Introduction:

Even under the powerful rule of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East has always been a place where there was no lack of scheming and internal upheaval. In fact, the correct definition of this area is the “east.” It is maritime and land trade routes that made the Middle East like this. These important seas divided the Middle East from the Far East and made it exceedingly important. The oil, natural gas and other wealth of the Middle East reached the West via these trade routes, and western goods and weaponry reached its ports in return. There was much conflict in this important territory. Ottoman governance reined that conflict in, but the collapse of the Ottoman Empire triggered it once again. Even before the end of Ottoman rule, the Middle East was carved up in secret agreements by the Western powers, and plans based on self-interest were set in motion: During the First World War, the Entente powers were able to draw lines dividing the Middle East up among themselves and to control those borders before the fighting had even ended. Newly emerging countries were established on the basis of compasses and rulers as the Middle East was being apportioned, and all the peoples of the Middle East had little choice but to recognize those artificially drawn borders.

Ever since, the Middle East has in fact been under the hegemony of the West. At first, the West wished to govern these countries directly; when it was unable to handle the difficulties, it resorted to dictators and various other players. Some of these dictatorships were overthrown in popular uprisings and others were invaded by the U.S. and coalition forces on a variety of pretexts, although none of these invasions, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people, were regarded as war. Western rule brought hatred with it. The radical forces that the West initially supported against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War split up, branched out and turned into an anti-Western terror movement involving the whole of the Middle East. Looking at the current picture, the once-lovely Middle East is now a battleground of conflict, rage and hatred. Nations angry with the West have fallen out with one another, and Muslims unable to be each other’s allies are slaughtering one another instead.

1- BEFORE 2- AFTER Syrian streets devastated by the civil war.

The surprising thing is that this picture is part of a plan drawn up many years ago. The bloodshed in the Middle East is not the result of entirely mistaken administrations and policies, but part of a specially designed scenario that is still operating today. The dead bodies in the Middle East, the hatred incited in people and the way they have become capable of devastating one another’s cities is an outcome that certain people and circles were already expecting. The plans drawn up for the Middle East were prepared and set in motion on that basis.

One of the main objectives in that plan is for countries to be broken up. While Syria and Iraq are currently being broken up in line with that plan, different schemes are being implemented for other countries using familiar methods. One of the countries, and perhaps the most important, one that has been targeted since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Treaty of Sèvres, is Turkey.

This article describes, using wide-ranging and important documentation, how and why the plans drawn up for Turkey were set in motion, why the PKK is part of the scenario and what needs to be done to neutralize it. First, however, we need to look at the source of the plans developed for the Middle East.

Chapter 1

Evangelicalism and the Middle Eastern Axis

A short history of Evangelicalism

Following the division of Christianity into a number of different churches, such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, a reformist movement grew up within it. This movement criticized the making of money through the sale of indulgences (a kind of document pertaining to the forgiveness of sins sold in Medieval Europe by the Pope to enable the holder to enter paradise), the Mass being performed in Latin and the doctrine of papal infallibility. This new movement, initiated by Martin Luther in Germany and by John Calvin in France and Switzerland, came to be known as “Protestantism.”

In Protestantism, repentance was between the individual and God. There was therefore no reason to give money to the Church for it. Papal infallibility was also done away with. The true source, according to this movement, was the Holy Book alone, and not commands issued by the Pope or Church sanctions.

Evangelicalism is one branch of Protestantism; the word means “good news.” In Evangelicalism, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, referred to as the disciples of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in the New Testament, are known as “evangelists.” It was Martin Luther who employed the term “evangelical” first.

Luther saw that the New Testament had been misinterpreted and corrupted by the Catholic Church, for which reason he attached greater importance to the Old Testament (the Torah and the Psalms). Protestantism was subsequently divided into scores of different denominations, but none of these denominations abandoned the central view about essential beliefs and the Holy Scripture that included the Old Testament.1

Evangelicalism is an important and necessary reform in turning Christians to the Gospels - and also the Torah - by lifting pressure on the faith from the Church. The supporters of Evangelicalism, a sincere form of belief, have always maintained loving and peaceable attributes and, as we shall be seeing in due course, made a great contribution to the spread of religion due to the importance they attached to “evangelizing.” Again as we shall be seeing, Evangelicals’ belief in the End Times and excitement at the prospect of seeing the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) indicate a great love and religious devotion. From that perspective, they have much in common with true Muslims who abide by the Qur’an.

An 18th century cathedral and people of the time.

As in all religions, however, there are various sections in Evangelicalism that interpret the teachings in question rather differently, that misunderstand the subjects related to the End Times and that seek to equate Christianity, a religion of peace, and the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), an envoy of peace, with war. These people invent what they regard as powerful evidence for scenarios of war on the basis of various passages in the Gospel. They imagine they are being perfectly honest, that they are basing themselves on the Gospel and doing what is right, but they fail to recognize the various metaphorical statements that occur in the depths of the Gospel. The second problem in this error of interpretation is that they find it difficult to turn to the Qur’an, sent down as a confirmation of the Gospel and the Torah: Yet the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is explicitly revealed in the Qur’an, as well as a climate of peace in which all people believe.

This book is based on the views of that segment of Evangelical Christians who interpret the End Times in a dangerous manner and one very different to that described in the Divine scriptures. These people – who are generally well-intentioned – are pioneers for a horrifying scenario, albeit most likely unwittingly. They are striving to accelerate the End Times scenarios in the Middle East but are actually preparing a bloody foundation there. This will all be clarified in due course.

The spread of Evangelicalism and the End Times

The various movements that emerged within Protestantism up until the 18th century later settled in different parts of the world under the influence of colonialism. The most important of these was the North American continent. Evangelical thinking is known to have spread more rapidly following journeys to America by the Anglican clergyman John Nelson Darby. Darby’s followers also described their movement as “dispensationalism.”

The primary distinguishing feature of these people is their belief in the return of the Messiah in the End Days and in Doomsday. The conditions under which they believe the Messiah will return are as follows:

• The foundation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land;
• Jerusalem being its capital;
• The rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon;
• The preaching of the Gospel to all mankind;
• The oppression of Jews and believers (Christians);
• The Battle of Armageddon;
• The ascent of believers (Christians) into heaven.

Theodor Herzl speaking at the Second Zionist Congress in Basel in 1898.

As this list shows, Evangelicals are essentially Zionist Christians. They believe that the establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land is paramount for the coming of the Messiah. They have therefore always been in a state of alliance with Zionist Jews.

One of the most important pieces of evidence for this is the Zionist congresses. The first Zionist Congress was held by Theodor Herzl in 1897 and called for the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. In 1985, the Second Christian Zionist Congress was held in Basel, the same city and in the same building where the First Zionist Congress opened. A resolution at that congress urged Israel to annex the West Bank. Jan Willem van der Hoeven, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, said this in response to a Jew who objected to that idea; “We don’t care what the Israelis vote! We care what God says! And God gave that land to the Jews!"

That reaction is very important in terms of showing the bounds of the Evangelical Zionism that still persists today because this movement that appears to be aimed at protecting the Jews and Jewish lands, is in fact preparing the way for an end in which the Jews will be slaughtered. According to this belief, only 144,000 Jews who convert to Christianity will survive, while the other Jews, and “all Muslims,” will be slaughtered.
We shall be looking at this matter shortly.

The state of Israel was founded in 1948, and Jerusalem was declared its capital in 1967: One of the signs awaited by the Evangelicals thus came true. The more these portents, signs of the End Times, came about, the more the Evangelicals set about accelerating what they believe to be the final outcome. That is why efforts to reshape the Middle East in the name of the Battle of Armageddon have gained impetus in this century.

http://iraqwar.org/fundamentalists.htm

The influence of Evangelicalism

As in all faiths and schools, Christian denominations are based on being a fine and good servant of God and Evangelicalism was also founded on that basis. However, one of the main distinguishing features between Evangelicalism and other branches of Christianity is the question of “preaching the Word,” on which less emphasis is placed in the latter. As a requirement of their faith, the followers of this sect engaged in active missionary work, preaching the word to other people. As time passed, Evangelicalism thus became increasingly well known and widespread, particularly in America.

The number of members of the Evangelical Church in America was 4 million at the time of the Civil War, but is now said to have reached some 70 million. The rise in spirituality in America and other countries where Christianity is widespread is grounds for rejoicing.

We can see this from the figures. In Civil War America (1861-1865) the number of members of the Evangelical Church was 4 million, whereas today it is put at 70 million. According to the figures for 2014, 25.4% of Americans describe themselves as Evangelicals. Although Evangelicalism at first espoused different beliefs to those of Catholicism, Evangelical belief today is no longer in such great conflict with Catholic belief.

It needs to be made clear that, although Christianity has sometimes turned away from its essence as a result of conflicting interpretations and has split itself into different sects, we, as Muslims, still wish to see Christian belief and faith in God grow, especially at a time when the outright denial of God is spreading like wildfire. Of course Christians must be more devout, of course they must espouse the Holy Book more and spirituality must be strengthened in America and all other countries where Christianity is widespread. America and other countries have invariably prospered and grown happy in line with their religious devotion. Therefore, we always wish to see and fully encourage the growth and strengthening of Islam among Muslims, of Christianity among Christians and of Judaism among Jews.

In addition, the Evangelical belief in the coming of the Messiah is also an issue of faith to be praised in our eyes. Muslims also are in expectation of the appearance of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) and the return of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in the End Times, in which we are living now. It is therefore grounds for rejoicing that Christians hold a similar belief. It represents a point in common that will enhance our love and support for Christians and strengthen our alliance with them.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Muslims, Christians and Jews must all be more devout at this time when irreligion is on the rise.

There is nothing peculiar about the Evangelical expectation of a state of Israel in the Middle East. In the verses of the Qur’an, the Jews have the right to live in the Holy Land, and this is set out explicitly in several verses, as it also is in the Torah. Verses 20 and 21 of Surat al-Ma’ida read:

Remember when Moses said to his people, “My people! Remember God’s blessing to you when He appointed prophets among you and appointed kings for you, and gave you what He had not given to anyone else in all the worlds! My people! Enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you. Do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers.” (Qur’an, 5:20-21)

Therefore, for Muslims, seeing Jews in the Holy Land even after 5.000 years means seeing God’s promise come to pass and this is a reason for rejoicing. One of our greatest hopes is to see Jews, Christians and Muslims living together in peace in those lands, as they did in the past.

What we shall be concentrating on, and the subject of our criticism, is the efforts on the part of some Evangelicals to shape the Middle East in line with their expectations of war in the region, which represents a manifestation of their desire to accelerate the coming of the Messiah in one sense, and the fact that some of their erroneous belief and hopes regarding the Holy Land have reached dangerous dimensions.

First of all, the time of the coming of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) and the Messiah is ordained in destiny by God. Therefore, nobody, no circumstances and no signs can accelerate or bring forward that coming. The battle of Armageddon awaited in the Middle East has in fact already happened. The 2003 Iraq War was a major battle and a sign of the End Times, referred to as Armageddon in the Bible and described with all the relevant portents in the hadiths and the Torah. (For more detail on this, see the chapter “Some Christians’ Error Regarding Armageddon” in the book Christians Must Heed Jesus by Harun Yahya.)

Therefore, no bloody battle of the kind expected by the Evangelicals will take place in the near future. It also needs to be made clear that the concept of the Holy Land as described by the Evangelicals is different to that found in Jewish belief, and it involves wider borders. As a result, the idea of preparing the Middle East for war and preparations along those lines are false in all respects. One of their main errors is the dream of building a Great Kurdistan by breaking up the four countries that represent the backbone of the Middle East. This book describes why this plan is wrong under current conditions and the kind of tragedy that the pursuit of such a dream would inflict on the Middle East, Europe and then the entire world.

1. Yasin Yaylar, İsrail Amerika ve Evanjelizm, Altınpost yayıncılık, 2012, s. 16

2. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Chapter 2

A century-old objective:

The desire to break up the Middle East

Plans concerning the weakening and the break-up of the Middle East before the Ottoman Empire collapsed based on such agreements as Sykes-Picot were probably one of the subjects that most preoccupied and were most discussed by intelligence agencies for many years. Heads of states determined their strategies, and countries their attitudes, on that basis. That is because, as we have seen above, according to Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist belief, the Battle of Armageddon, heralding the return of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), was expected to take place in those lands. The infrastructure had to be prepared and the climate made suitable for this important appearance.

Various neoconservatives, representing the political wing of Evangelicalism in America, are the main shapers of the plans for the Middle East. This policy they follow sometimes represents a guiding force, sometimes entirely disregards international law and sometimes is even at complete variance with basic U.S. foreign policy. The best example of this is perhaps the Iraq War.

President Ronald Reagan was a neoconservative representative and believed throughout his life that he would see Doomsday. He claimed that his interest in the anti-missile defense system was also to do with his belief in Doomsday. According to Ezekiel 38 and 39 in the Old Testament, a nuclear war would take place on the Plain of Megiddo on Doomsday: Burning sulfur would pour down with torrents of rain, mountains would be overturned and earthquakes would take place. Evangelicals believe that a nuclear explosion is necessary for this to happen. They therefore thought that the groundwork for this was needed to be prepared. Reagan therefore shaped his Middle Eastern policy accordingly and even quoted from the Old Testament to justify the bombing of Libya. According to that view, Libya was one of the major nations that would attack the People of Israel in the End Times. Reagan therefore punished it in advance.

Another neoconservative representative, the U.S. President George W. Bush, also believed that he had been appointed by God. He claimed to have received revelation from God during the Iraq War and frequently used terms such as “holy war,” “axis of evil,” “crusades” and “gut instinct.” Iraq was devastated on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. The Americans suffered severe losses as well and abandoned the country without finding any functional WMD's and the impression of the Iraq War across the world was one of failure. Yet the requirements of Evangelical belief had been implemented, and in their eyes the operation had been quite a success to that end. Iraq had been broken up, just as required, an autonomous Kurdish region had been established and a powerful country ruled by a dictator such as Saddam had turned into an unstable front wracked by terror.
Bush based the attack on Iraq from these words from the Old Testament:

Yasin Yaylar, İsrail Amerika ve Evanjelizm (Israel, America and Evangelism), Altınpost Yayıncılık, 2012, p. 60

This is what the Lord says: “See, I will stir up the spirit of a destroyer against Babylon and the people of Leb Kamai. I will send foreigners to Babylon to winnow her and to devastate her land; they will oppose her on every side in the day of her disaster. Let not the archer string his bow, nor let him put on his armor. Do not spare her young men; completely destroy her army. They will fall down slain in Babylon, fatally wounded in her streets.”(Jeremiah, 51:1-4)

Since these words from the Old Testament were taken as a prophecy they began being acted on by Bush, an Evangelical in command of a superpower, the USA. The picture that emerged during the war exactly matching Evangelical objectives meant another step toward Doomsday. Indeed, these words by late Mustafa al-Barzani in the Kurdish region of Iraq, that an autonomous Kurdish region was “ready to become the 51st state” of the USA have to a large extent become a reality now.

Ibid., p. 119

The factor behind this state of affairs, not only in Iraq, but also in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, and even Egypt is without doubt the illegitimate Iraq War. The Middle East has suddenly been transformed into a sea of blood, and violence has been constantly incited.  1- EGYPT 2- YEMEN 3- LÜBNAN 4- LEBANON 5- SYRIA

In one sense these things were all manufactured as a kind of investment in the future; this instability in Iraq led the way to the emergence and strengthening of numerous radical groups. ISIL, to which the world has still failed to find a solution, emerged in Iraq while al-Qaeda was aiming its attacks mostly against Iraq. Therefore, the factor responsible for triggering the current state of affairs, not only of Iraq but also of Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya and even Egypt, was the unjustified war initiated in Iraq. Instability, terror and fragmentation came to the region exactly as planned.

The plan also requires that no strong and stable Muslim country should remain in the Middle East. The Middle East must be broken up into very small artificial units that are weak and devoid of will, purpose and character, and thus easy to control. They must be of such a kind that if they escape control or in the event of a disagreement they can easily be destroyed through a simple military operation. The countries of the Gulf are not part of this, since they are already largely under American control and are not part of the Holy Land in which Armageddon is expected to take place. To date, the plan has been successfully (in their eyes) implemented in Iraq, Syria and Egypt. Just two countries remain; Turkey and Iran. These can be broken up and destabilized through the establishment of a Great Kurdistan. Look carefully at the Middle East; all the plans are aimed in that direction.

The main reason for the frequent publication of maps in the US and European press showing Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Yemen all broken up in various ways is to prepare the subconscious foundations for this in global public opinion by depicting it as a political requirement. As wars without victors destabilize the region, the arms industry is kept alive and well, stocks of weapons that are not sold off are melted down and enormous capital is obtained for the manufacture of new weapons. The segment of the banking sector that earns revenue from sudden crises also benefits from the climate of uncertainty in the Middle East.

The drama of the people of the Middle East was not random. The map and the climate designed by secret forces a hundred years ago are being actively applied today.

Looked at in the light of all these developments, the picture in the Middle East is by no means coincidental. The maps and plans drawn up a hundred years ago now seem to have been made a reality. There is no doubt that perhaps the major share of the blame lies with some Muslims, who produced the infrastructure for these plans - knowingly or otherwise - and permitted this disorder, who have failed to ally themselves with one another and who even regard disputes as a matter of honor. We shall be looking at this in due course.

The Jewish lobby as a tool

Some Evangelicals attach importance to the backing they receive from the Jewish lobby. In fact, however, they believe that a great many Jews will be slaughtered in the bloody war they expect to see in the future.

When they are in the administration in America and even when they are not, the neoconservatives still remain highly influential by way of various think-tanks and civil society organizations. Of course, the support they receive from some Jews and the Jewish lobby occupies an important place in this. However, a serious discrepancy emerges at this point. As we have already seen, some Evangelicals believe that with the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), only 144,000 Jews will be left alive by converting to Christianity, while the others will be slaughtered in that great war. Therefore, some Evangelicals regard the Jews as being on the wrong path and are preparing for a war in which they will be slaughtered. On that basis, we may say that these Evangelicals’ attitude toward the Jews is not one of a genuine alliance; it is simply a means to an end.

One can see that in various statements by widely-known Evangelicals themselves. Asked during an address about the identity of the antichrist, the famous 20th-century Evangelical Jerry Falwell gave a most interesting answer: “The Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male.” In an address given years before, Billy Graham said: “A lot of the Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.” Following the revelation of these words, Graham was forced to say, “Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made... some 30 years ago… They do not reflect my views and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks…. Throughout my ministry, I have sought to build bridges between Jews and Christians.”

Ibid., p. 73 (http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=8699)

Ibid., p. 74 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/03/us/billy-graham-apologizes-to-jews-for-his-remarks-on-nixon-tapes.html)

These quotes show that the way some Evangelicals appear to support the Jews is simply due to the fact that this represents one of their preconditions for Doomsday. In other words, in the eyes of some Evangelicals the Jews are simply a tool for achieving that end. While some Jews are unaware of that, others make no objection, despite being well aware of that aim. That is because while the supporters of Zionism are very few in number, the Jews in question are pleased that their own beliefs are being supported, albeit in a somewhat backhanded way.

Let us now reiterate an important point we made at the beginning of this book: of course not all Evangelicals or all neoconservatives share these views. Indeed, the great majority has no desire to see a war that will end in the devastation of the Middle East and harbor no hostility toward Jews and Muslims. Indeed, the majority of them are people of love who wish to build bridges between the faiths, who are striving hard to do so and who feel a genuine love for Muslims and Jews.

Of course, not all Evangelicals long to see a war that will devastate the Middle East. Those who do desire it have clearly misinterpreted Evangelical belief. That error may result in terrible outcomes in the Middle East. Our purpose here is to draw attention to it and indicate the true path.

It needs to be remembered that the Evangelicals described herein, and who harbor a deep expectation of war, hold this view due to misinterpretation. Since the purpose of this book is to set out this error, the logical flaws inherent in the scenario of war in which only 144,000 Jews will be left alive also need to be revealed. The fact is that so long as they adhere to such a belief system it will be next to impossible for these Evangelicals to establish genuine unity and friendship with the Jews. For the Jews meanwhile, the situation is perilous and uncertain. There is no probability of a Christian with such a perspective ever being able to regard a Jew as a true friend. At the same time, Jews aware of this will inevitably doubt the sincerity and friendship of Christians who believe in such a scenario of slaughter against themselves. Under those conditions, temporary alliances between representatives of the two faiths will be mere window dressing, and a true alliance will be impossible to forge, as is to be expected when one group expects the other group to serve as little more than kindling for their apocalyptic vision.

The expectation of war that makes unity among the different faiths, peace and brotherhood impossible is a direct violation of the law of God and the reason behind the sending of the prophets. There is therefore a problem of perception behind some Evangelicals’ expectation of a terrible war.

Yet an alliance between the faiths is vitally important and necessary in the End Times. Even for that reason alone, there are clearly a number of problems in the expectations in question in Evangelical belief.

The situation is very much worse from the Muslim perspective; that is because in the opinion of some Evangelicals, the final battle will end in the slaughter of all Muslims. An Evangelical who believes that will inevitably live in the belief that all Muslims need to be killed, even someone whose goodness and honesty he is sure of, for whom he feels love and respect and whom he trusts with his whole heart. That is a terrifying state of affairs both for the Christian in question and for a Muslim who wishes to be in an alliance with and to love him. The inevitable conclusion is that there can never be any alliance or solidarity between Christians and Muslims, and that would mean the Earth becoming a place of horror where peace can never come; that erroneous worldview alone is enough to spark a comprehensive policy of enmity. It is impossible for an Evangelical Christian who thinks like that to establish a true interfaith friendship. Such a life is not the kind of life that God desires. A true religion can obviously never teach such a policy of enmity nor such a scenario of slaughter. That means there must be a gargantuan error in the interpretation of religion.

It is also a violation of reason and faith to imagine that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), sent to the world as a representative of peace and love, and also a prophet of Muslims, could bring about slaughter in the End Times, something which is totally at variance with the reason of his creation. A true Christian who is properly acquainted with the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) needs to be suspicious of any such idea. Such a terrifying plan, one that would make love and peace on earth impossible, is incompatible with both the law of God and the purpose behind the sending of the prophets. There is, therefore, a manifest misunderstanding here and a question of perception. (For further details on this subject see Christians Must Heed Jesus by Harun Yahya)

Plans to divide up the Holy Land

The Old Testament describes the promised land as follows: “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” (Genesis 15:18-21)

Some Evangelicals’ idea of the Holy Land differs from that of the Jews. The Jews regard the current land of Israel as compatible with the Torah, while some Evangelicals refer to a much broader territory, even including part of Turkey.

For Evangelicals, this passage from the Old Testament describes the Holy Land, and these lands have to be taken by the Jews before the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh). These lands between the Nile and the Euphrates include parts of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan and Turkey and all of Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait.

The taking over of these lands is thus of great importance for some Evangelicals and represents a significant portent of the Last Coming.

The thing about this map of concern to Turkey is that according to the Evangelicals, this Holy Land also includes Adana, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş and Adıyaman; some sources actually include all of Southeast Turkey. A great deal of stability and democracy have been achieved during the 90 years of the Turkish Republic. The constant instability in the region in question, while the country has been making enormous progress in recent years, is thought-provoking. Turkey is obviously part of this plan, based on a series of misunderstood prophecies, to break up the Middle East, which explains the constant state of unease in the Southeast Turkey.

One very important point needs to be mentioned here. For the Jews, the Holy Land, that is described as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates in the Old Testament, extends (from east to west) from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan and (from south to north) from Sinai to the Hasbani River in northern Lebanon. That definition therefore includes the current state of Israel, but not Turkey. However, some Evangelicals interpret the passages of the Old Testament in question rather differently. One of the most important reasons for this difference is that some Christians have expanded the concept of the “Holy Land” to include not just those promised to the Prophet Moses (pbuh), but also those promised to the Prophet Abraham (pbuh). However, the Old Testament does not employ the term “Holy Land” in that context. Therefore, generally, the Jews do not regard this broad map described by the Evangelicals as accurate, for which reason they do not favor the desire to expand the Holy Land outside the current borders of Israel.

Covert and overt plans for Turkey

The term “break-up” has been much employed in recent years, particularly along with the upheaval that followed the Arab Spring. Iraq, which has never been free of attacks and turmoil, ended up being invaded by ISIL and is today more or less officially divided into three parts. Syria has been wracked by civil war since 2011, and is currently divided into six separate parts. There are also smaller fragments within these main parts. Egypt is going through a time of major instability, and the tribes in the Sinai Peninsula are restless. Libya is being rocked by coups, and there is unending turmoil in Sudan and Yemen.

The word that was most commonly related in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring was “fragmentation.” Iraq and Syria were divided into parts in a planned manner, and their peoples are still living in misery. The plans for the break-up of the rest of the Middle East are still continuing.

Two countries stand out amidst all this turmoil; Iran and Turkey. Although Iran has been subjected to sanctions for a long time due to its nuclear activities, it is stable and powerful in terms of having observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and being an ally in the Russian-Chinese axis. Turkey, a democratic member of NATO and ally of the West, has strongly opposed any break-up despite the PKK terror of the last 40 years, has grown stronger despite the conditions in the region and has undergone major changes with the reforms of the last 10 years. Although Turkey is the subject of criticism on the subjects of its relations with its neighbors, Islamization and a perception of turning away from the West, it has made great progress in the region in economic, commercial and democratic terms, and has been largely unaffected by the turmoil in the area.

This state of affairs in Turkey is therefore a cause for concern to those making plans for the Middle East, some of whom have no compunction about openly expressing that alarm; their plan is based on countries being weakened, rather than growing stronger. The plan also involves an imaginary puppet state in Mesopotamia, where they think Armageddon will take place, under their own control, independent of the Arab, Turkish or Persian world, where they will be able to do as they please: Great Kurdistan.

We shall look at the evidence showing what a major error this dream is in due course.

Our reason for exposing the Evangelical plan

It is of course Muslims who fail to be united among themselves who are primarily responsible for the fragmentation in the Middle East. These Muslims are divided along lines of sect, race or ethnicity, and are all in a state of disagreement. As a result, the blood of their brothers is constantly being spilled in the Middle East.

It is important for this important fact to be emphasized several times throughout the book: our aim in exposing the Evangelical plans set out in this book is not to denigrate the Evangelicals or the neoconservatives. These people may imagine they are acting properly in the light of their beliefs. As God makes clear in several verses of the Qur’an, Christians and Jews are Muslims’ friends and brothers: All those parts of the Torah and the Gospel that are compatible with the Qur’an are valid in the eyes of Muslims too, and Muslims have a responsibility to respect these two Abrahamic faiths and to treat their members with love and affection. It is therefore very important for it to be known that this book you are reading was not written to offend or denigrate any faith or sect or their members.

In addition, the fact is that whatever plan is set in motion in Islamic territories, it is the Muslims themselves who live in those lands and fail to be united who are responsible for any turmoil arising in them. Blaming others for this state of turmoil in the Middle East means a failure to grasp the real problem. The real problem in the Middle East - and other Muslim lands - is that Muslims are divided on various sectarian and ethnic pretexts and fail to unite and come together. Sadly, a great majority of them have adopted a false religion of nonsense under the name of Islam, have turned their backs on the Qur’an and fail to understand God’s message to them in the Qur’an. It has, of course, been quite easy for hatred to grow in a society that has remained backward under the influence of the religion of nonsense, one that is fragmented, a culture that regards women as worthless, democracy as meaningless and the arts as forbidden. It is therefore the Muslim world that is most easily affected by tiny sparks and allows its own region to turn into a place of turmoil that is largely responsible for this picture.

On the other hand, when we look at the course they take, Evangelicals’ aims, and the errors in the paths and methods selected by them to achieve that aim, may result in great and terrible consequences for the Middle East. The terrible outcome we discuss here is the birth and spread of a Marxist system that will inflict disaster on the world, and its dissemination across the world. When that happens, the Evangelicals will realize that what they expected has not happened, and that the world is headed towards destruction. It is essential to issue a warning before it is too late.

If the true facts on this subject are laid out, then it will be possible to build a more peaceable and better Middle East together with America and Europe, and especially with the neoconservatives. The potentially disastrous price to be paid as a result of this plan therefore needs to be made clear before it is too late.

3.  Yasin Yaylar, İsrail Amerika ve Evanjelizm, Altınpost yayıncılık, 2012, s. 603. A.g.e.  s. 1194. A.g.e. s. 735. A.g.e. s. 74

Chapter 3

The Desired Outcome of The Treaty of Sevres:

Great Kurdistan

The Treaty of Sevrès, signed in 1920 and annulled by Ataturk, clearly and officially revealed to the eyes of the Turkish people the greatest desires of the West, which had persisted for as long as the Ottoman Empire had existed. Already having lost the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, the Balkans and Africa, the Ottoman Empire were now ordered to deliver the Aegean coast and to provide land for Armenia in the northeast and for Kurdistan in the southeast. Although it was shelved when the Turkish Parliament refused to recognize the Treaty of Sevres, the desire in it, to see the establishment of Kurdistan, never came to an end. That is because Mesopotamia was at the heart of prophecies and absolutely had to be brought under control.

As is known, Mesopotamia includes the southeast of Turkey, the southwest of Iran and parts of Iraq and Syria. One important feature of this region is that it has a substantial ethnic Kurdish population. Therefore, the current - and also the retroactive - aim of some of the Evangelical Christians and their political supporters has been to be able to build a new Kurdish state in the area by breaking up the powerful states in the region, namely Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. According to them, this new state needed to have two characteristics; it had to be an unconditional ally of the USA and Europe and it had to be a puppet state that fulfills all the desires of the USA and Europe.

This puppet state will provide a highly important strategic area for the West in the Middle East, represent an ideal strategic area to set up bases and constitute the appropriate environment, facilities and place for the awaited War of Armageddon.

Therefore, the Great Kurdistan project is one that has been officially in action since the time of the Treaty of Sevres. It targets four countries with Kurdish populations. This aim within the plan of destabilization has been achieved in the cases of Iraq and Syria. There is an autonomous Kurdish area in Iraq and a Kurdish settlement area consisting of several cantons in Syria. At the present time, the worsening turmoil in Iraq has led to talk of the Autonomous Kurdish Administration “declaring independence”. As a matter of fact, the Iraqi Constitution is well suited to that. If the local population gives approval, the autonomous administration can break away as an autonomous state.

The desired progress also seems to have been made in terms of the Kurds in Syria, the second stage of the plan. The Kurdish administration divided into cantons here frequently declares autonomy. As a result of finding no respondent due to the civil war in Syria, it always returns to the existing system. However, there is one very noteworthy element in this stage; the extreme sensitivity of Western countries regarding the Kurdish area in Syria. This will be looked at a little bit further on.

As we have previously stated, Iran and Turkey, the third and fourth stages of the plan, represent an important problem due to their being stable countries. This intricate plan is therefore still proceeding on the basis of bringing these two countries to heel. The basic element of the objective here, and that we need to discuss in the context of Turkey, is the PKK. That is because the Marxist-Leninist, anarchist communist PKK that has for years been on the list of terrorist organizations in U.S. and Europe, is trying to cozy up to the West to break Turkey apart. Meanwhile, some Western deep state services are turning a blind eye to the danger of the PKK in order to split Turkey apart. We are therefore looking at a dangerous environment in which the PKK is using the West, and the West is using the PKK.

The West is using the PKK while the PKK is using the West

The PKK, a Stalinist, communist terror organization, is based in the Qandil Mountains on the Iraqi and Iranian border. It hides out and perpetrates cowardly attacks from behind.

Someone getting to know the PKK from articles in the daily papers today will easily regard the PKK, a communist terror organization, as Kurdish fighters that the West should be supporting because that is how the international mainstream media portray the PKK, especially of late.

The reason for that is that a sphere of mutual interests has been born. The communist PKK which has been striving to break away the southeast of Turkey for the last 40 years and Western deep state apparatuses also trying to break the region away have come together around common values. Adopting a new guise, the PKK is making cunning efforts to overcome the “communism” factor, the West’s chief objection. Treacherous communist terrorists have donned a new mask and now appear as democratic Kurdish fighters struggling for an identity and their rights. This has served the West’s interests, and it now regards the PKK as a good tool for achieving its own ends, all the while failing to realize the kind of rod it is making for its own back.

It is a necessity for us to explain that scourge; the PKK is not a group ofheroes fighting for their Kurdish identity, but a bloody Leninist terror organization wearing an imperialist mask that STILL seeks to spread communism and that cares nothing about the Kurdish people or a Kurdish identity. It is very important to differentiate between the Kurds living in the region and the terrorists of the PKK.

The PKK’s imperialist mask needs to be exposed in order to show one part of the West that considers entering into an alliance with the PKK the kind of scourge they are dealing with. If the Western powers in question still believe in their ideology based on fighting communism, we have some bad news for them. They are in an alliance with bloody communists!

Why was the PKK founded?

The PKK movement began in the universities as a student movement and adopted the name of “Apoists” in 1977, then abandoned that name, and that of the “Kurdish Revolutionaries” and replaced that moniker with that of the National Liberation Army. In time, most of the leftist groups started to establish links with this organization because the basic ideology of the organization is based on Marxism-Leninism. These statements by Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the group at that time, may be regarded as the PKK’s first founding declaration:

On 20th August 1987, members of the PKK attacked the home of Şehmus Arık in the Bahçe arable field of Dargeçit district of Mardin with Kalashnikovs. They killed three children, two of them girls. The 4-month-old Hamza was asleep in his cradle when the bullets struck.

We will investigate and examine Marxism and Leninism in the classic sense. We will perform a general analysis of the world, the Middle East and Turkey guided by these ideologies. On the basis of that perspective, East and Southeast Anatolia (North Kurdistan) are in the position of a colony. Turkey is a colonialist state. Moreover, the other parts of Kurdistan, are also under colonial rule of Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Kürşad Berkkan – Cenk Eğilmezbilek, Başkan Öcalan “PKK ile mücadeleden müzakereye” (President Öcalan “From fighting the PKK to negotiation), Istanbul, 2013, p. 37

Other written documents setting out the PKK’s goals are the Path of the Kurdistan Revolution (Manifesto) published in 1978 and Party Program. The PKK’s objective is summarized as follows in the Party Program, or rather the Draft drawn up by Öcalan:

Kurdistan is divided into four by four colonialist states, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The largest part is Turkish Kurdistan. Semi-feudal relations apply here. Turkish Kurdistan will be in the vanguard of the revolution. The characteristic of this revolution is a democratic revolution of the nation.The minimum objective is to build an independent, democratic and united Kurdistan by overthrowing colonialism. The maximum objective is to establish a state founded on Marxist-Leninist principles. The proletariat is the force that will lead the revolution. The basic force in the revolution is the peasant. The basic alliance is the one between the peasant, the worker and the intellectual.

The Statutes, published at the same time, set out the basic character of the party to be set up to realize the objectives described in the program. The entire ideology of the organization, which describes itself as Marxist-Leninist in the Manifesto, the Program and the Statutes is built on the concepts of “force and colonialism”. Accordingly, the utmost revolutionary violence must be employed against the colonialist powers and those colonialist powers must be compelled to recognize the organization. Engels’ “Theory of Force” was taken as a basis and the statements by Marx and Engels to the effect that violence must not be neglected on the road to proletarian rule were regarded as their guide.

Abdullah Öcalan also adopted those views and suggested the indispensability of violence, setting these views out as follows in his book The Role of Force in Kurdistan:

Altemur Kılıç, Büyük Kürdistan Büyük İsrail, (Great Kurdistan Great Israel), Buğra Yayıncılık, Istanbul, p. 181

Cemal Temizöz, Siyasallaşan PKK Terörü (The Politicization of PKK Terror), Togan Yayıncılık, Bakırköy, February 2012, p. 81

…By implementing the guerilla war with the active war, we will try to destroy the military superiority of our enemy and make them withdraw even more and increase the speed of the development of the revolution in Turkey. In this tragic phase of equilibrium, if the guerilla war and the active war going on in Kurdistan is supported by a developed revolutionary war in Turkey as well and if a proletariat and civil uprising come up in Turkey including major cities, this rebellion could be extended until Kurdistan and the bourgeois army could be dissolved with the civil uprising in Turkey and Kurdistan, and thus the political superiority of the revolution could be turned into military superiority, the rule of the bourgeois could be overthrown and the revolution could thus be brought to victory…

Ibid., p. 82

The treacherous nature of the PKK is based on cowardly attacks from behind and other guerrilla warfare tactics. Communist guerrilla tactics have represented its main method ever since the PKK’s founding manifesto.

Öcalan, wishing to see a “dictatorship of the proletariat” against the “bourgeoisie”, and stating that this is only possible through “revolution” and “terror”, describes the ideals of Marx and the policies of Lenin. Lenin describes his ideal revolution as follows:

A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete, determined, and consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will the proletariat’s struggle be against the bourgeoisie and for socialism… As the French say, “to change the rifle from one shoulder to the other”, i.e., to turn against the bourgeoisie the weapon the bourgeois revolution will supply them with, the liberty the revolution will bring...

Viladimir I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, June-November 1905

Öcalan, who formulated his own philosophy in the light of these ideas, has never concealed his Marxist approach or the mindset by which he describes himself as the Lenin of this century:

...Of course later on, the Marxism and Leninism will be preferred. The ABC of Socialism (Leo Huberman) was the first classic that I have taken into my hands. I put it under my pillow when I read it and said that is it. I believe my preference for Socialism became definite in 1969.

Lenin represented it in the 1900s, and I represent the 21st-century socialism, and I am building the new socialism by fighting real socialism and imperialism.

Öcalan describes how the PKK was constructed on the Marxist-Leninisttradition and will continue along those same principles in the future:

The PKK has experienced a development in line with the Marxist-Leninist tradition. It is clear that from then on it will take shape on the basis of that legacy, which is inseparable in the way that flesh is joined to bone.

In an address on May 1st, 1982, he said:

Burhan Semiz, PKK ve KCK'nın Din Stratejisi (The Religious Strategy of the PKK and KCK), p. 98

Özgür Yaşamla Diyaloglar (Dialogues with the Free Life), p. 201

Kürdistan'da Halk Kahramanlığı (Popular Heroism in Kurdistan), Istanbul, March 2004, p. 78

Öcalan, 1 Mayıs 1982 yılında yaptığı konuşmasında ise şunları söylemiştir:

Yet we should be well aware of the fact that if the history of Kurdistan desires to keep up with the times, it has to be founded completely on the fact of the working class. No matter what unsuitable conditions it may live under, IT MUST BE BASED on the objective force of the working class, and ON MARXISM-LENINISM, its science and guide to action; AND NOTE THAT THE REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE IS TOTALLY GROUNDED IN THAT FACT... If those tribal walls, those feudal fences had not been breached, MARXISM-LENINISM, THE MODERN AND THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY WAY OF THINKING would never have entered our heads.

Öcalan himself states that the PKK is a Marxist-Leninist organization. That ideology remains unchanged today.

The first flag used by the PKK was a red communist one with the symbols of the hammer and sickle. Party congresses were held under posters of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. The flag and slogans have today been changed with the adoption of an imperialist mask. The mentality, however, is exactly the same.

In order to see how the terror organization is a communist one we also need to look at the Darwinist and communist expressions in the PKK manifesto on its official web site: Communality is a form of being of the human species. The process of the human species evolving into a human beings after its breaking away from its animal-like ancestors and the level of its communality go hand in hand. There is no individual life other than communal life. Dialectical dualities, the language of the universal system, flow by becoming richer or poorer in societal change and development. Source: http://www.pkkonline.com/tr/index.php?sys=article&artID=200 Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK terror organization, openly espoused Leninist, communist views until the 1990s. Red communist flags and posters of Lenin, Marx and Engels were prominent at party congresses held before the ‘90s. The change of identity in the form of a transition to imperialism after the ‘90s is entirely deceptive. This change, carried out in order to curry favor with the U.S., is intended to attract U.S. support only until the establishment of an independent state. The state to be set up with U.S. backing will be a communist one aiming to rule the entire world. The U.S. is unaware that it is supporting the aim of a communist state.

The imperialist mask used by the PKK today has deceived many people both in the West and in Turkey. The fact is, however, that the PKK has renounced none of its ideology and objectives. It is still determined to seize land from Turkey, to entirely eliminate the Turkish state, which it regards as colonialist, and to establish a state in those lands instead. Indeed, the PKK returned to its cowardly attacks at the first available opportunity, initiated bloody terror attacks as required by its communist ideology, and shown its true face by immediately altering the impression it gave of being a ‘dove of peace’. It is essential that the West immediately realize the scale of this deception and see the kind of nightmare that the PKK could inflict, not just on Turkey and the Middle east, but on the whole world.

Although the PKK has donned an imperialist mask, the initial training given to young people in the caves is still Darwinist and Marxist-Leninist education. The method employed is based on Marxist propaganda at every available opportunity. No activity is currently taking place against the ideology of the PKK in Turkey, and no young generation capable of responding scientifically to false Darwinist and Marxist ideology is being produced. Because as in the rest of the world, Darwinism is also taught in Turkish schools, and the basic ideology of the PKK appears on the curriculum just as if it were true fact. That being the case it is impossible for an educational mobilization, the most important factor in demolishing the foundations of the PKK, to take place. As the ideology of the PKK grows ever stronger, no activity that might stop it is taking place. When PKK militants join the organization the first thing that happens is that they are given philosophical and ideological instruction. This ideological training is the foundation of the PKK. Once such instruction has been given, the result is generations of people who regard human beings as a kind of animal, who think that there is no point to existence, who believe killing as necessary for survival and who regard conflict as a necessity. PKK thus became capable of anything for the sake of the ideology that gives meaning to their existence. The only solution to terror lies in showing that Darwinism, the basis of Marxism, is a fraud. A terrorist who sees that he believes in a false religion will lose all his faith, fervor and false aims.

To the side can be seen an award given by the South African Communist Party to the leader of the separatist terror organization, Abdullah Öcalan. In giving him the award, the general-secretary of the South African Communist Party, Blade Nzimande, praised Öcalan for his terrorist campaign against imperialism and colonialism, and described him as a beacon of the communist and socialist movement. As this shows, the communist movement draws support from communists all over the world. Since the movement in Southeast Turkey is a communist one, and since it perpetrates terror in its most ferocious form as a requirement of that communism, it enjoys constant support from communist countries and groupings until their dream of a communist world state is achieved.

These explicit statements by Öcalan and the information in the organization’s Manifesto, Program and Statutes show that the ultimate aim of the PKK is to establish a Kurdistan founded on Marxist-Leninist principles. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, which comprise that region, are described as “colonialist” states, and the PKK settled on a colonialist approach in order to justify its aims. Members of the organization adopt working class movements in capitalist countries as their role models and regard those who bring such movements about as their allies. Their aims are to bring about a “classless” society in an area established under the name of “Socialist Kurdistan” and a communal system. Their manifestos contain calls to arms for that purpose.

Violence is the basic tactic of Marxism and Leninism. Communist states, communist practices and posters and manifestos prepared to that end all point to violence. The PKK also seeks to achieve all its aims in Turkey and the Southeast by means of violence.

One of the most important requirements of this objective is without doubt the desire to oppose all imperialist powers. For that reason, the policies and even the very existence of America and the pro-American West are opposed. The Manifesto essentially focuses on the aim of annihilating the American imperialist mindset. As required by Marxist thinking, the Marxist PKK therefore fiercely opposes the USA and all those it regards as imperialist forces.

Since the communist mindset wishes to oppose all imperialist forces, it opposes all the policies of the US and the pro-US West, and even their very existence. The way the U.S. flag is targeted on communist posters is a manifestation of this ideal

The part of the PKK program titled “The Duties of the Kurdistan Revolution” speaks of the need to rejects any proposals for a solution (including regional autonomy) that may be forthcoming from the Republic of Turkey, which is described as “colonialist”. The aim behind that rejection stems from the idea of the necessity to break up the Republic of Turkey.

The basic aim of the PKK is to achieve political and military power by establishing a communist state on Turkish soil and to build a dictatorship of the proletariat through intense oppression of the Kurdish people. This is not our claim, but an ultimate objective in the founding manifesto of the PKK.

The Manifesto sets out the objective of establishing military and police control over some parts of Southeast Turkey, by forcing the Turkish security forces to pull out of rural areas and to withdraw from the Turkish-Iraqi border, in order to be able to build a communist Kurdistan. Once liberated rebel areas have been established, attacks in cities and the spreading of disorder and uprisings throughout the region will be set in motion. The PKK's existing armed forces will be turned into a conventional army, whose aim will be to defeat the Turkish Army. As a result of all this, it expresses the expectation that the Turkish Army will ultimately feel compelled to abandon the territories described as “Kurdistan”.

Our reason for citing these details in the PKK Manifesto is to reveal that the PKK is a Marxist-Leninist organization whose aim is to wage war against all imperialist or capitalist countries, states and systems. The PKK is intent on establishing a communist state by “tearing apart” Turkey and neighboring countries with Kurdish populations. That is why it was founded and it has never to this day deviated from that aim.

As the world has changed, and borders in the Middle East have become more sensitive and the balances of power have altered, the PKK has, over the years, felt the need to adopt an imperialist guise. There are many reasons for this and we will be looking at these in subsequent chapters. The point needing to be emphasized here is the PKK’s Marxist appearance at the time it was founded and to prevent it being deceptive for many countries and intellectuals with its current imperialist mask. Beneath the PKK’s present guise lies a Marxist-Leninist terror organization intent on building a communist world state.

Elif Çalışkan Polat, PKK Terör Örgütüne Dış Destek (Foreign Support for the PKK Terror Organization), Çatı Kitapları, 2013, p. 34