1453 (Book / Kitap)

1453 is one of the turning points of history. Mr.Crowley did excellent job to describe events, person, and facts related to capture of Istanbul. Two main characters Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Constantine XI are well biographied in the book. Especially Fatih’s desire to take city and his preparations are very well given to the reader. Also the other characters like Zaganos Pasha, Halil Pasha, and Giovanni are given with enough detail with their contributions to the historical event.

Book starts with Arab siege in 7th century and Muhammad desire of Istanbul. But the walls of Istanbul and successive defense strategies gave Byzantium a victory against them. After that Turks started to hit walls of Istanbul at the beginning of Ottoman Empire but they failed as well.

Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s obsession with the city starts with his early age and grows by the time. His successive use of technology, superior logistic planning, and strategy were the biggest advantages of Ottoman side. On the other hand, very charismatic and successful soldier Constantine XI was dealing with the problems of the Christianity like unity of the Church and Pope. There was big hesitation of help to Byzantium by Vatican.

Mehmet’s use of biggest cannon of their time and landslide of his war ship to Golden Horn were the most important points of the war and helped the Ottomans capture the city. Cannons were designed by Hungarian cannon founder Orban who offered defense of the city to Constantine XI but he got refused to due his high price. Mehmet accepted this Christian Scientist offer and paid him very well. Also Zagonos Pasha from Ottoman army was also another Christian who helped Mehmet with his aggressive offense mind.

That’s why I do not agree Crowley’s definition to this event as Clash of Civilizations. During that time era Ottoman was also war with other Turkish and Arabic neighbors and Vatican did not make enough effort to save Istanbul due to his own interest. Istanbul was the biggest prize of their time for every commander regardless of religion.

As Crowley mentioned after the fall of Istanbul there was flow of people from west to Istanbul due to free practice of religion and wealth of the city. Churches and synagogues were free to operate. Because, Mehmet’s goal was not to create Islamic Empire but global empire like his idol hero Alexander the Great.

In short, very well written, informative, and emotional book for the year of 1453. Everybody must read who live in Istanbul and who will visit Istanbul.



1453 yili bir devrin kapanip yeni bir devrin acildigi tarihi acidan cok onemli bir yil. Crowley, Istanbul’un fethi ile ilgili kisileri, olaylari ve gercekleri cok akici ve tarafsiz olarak kaleme almis. Olayin iki onemli kahramani Fatih Sultan Mehmet ve Constantine XI ile Zaganos Pasa, Halil Pasa ve Giovanni gibi diger onemli karakterlerde kitapda cok guzel bicimde yerlerini almislar.

Kitap 7. yuzyildaki Arap kusatmasi ile basliyor ve Hz.Muhammed’in Istanbul ile baglantisi bu kisimda aciklaniyor. Bu kusatmaya karsi Bizans’in basarili savunmasi sayesinde kusatma dusuyor ve daha sonra Turkler, Osmanli’nin ilk yillarinda tekrar Istanbul surlarina dayaniyorlar. Fakat Osmanlilarda bu kusatmalarda Araplar gibi ilk basta hezimete ugruyorlar.

Fatih Sultan Mehmet’in sehire olan ilgisi kucuk yaslarda basliyor ve zamanla daha da buyuyor. Fatih’in teknolojik gelismelere ilgisi, logistic planlamadaki becerisi ve akilli stratejileri Osmanlilarin bu savastaki en buyuk avantajlari. Obur tarafdan, Bizans Krali Constantin Hristiyan dunyasindaki bolunmeler yuzunden Papa ile catismaktadir ve yardim umudu gun gectikce azalmaktadir.

Fatih’in zamanin en buyuk toplarini kullanmasi ve gemilerini karadan Halic’e indirmasi kusatmanin en onemli donum noktalari. Toplarin tasarimcisi Orban, ilk once Bizans’a giderek sehrin savunmasi icin yardim onerir ancak istedigi ucret yuzunden Bizanslilar onu reddetmek zorunda kalir. Bu durum karsisinda, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Hiristiyan Orban’in teklifini kabul ederek bu tarihi gelismeye ortak olur. Ayrica, kusatmanin diger bir onemli karakteri Yunan yeniceri Zaganos Pasadir. Zaganos Pasa her zaman saldirgan yapisi ile Fatih Sultan Mehmet’e sehrin kusatmasinda yardimci olmaktadir.

Yazar kitabin kapaginda bu kusatmayi medeniyetlerin catismasi olarak niteliyor. Bence yukaridaki gercekler bu tanimlamayi yalanlamaya yeter. Ayrica, o donemde Osmanlilar diger Turk boylari ve Araplar ile de catisma halindedirler. Kusatma sirasinda Hiristiyan dunyasindanki ic sorunlar yuzunden yardim konusunda buyuk sorunlar yasandiginida unutmamak gerek. 15 yuzyilda Istanbul musluman veya hiristiyan her konutanin ruyasinda olan bir sehir idi.

Crowley’da belirtigi gibi sehrin dusmesinden sonra Batidan Istanbul’a dogru goc akimi basladi. Bu gocun ana sebeplerinden bazilari, Osmanlilarin Istanbul’daki diger dinlere gosterdigi hosgoru ve sehrin ekonomik rehafi idi. Fatih Sultan Mehmet, uygulamalarindan anlasilacagi uzere, buyuk bir Islam imparatorlugu yerine buyuk bir global imparatorluk hayali pesinde idi. Bu konuda kendisine her zaman hayranlik duydugu Buyuk Iskenderi ornek almisti.

Kisaca, 1453 yili icin cok iyi yazilmis, bilgi dolu, tarafsiz, ve duygu yuklu bir kitap. Istanbul’da yasayan ve ziyaret edecek herkesin okumasi gereken bir kitap.

Cenk Sumbas

The Hunt for Bin-Laden (Book / Kitap)

Military tactics and warfare is changing everyday by technology. Afghan war is the best example of technology vs. bandit version. Bunch of US Special Forces soldiers enters the Afghanistan and marched through to Kabul with Northern Alliance soldiers. They fought when its necessary but mainly they directed air forces on Taliban and Al-Qaida soldiers with the state of art technology weapons and bombs. An especially smart bombs aimed by laser marked target is very impressive. In addition to that, book relieves evidence of bribery to war lords in Afghanistan in cash and equipment. It is very clear that Taliban and Al-Qaida are one of the weakest and not modernized forces of the world. They had only old fashioned Russian weapons and bunch of bandit type of soldier. The only chance they have against the US army is guerilla warfare which they are doing today at Tora Bora region. Couple chapter is dedicated to difficulties against to Taliban in Tora Bora region at guerilla warfare. Books language is patriotic and soldierish. Also conflict between Special Forces and General Frank is declared many times at the book. Author’s love to Bush and Rumsfeld is also mentioned ten times at every chapter.

Personally, I believe that US forces are not really trying to find Bin Laden. Because, he is the main reason being at Afhganistan for USA. If they catch him, they have to leave or people start to question their presence at the country. These lands are very strategical and important to USA, it is next to Russia, China and India. Who wants to give out such wonderfull military base? USA ability to find Bin Laden is obvious, if they really want to find him, they will find him.

The book is essential for military references but from political side dose not make sense to me. It is not about Afghan policy or history.


Askeri taktik ve teknolojiler her gun degismekte ve daha fazla gelismekte. Bunun en guzel ornegini Afgan savasinda yasadik. Gelismis Amerikan teknolojisi karsisinda ilkel Taliban birlikleri hic bir varlik gosteremediler. Cok sayidaki Amerikan Ozel kuvvetler askerleri kuzeydeki Afgan gucleri ile Kabul’a kadar ilerlediler. Gerektiginde catismayada giren ozel kuvvetlerin asil yaptigi hava saldirilarini organize ve idare etmekti. Bu saldirilar sirasinda son teknoloji urunu silahlarin kullanildigi herkez tarafindan biliniyor. Ancak ozel kuvvetlerin karadan laserler ile isaretledigi hedeflere akilli bombalarin atilmasi gercekten cok etkileyici bir teknoloji. Bunlara ilaveten kitapta Amerikan Ozel kuvvetlerinin Afgan kabile liderlerine rusvet olarak para ve malzeme yardimi yaptiklari acikca ifade ediliyor. Taliban guclerinin sadece eski Rus teknolojilerine bagli silahlara sahip dunyanin en zayif ordusu olarak Amerikan hava gucune karsi koymasi zaten dusunulemezdi. Bu gucle basetmenin tek yolu olan gerilla savasini zaten bugunlerde Tora Bora bolgesinde yasanmakta. Amerikanin gerilla savasi karsisindaki zorlanmalarida kitapda acikca anlatiliyor. Kitabin anlatim dili ise tamamen askeri mentalite ile ortusen Amerikan milliyetciligi ile yazilmis. Amerikan Ordusunun basindaki General Frank ile Ozel kuvvetler arasindaki anlayis catismasi ise kitapda bir cok kez yer almakta. Yazar, her bolumde Bush ve Rumseld’e olan hayranligini belirtmeden gecemiyor.

Ben kisisel olarak Amerikan guclerinin gercekten Bin Ladein'i yakalamak istediklerine inanmiyorum. Cunku, Bin Ladin yakalandigi takdirde Amerikanin Afganistan'dan ayrilmasi gerekir aksi halde Afgan halki ve uluslararasi kuruluslar Amerikan varligini sorgulamaya baslar. Afganistan'in cografik konumu askeri acidan cok stratejik ve onemli. Bu sayede Amerika diger super guc adaylarina (Rusya, Cin, Hindistan) cok yakin bir askeri usse kavustu. Bu onemli avantaji hangi ulke birakmak isteyebilirki? Amerika'nin Bin Ladin'i bulma konusundaki olanaklarini tartismaya hic gerek yok, eger gercekten yakalamak istenirse Amerika Bin Ladin'i yakaliyacaktir.

Belki askeri literatur acisindan faydali olabilecek bir kitap ama politik olarak hic bir degeri yok. Kesinlikle Afgan sorunu ve cozumu konusunda yazilmamis.

Cenk Sumbas

Take your Political Test (Discussion / Tartisma)

I got this link from http://aydinonat.blogspot.com/ and http://izlenimler.blogspot.com/2005/08/test.html . It is really interesting and entertaining also the website itself is very informative. I strongly suggest reading list according to your test results. The web address for the test is http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Here is my test result,
Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
I would grade myself more Libertarian. The closest person to me is Dalai Lama, he has been little bit more left and more liberal than me. Thanks god, I am far away from George Bush:)

Bu linki http://aydinonat.blogspot.com/ (Aydin Onat) ve http://izlenimler.blogspot.com/2005/08/test.html (Izlenimler) bloglarinda gordum. Bu bilgiyi bizimle paylastiklari icin tesekkur ederim. Gercekten cok ilginc ve eglenceli bir site. Sitenin web adresi http://www.politicalcompass.org/ . Ozellikle test sonucuna gore tavsiye edilen kitaplar gorulmeye deger. Benim Test sonucuna gelince,
Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
Hemen hemen bekledigim bir sonuc, sahsen ben kendimi biraz daha Liberal goruyorum. Bana en yakin kisi Dalai Lama ve buda bana mantikli geldi. Bush'la tamamen zit noktalarda cikmamiz ise oldukca sevindirici.

Cenk Sumbas

Pat Robertson vs. Bin Laden (Discussion / Tartisma)

This is the latest news from CNN that “Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas”.

This is unbelievable, but expected. If US invade Iraq without any reason and than Bush says that Saddam was the very bad man. What do you expect next? Now Chavez is the bad man to kill. This did not happen in one night. It is the mind set of Bush administration and now this mind set is going public with the conservatives like Robertson. Let’s check some timeline events together, Bush invades Iraq which had the weakest army in the world and Patriotic Act passes, and any terrorist suspect gets no rights whatsoever. After that Bush’s bodies from his army creates Abu Garib incident. Torture is acceptable because they were Muslim terrorists. Same primitive feeling, they are not like us!

After seeing all these, conservative minds get the feeling that if they are against us just kill them and invade their country somehow even assassination by state is acceptable. Is this idea familiar to you? It is to me, I am hearing Bin-Ladin broadcast from Al-Jazeera. Bin-Ladin is the terrorist, there is no doubt about it and must be punished as soon as possible. That’s why nobody is blaming Bush for Afghan move ever. Now we have another terrorist in the USA and he is Pat Robertson and we will see what American public do with this terrorist. It is a real test for the American Justice!



CNN’in verdigi habere gore, Muhafazakar Hiristiyan yayinci Pat Peterson, Venezualla Baskaninin komunizmi ve islami Amerika’ya ihrac ettigi icin Amerika Birlesik Devletleri tarafindan suikast sonucu oldurulmesini istemis.

Bu inanilmaz ama beklenen bir gelisme. Amerika yonetimi sebepsiz yere Irak’I isgal ettikden sonra Bush gerekce olarak Saddam’in cok kotu bir diktator oldugunu soylemisti. Bundan sonra neyi beklersiniz. Tabiki Chavez oldurulmesi gereken bir sonraki kotu adam. Fakat butun bu degisim bir gecede olmadi. Bush’un mentalitesi yavas yavas Peterson gibi muhafazakar kitlelere ulasmaya basladi. Bazi olaylari hatirlamakta buyuk fayda var. Dunyanin en zayif ordusuna sahip Irak isgal edildikten sonra, Amerika’da supheli terroristlere hic bir hak ve ozgurluk tanimayan Patriotic Act yasallasti. Bundan ceserat alan Bush’un askerleri Irak’da Abu Garih olayini yarattilar. Iskence, musluman teroristlere yapildigi surece kabul edilebilir oldu. Yine ayni ilkel duygu sahnede, onlar bizden degil.

Butun bu olaylari goren muhafazakarlar, Amerikan cikarlarina karsi cikanlarin ulkesinin isgal edilmesini ve hatta Amerikan hukumeti tarafindan duzenlenen suikastlarla oldurulmesinin kabul edilebilir oldugunu dusunmeye basladilar. Bu fakir size hic tanidik geliyor mu? Bana geliyor, kendimi El-Jazeera’da Bin-Ladin’I dinliyor gibi hissediyorum. Bin-Ladin’in terrorist oldugu bir gercek ve hemen yakalanarak adalete teslim edilmesi lazim. Bu yuzden kimse Afganistan’in isgaline fazla bir ses cikarmadi. Fakat simdi ortalikta baska bir terrorist var ve oda Pat Peterson. Hep birlikte Amerikan halkinin bu teroriste karsi nasil davranacagini gorecegiz. Bu gercekten Amerikan adeleti icin bir test olacak.

Cenk Sumbas

Sin City (Movie / Sinema)

Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino produced another masterpiece. Most of the people are comparing this movie with Kill Bill, they are totally different concepts. Sin City is the recreation of Frank Miller's pulpy comic books and digital techniques has been used for entire background of the movie. Black and white scenes and absurd colors make this movie very unique. Players (Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen) performance are great. There are three stories (The Hard Goodbye, The Big Fat Kill, and That Yellow Bastard) in the movie, each is very interesting. In the first story, Marv wants to find killer of his girlfriend just got from the bar. Secondly, Dwight protect his girlfriend from ex-cop and try to prevent chaos caused by him, and finally Willis try to save young lady who saved long time ago and got into jail due to her.

This is another digital masterpiece and very creative story. It is possible to see Tarantino effect on it. As a Tarantino fan, I like the “Sin City” and suggest to everybody.



Robert Rodrigez ve Tarantino’dan yine harika bir sinema ornegi. Bir cok kisi bu filmi “Kill Bill” ile karsilastirmaya calisiyor, ancak bunlar tamamen farkli calismalar. “Sin City” Frank Miller’in cizgi romaninin predeye tamamen digital teknikler kullanilarak aktarilmasi. Film siyah beyaz tasarimla ve cok absurd reklerle cekilmis. Buda filma gayet degisik ve kendine has bir hava vermesini saglamis. Oyuncularin (Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen) performanslari en yuksek duzeyde. Filmde ic ice gecmis bir birinden ilginc 3 hikaye var. Birinci hikayede Marv bir gece once tanistigi kiz arkadasini olduren katili aramaktadir. Ikinci hikayede ise Dwight, kiz arkadasini eski bir polis olan eski erkek arkadasindan ve eski polisin meydana getirecegi kaosdan korumaya calisir. Ucuncu hikayede ise Willis, yillar once hayatini kurtardigi ve onun korumak icin hapse girdigi genc kizi tekrar korumak zorunda kalir.

Digital tekniklerin cok basarili kullanildigi ve yaratici bir seneryosu olan mukemmel bir film. Filmde Tarantino’nun etkilerini gormemek imkansiz. Bir Tarantino hayrani olarak filmic cok begendim ve herkese tavsiye ederim.

Cenk Sumbas

The Clash of Civilizations (Book / Kitap)

The idea of the “The Clash of Civilization” started with Huntington’s article at 1993, and then his book published at 1996. During that time era, international terrorism was only breaking news once in every six months or so. El-Qeade was known by only CIA operatives not by the public. At late 1990’s, world was talking about technology and globalization. Nobody would have imagined the 9/11 type of attack. But Huntington predicted some of the chaos we are facing today. He deserves that credit for sure.

He claims that during the cold war, world had three blocks and they were free world, communist bloc, and unaligned nations. After the fall of Berlin wall, indigenization occurred and countries polarized according to their identity namely their civilizations. Eight major civilizations are introduced by Huntington as Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Orthodox, and Japanese. As it can be concluded easily that civilizations mainly based on religions.

After fall of Communist block, West emerged as dominant civilization but at the end of 20th century its power started to decline. At the same time, the wealth of other civilizations (especially Asian civilizations) started to gain more economic power. This also increased the indigenization and opposition to West. They are now proud with their identity and uniqueness.

According to his theory, civilizations will be realigned and clashed by each other continuously in order to gain absolute advantage. Next clashes will be between West and Islam. Also, he guessed at 1996, Chinese Civilization will be at Islam’s side against to West. Furthermore, he predicts that conflicts will be occurred at fault lines where civilizations (especially Islam) are met others.

In addition to this, his theory defines core states and torn states. Core states are the states that the most powerful and dominant state of particular civilization like USA for the West and China for the Sinic civilization. At this point, Huntington evaluates Islam and African civilizations which have lack of core states. That’s why Islam has difficulty to solve his conflicts with other civilizations.

Another definition by Huntington is torn countries. These countries are trying to move from one civilization to another. Turkey wants to move from Islam to West with the help of Kemalism, Mexico wants to move from Latin America to West, Russia wants to move from Orthodox to West, and finally Australia wants to move from West to Asia. The commonalities of the torn countries are elites of the country support this re-identification but public do not, also host civilization, generally West, do not willing to accept new guests.

Huntington totally refuses these moves by torn countries and suggests them to go back their own civilizations. Also, he claims that people of the non-Western civilizations wants to modernize but not westernize. He refuses universal values and globalization. According to him more interaction and trade brings more conflicts and more clashes.

I think, this is the most controversial point of the book. Because democracy and women rights are the westernization which other civilizations should reject according to Huntington. I believe that these are the universal values and applicable to all civilizations for their good. Today, conflicts at Middle East are partly caused by the lack of democracy. Also, globalization does exist and brings the countries closer and creates common interests like USA and India are experiencing today. Eating McDonalds and listening Metal music is westernization which other civilizations could reject. Also moves between civilizations are necessary and must be supported. Because, these countries like Turkey, Russia, Mexico, and Australia, can play mutual roles in intercivilized conflicts knowing and understanding both sides.

There will be always inter and/or intra civilizations conflicts but defining them as clashes of civilizations is little bit exaggeration. It can be called as “Discussion of Civilizations” But, it is not the faith of the world. Humanity can work together to solve the problems if they want to. If you like to read 100% opposite of Huntington ideas, I suggest you Thomas Friedman’s last book “The World is flat”. He is the fan of globalization. In short, Huntington theory is one of the most known international politics theory and it is valid for some points. This is another must read book and important piece of my library.



Medeniyetlerin catismasi fikri 1993 yilinda Huntington’un makalesi ile basladi ve ardindan 1996 yilinda ayni isimli kitabi yayinlandi. Sunu untmamak gerekirki, kitabin yayinlandigi zaman diliminde, uluslararasi terrorizm 6 ayda bir televizyonlarda flas haber olan bir konuydu. El-Kaide sadece CIA calisanlarinin bildigi ama kamuoyunun adini bile duymadigi bir orgutten baska bir sey degildi. 1990’larin sonunda dunya kamuoyu sadece teknolojik gelismeler ve globellesme ile mesguldu. Kimsenin aklindan 11 Eylul tipi bir saldiri gecmiyordu. Fakat, Huntington bugun yasadigimiz problemlerin bir kismini gorebilme basarisini gosterdi. Bu konuda onu takdir etmemek elde degil.

Huntington’in teorisine gore, soguk savas sirasinda dunya uc ana gruba ayrilmisti. Bunlar, sirasiyla ozgur batili ulkeler, komunist bloku ulkeleri ve tarafsiz ulkelerdi. Berlin duvarinin yikilmasindan sonra, butun ulkelerde kendi ozune donme basladi ve kendi kimliklerine (medeniyetlerine) gore yeniden gruplanmaya basladilar. Huntington bu olusum icin sekiz ana medeniyet tanimliyor, Bati Medeniyeti, Latin Amerika Medeniyeti, Islam Medeniyeti, Afrika Medeniyeti, Cin Medeniyeti, Hindu Medeniyeti, Ortadox Medeniyeti ve Japon Medeniyeti. Hemen anlasilacagi uzere medeniyetlerin ana tasi din unsuru.

Komunist sistemin cokmesinden sonra Bati medeniyeti tek super guc olarak ortaya cikti. Ancak 20th yuzyilin sonlarinda batinin gucu gerileme surecine girdi. Bu surecle birlikte ozellikle Asya’daki medeniyetlerin ekonomik olarak guc kazanmalari ve refahlarini artirmalari, bu medeniyetlerdeki ozedonusu ve batiya karsi koyma arzusunu hizlandirdi. Diger medeniyetler de kendi kimlikleri ve orijinallikleri ile gurur duymaya basladilar.

Huntington kitabinda acikladi uzere medeniyetlerin yeniden degisik sekillerde bir araya gelerek devamli olarak catisacaklarini iddia ediyor. Gelecekteki ilk catismanin ise Bati medeniyetleri ile Islam Medeniyeti arasinda olacagini ve Cin Medeniyetinin Islamin yaninda Bati’ya karsi yer alacagini varsayiyor. Catismanin meydana gelecegi yerler ise medeniyetlerin (Ozellikle Islamin) diger medeniyetler ile yan yana yasadiklari yerleri gosteriyor.

Yazar ayrica ana devletler ve bolunmus devletler tanimlamaya calisiyor. Ana devletler kendi medeniyetlerinin en guclu ve baskin devletleri, batidan Amerika Birlesik Devletleri ve Sinic Medeniyetler icin Cin gibi. Bu noktada Huntington, Islam ve Afrika medeniyetlerinin ana devleti olmadigini belirtiyor ve hatta Islam Medeniyetinin diger medeniyetler ile sorunlarini cozememesinin bir nedenini bu eksiklige bagliyor.

Bolunmus devletler ise kendi medeniyetlerinden baska bir medeniyete gecme cabasinda olan ulkeler. Bunlara ornek olarak, Turkiye Islam medeniyetinden Bati Medeniyetine Kemalist dusunce tarziyla gecmeye calisiyor. Ayni sekilde Meksika, Latin Amerika Medeniyetinden batiya, Rusya Orthodox medeniyetinden Batiya, ve Avusturalya ise Bati medeniyetinden Asya medeniyetine gecmeye calisiyorlar. Bolunmus ulkelerin ortak ozellikleri ise aydin kesimlerin bu gecisi desteklemesi ancak halkin bu konuda direnmesi ve gecis yapilan medeniyetin ki bu genellikle Bati medeniyeti, bu transferi desteklememesi.

Huntington, bu tur medeniyetler arasi gecislere kesinlikle karsi cikiyor ve her ulkenin kendi medeniyetler icinde kalmasini tavsiye ediyor. Ayrica diger medeniyetlerin (Bati disindaki) Batililasmaya karsi ciktiklarini ancak modernlesmeyi desteklediklerini dusunuyor. Evrensel degerlere inanmayan Huntington, kuresellesmeyede inanmiyor. Yazara gore daha cok ticaret ve iletisim daha fazla problem ve catismadan baska bir sey getirmeyecek.

Bence burasi kitabin ve teorinin en can alici noktasi. Cunku Demokrasi ve Kadin Haklari gibi degerler yazar tarafindan batililasma olarak algilaniyor ve diger medeniyetlerin bu degerleri reddetmesini savunuyor. Halbuki bu degerler, evrensel degerler ve her medeniyet icin gerekli olan pozitif degisimler. Bugun bile Orta Dogu’daki sorunlarinin demokrasi eksikliginden kaynaklandigi acik bir gercek. Ayrica kuresellesme inkar edilemez bir olgu ve bu sayade ulkeler ve medeniyetler yakinlasiyor ve ortak cikarlar yaratabiliyorlar. Bunun en guzel ornegi ise Amerika ile Hindistan arasinda gelisen olaylar. McDonalds’da burger yemek ve Metal muzigi dinlemek batililasma olarak algilanabilir ve diger medeniyetler tarafindan red edilebilir. Fakat evrensel degerlere her medeniyetin sahip cikmasi lazim. Ayrica medeniyetler arasindaki gecisler gerekli ve bunun diger medeniyetler tarafindan desteklenmesi lazim. Cunku bu tur ulkeler (Turkiye, Rusya, Meksika, Avusturalya) her iki tarafida anladiklari ve bildikleri icin medeniyetler arasinda arabulucu rolunu basari ile ustlenebilir.

Her zaman medeniyetlerin kendi icinde ve medeniyetler arasinda sorunlar olacaktir. Fakat bu sorunlari medniyetlerin catismasi olarak tanimlamak bana biraz abarti olarak geliyor. Belki Medeniyetlerin tartismasi demek daha dogru olacak. Her sekilde catismalar ve savaslar dunyanin kaderi degil insanlik bu sorunu isterse diger platformlarda da cozebilir. Eger yazarin dusuncesine 100% zit bir kitap ariyorsaniz, Thomas Friedman’in son kitabi “The World is Flat” (Dunya Duzdur) tavsiye ederim. Friedman tam bir kuresellesme taraftari. Sonuc olarak, Huntington’in teorisi uluslararasi politika alaninda en cok bilinen ve tartisilan teori ve bazi noktalarda gecerliligini korumakta. Mutlaka okunmasi ve kutuphanenizde bulunmasi gereken bir kitap.

Cenk Sumbas

Islamofascist vs Seriat (Discussion / Tartisma)

After September 11 and Iraq war, newspapers and columnist started to use new words which never have been used before like “Islamofascist” and “Islamikaze” in order to define new problems we face today. Even there is different spelling from people to people, some says Islamofasist and some says Islamofascist. These words do not exist in the dictionary. I did some searches at the dictionary web sites and could not find them. If you see one please let me know.

Can we use words that do not exist in the dictionary? The answer is obviously yes if it makes common sense to reader. Islamofascist is combination of Islam and fascism but what does it mean? Islam is obvious; on the other hand do we really know what Fascism is? Here is couple definition; first one is from http://www.wikipedia.org/ “Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life.” Another definition from http://www.jiddscasey.com/ and it is “political philosophy grounded in a fiercely nationalist mythology and the state-supported dominance of capitalist and agricultural interests over labor interests.”

After this information, the word makes sense to ordinary people. Islamofascist is a person who tries to make Islam as a dominant unique force of every aspect of life and State like in Iran and Saudi Arabia. But the question is “Do we really need this word to define these people?” It is maybe necessary for the western people, who do not know about Islam, but there is already a word for it and it is "Seriat". They are trying to define Seriat but they do not know it so created the word “Islamofascist”.

From this discussion, I can conclude that West do not know Islam enough and that’s why most of the people scared of Islam very easily. Also, this fear is fed by media too.

11 Eylul ve Irak savasindan sonra, gazate ve dergilerdeki kose yazilarinda mevcut sorunlari tanimlamak icin daha onceden gormedigimiz kelimelere rastlamaya basladik. Bunlardan en ilgicleri “Islamofasist” ve “Islamikaze” kelimeleri. Hatta bu kelimeleri herkes degisik bicimde yaziyor. Kimisi Islamofasist, kimisi ise Islamofascist olarak yaziyor. Bu kelimeler hic bir sozlukte mevcut degil. En azindan ben yaptigim aramalarda rastlayamadim, eger bulursaniz lutfen bana da gosterin.

Sozluklerde bile olmayan bu kelimeri kullanabilir miyiz? Eger okuyan kisi ne demek istedigimizi tam olarak anliyorsa bence herhangi bir sorun yok. Islamofascist kelimesi Islam ve Fasist kelimelerinin birlesmesinden meydana geliyor. Hepimiz Islam kelimesinin anlamini biliyoruz ancak Fasist’in ne demek oldugunu biraz acmak lazim. http://www.wikipedia.org/ sitesinde, gunluk hayatin her yonuyle devlet tarafindan control edilmesi olarak aciklaniyor. http://www.jiddscassey.com/ sitesinde ise kati milliyetcilik duygulari dogrultusunda devletin kapitalist ve zirai sistem cikarlarini isci sinifinin cikarlari ustunde tutulmasi seklinde aciklanmis.

Bu aciklamalardan sonra, “Islamofacist” kelimesi daha anlam kazaniyor. Islamofacist, Islam’i hayatin her yonuyle Devlet tarafindan gerekirse zor kullanilarak uygulamasini isteyen kisi olarak tanimliyor. Buna ornek olarak Iran ve Suudi Arabistan verilebilir. Fakat asil soru, gercekten bu tur yeni kelimelere ihtiyacimiz var mi? Bu tur kelimeler belki Islami bilmeyen batili kisiler icin gerekli ama bu tanima uyan kelime zaten mevcut. Kullanilmasi gereken asil kelime Seriat veya Seriatci. Fakat batililar Seriat’i tam olarak bilmedikleri icin bu tur kelimeleri yaratiyorlar.

Bu tartismadan benim cikardigim sonuc, bati medeniyetlerinin Islam’i yeterince tanimadigi ve bu yuzden de Islam’dan gereksiz yere korkdugu yonunde. Ayrica bati medyasida bu korkuyu yayinlari ile pompalamaya devam ediyor.

Cenk SUMBAS