I remember the Gezi days. In those days everyone – whether pro or anti Gezi – unanimously agreed to ask ''Who put those tents on fire?''
Although the astounding chain of events distracted our focus on this aspect, it did not completely ruin it.
Since those days until now no matter what perception we have been exposed with the question has stuck in our mind. That of course was quite normal.
The inflammation of Gezi park incidents ''burning out the tents'' of course should have been questioned in terms of its order-giver.
I found the reply of this question which the Sabah newspaper gave in a headline.
According to what we learned from the media report by Saban Arslan ''Ministry of Interior Affairs, a civil service chief inspector Kamil Ilhan, Anil Cengiz Üzgün and Ilyas Burunak with Police Chief Inspector Ilhan Kara appealed for the testimony of the public security in charge in Taksim Gezi Park between the dates May 28-31 2013.
According to the public security, the order to set the tents on the fire was given by the Deputy Police Cihef Ramazan Emekli.
Who is this deputy police chief?
He worked under Istanbul Police Department Intelligence Branch Office for many years.
After the December 17 coup attempt, he was dismissed from the police station for his implication with the parallel structure.
Now let''s ask these three questions:
1. Now that the ''parallel structure'' is deciphered, is the blame of the Gezi event being put on the parallel structure?
2. Since there was a clash between the police and the demonstrators, why did Prime Minister never allow anyone to speak ill of the police? Especially when he stated that he found the behavior of the police ''epic''.
3. Why hast the Ministry of Interior Affairs just thought of questioning who gave the order to ''burn out the tents''?
Let me begin with the last one.
Apart from everything, just as the media report clearly puts it, the inspectors from Ministry of Interior Affairs appealed to the testimony of the public security''s opinions of those who were in charge of Gezi Park, during the event right then in May 28-31, 2013.
Even though the matter was overlooked in the huge chaos, authorities stated that the investigation was conducted between the given dates.
We were under a huge perception management operation in that period of time. We did not hear the statements regarding the possible discharge of policemen in case of disproportionate violence or misconduct. Anyways.
No matter how you take it, the question ''oh is it just now that it came to their minds?'' is completely an irrelevant one. That is the point.
Okay one may say ''in that case why wasn''t the statement of the public security released on the given dates until now?''
The answer of this question is immanent in the second.
Prime Minister''s compliment ''the act of the police was epic'' did not refer to the part of ''burning out the tents'' or the disproportionate violence.
No need to distort his speech.
He just wanted to compliment the armed forces because they struggled against a kind of activity which covered 80 provinces and attempted to put everywhere on fire including the Prime Minister''s office. The armed forces in turn overcame such unrest achieving a result with the least material damage and human life loss. Why wouldn''t the Prime Minister compliment the police?
We are talking about a period when a democratically elected government was made to be unable to govern the country through street demonstrations with an accompanying propaganda ''democracy is not just the poll results'' and such discourse was blandished in terms of its legitimacy.
So who else was going to secure the streets?
It was a situation where some journalists sighed wishing ''I want to call this a revolution'' or cried so and from its onset. Some TV channels broadcasted news ''if only some more people could die''. Some columnists provoked the situation writing their words like ''These [Policemen] are capturing kids from their mother''s lap, I am going to throw myself under TOMAs''. What about completely crazy people like C.Ç?
Take his tweet post for example ''Prime Minister cannot control the center of Istanbul and he cannot enter the center of Ankara, that''s why he organizes rally between the airport and the city entrance'' or what about some CHP MPs who spread spam like the TOMAs were running over little girls? Would it have made any sense to open a debate over the police considering all of these taking place at that time?
Unless a completely blind one, no government would act like that.
With small intelligence level, anyone would see how psychological war tactics were applied to the police by the Hürriyet newspaper in the first place and others.
Had they made the police ineffective, they would have reached their goals: finally, a civil strife would have arisen and that would have led to a reason for the desired coup.
That''s why Kiliçdaroglu was never idle. He was calling the policemen to disobey the orders.
No opposition party leader would ever commit a crime as such.
As for the first question, that is ''is the blame of Gezi put on the parallel structure?''
Well if you call the ''new gladio'' as ''parallel structure'' of course. As a matter of fact, there is no other way to explain Gezi.
The anniversary of the Gezi events proved this: In this country, there is no one to buy ''Y generation'' jangle anymore.
Unless, if you consider a few of those generals'' grandchildren like 70-year-old Hasan Cemal of course.
Believe me, I''d have no word against it. Go ahead! No one could stand against that generation!