed these crimes without any remorse. He never felt that he needed to object to these actions. He never felt that he needed to quit working for the movement because of these illegal actions. Instead, he made it very clear that he carried out illegal works for Gulenists for decades without questioning it. He even said in his testimony that he thought the Gulen movement was doing things to please God.

Now it is time to ask how come he realized in just matter of hours that Gulen and his followers are traitors and what he had done for decades without questioning were treason to the homeland.

Turkkan says that he learned about the true nature of Gulenists because of the coup. But it is not clear why he helped the coup move forward, and waited for at least one day during the preparation and the execution of the coup attempt.  

Turkkan says that he was skilled enough to pass the military admission exam. He claims that Gulenists were very well positioned within the military that they could steal exam questions, a very unlikely scenario for that time. He claims that he memorized the questions and passed the exam. He says he could not make to the top of the list because he was not given all the questions. This contradicts his claim that he was very skilled and knowledgeable. Even with most questions provided, he was unable to show a good performance.

Overall, it is not clear why a Lt. Col., caught red-handed during a coup attempt, would ever confess to crimes that would probably never see the light such as tapping the office of former army chief Necdet Özel for years. He could have said that he was fooled into believing that Hulusi Akar would agree to the coup attempt and that he acted within the chain-and-command and that he was left desperate when Akar was taken away.

It is clear from his statement that he gave the testimony few hours after he was taken into custody, without any knowledge that anyone sold him out. It was not clear why he would have confessed that he is a Gulenist, knowing that there is no way the authorities could have compassion for a Gulenist putschist.

He could have gotten away with few years in prison if he did not confess for crimes that he allegedly made in the past years, such as the wiretapping. It is not clear why anyone would have done that.

Another excerpt:

¨My personal opinion is that 60-70 percent of military officers who joined the army from military schools since 1990s were Gulenists.¨

Considering that most of the army consist of officers who joined it in 1990s, Turkkan claims that 60-70 percent of the army are Gulenists. Along the fact that this is very unlikely, he says he has no idea how the Gulenists worked in another part of the testimony. How is it then possible that he knows the percentage of Gulenists admitted into the army in a given decade.

On July 23, Hurriyet newspaper published a long story of how Gulenists infiltrated into the military. In a passage where the author talks about Levent Turkkan, it is striking how his description of Turkkan is very similar to the lt. col.'s testimony. The author does not use direct quotes that would indicate that he used the information from his testimony. Instead his article details his life story in a way that it is his investigation.

The author does not even get Turkkan's name right (he wrote Lutfu) and even put Lutfu Turkkan's photo, who is a lawmaker, not an army officer.

Does this indicate that the confession of Turkkan is a document handed to him by the authorities? The same document that was given to Hurriyet? It is up to you to decide, but it raises many questions.

Turkey suspends dead prosecutor on coup charges

Since the coup attempt on July 15, the Turkish authorities sacked, fired or suspended tens of thousands of public employees and detained thousands of army officers, police officers, judges, prosecutors along with hundreds of civilians.

The pace of the purge in the state bureaucracy suggests that it was well-planned way before the coup attempt took place and that not all of them are involved in the coup attempt on July 15. It is our belief that most of those sacked or suspended are Gulenists, but not necessarily. Many secular academics, journalists, activists, judges and prosecutors are also among those purged.

One case proves this point. Ahmet Bicer, 37 years old prosecutor, was also among those who were suspended following the coup attempt. The Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, or HSYK, said in its statement that 426 judges and prosecutors, including Bicer, were suspended as part of an investigation into the July 15 coup attempt. The fact that Bicer died on May 23, 2016 -- 57 days before he was suspended -- proves that the HSYK did not suspend members of the judiciary because of their alleged involvement in the coup.

Uncovering Turkey's July 15 Coup Attempt

This blog is primarily designed to uncover who were behind the coup attempt in Turkey on July 15. The government was quick to blame Gulenists for the failed coup attempt. Gulen and his followers deny that they conspired against the government through the military intervention.

It is difficult to identify real perpetrators, the driving force as well as those who supported or at least turned a blind eye while it unfolded. We will investigate the official statements, court documents, confessions and contradictions. Perhaps it will be impossible to identify the coup plotters, but we can at least rule out which groups or individuals did not do it.