portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

alternative media | faith & spirituality | imperialism & war

today's turkish terror attacks: the clash of civilisations

symbology of today's turkish terror attacks. is there more to them than first meets the eyes?
is there more to today's turkish terror attacks than meets the eye?

why would Al-Qaeda, for instance, (presuming it actually was them, although no doubt they'll be blamed for it regardless) attack Istanbul (albeit western targets there) in another muslim nation, especially on such an auspicious date? (see: "the significance of the number 19 in conjunction with the heavens at this time" by Merlin in  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/274322.shtml)

well, perhaps it really is all to do with the symbology of the date.

put it this way, Islam's use of the Crescent Moon / Star symbol dates back to the Turkish (Muslim) conquest of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) in 1453. as such, the attacks on western (read Christian) targets would serve as a powerful symbol of Islamic strength (to other Muslims), but also (Islamic) anti-christian belligerence (from the western perspective).

this latter facet of the affair is rather significant. the anti-christ archetype is a powerful image in the western psyche. as such, an anti-christian attack serves to enforce the notion that the perpetrators are of the anti-christ themselves - that is, Islam is the anti-christ. (today's date in Islam is the 18th or 6 + 6 + 6: see the psychology at work!)

it's all part of the grand plan to create the clash of civilisations. this is the philosophy of samuel huffington who states that Islam must be reformed under western guidance. of course, this is unlikely since Islamic monotheism is essentially diametrically opposed to many western interests, particularly commercial (read usury) interests. what this is likely to lead to is war with all of Islam ... another world war.

so, when GWB et al (the PNAC mob) talk of bringing western-style democracy to the middle east, they've got more in mind than ballot boxes. it's a timetable to world war.

therefore we can surmise that there's maybe more to today's bombings than mere terrorism. it's all part of a grand plan, whether or not the attacks were staged. the attacks are quite simply designed to promulgate this clash of civilisations.


breaking news: just learned on UK tv news that HSBC banks offices were empty at the time of the attack. coincidentally (??) their offices were being refurbished. did they have prior notice? if so, was it really an Al-Qaeda attack? the media here are already saying so, because it apparently bears all the hallmarks of an attack of their's (despite any other groiup's terror attack being nearly identical). if HSBC had prior knowledge, then the attacks would have to have been planned long ago. something to think about.
Interesting Comment 20.Nov.2003 09:52


by guest on 20.11.2003 [17:06]
Here is an interesting comment I found on another message board about the Bombing in Turkey:

Another perfectly time "terrorist" attack from the CIA/Mossad... I mean "Al-Queda" occurs in Turkey. Curiously it comes a day after Bush's "We Must Democratize/Colonize the Middle East to Fight Terrorism" speech in England, and conveniently helps to take the wind out of the sails of anti-war protests planned against Bush's visit to England the very same day. Notice that the "terror" attacks in Turkey were targetted against the British consulate and a British controlled bank--just as Bush is visiting England and is faced with massive opposition from the English people for his warmongering policies. How utterly convenient. Also, remember what Bush said after the 9-11 "terror" attacks: "I hit the trifecta!" Looks like somebody got lucky once again...

how it's being spun 21.Nov.2003 09:17


the British press are spinning this attack as an actual attack on the UK. the British Daily Express, for example, ran with the headline "Britain under Attack".

As terrible as the attacks have been to British interests and people, it wasn't exactly an attack on Britain. It was an attack on Turkey more than anything, after all that's where it occurred.

The point I'm making is a collorary to the last commentator's one. By isinuating that this was an actual attack on Britain itself, it helps fire up the populace for more war. In otherwords, just as the support for the war on terror was beginning to wane, get the population even angrier and aggressive for war by any means possible.

Makes you wonder when the next illegal invasion is coming!