We have experienced the bloodiest terror act in the history of the Republic. We lost many of our people in the Ankara terrorist attack.
There are hundreds who have been wounded. It is very clear that those carried out this attack took an aim at the people and want to destroy the dynamic and strength of the community to live together. In other words, the primary target of the attack is Turkey itself.
This incident has shown once more that the fate of Turkey and the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has integrated, because the AK Party is another apparent target of this attack.
As soon as the explosion happened, the perpetrator of the attack was immediately announced by some in the same certain manner as always. It is clear that there is a serious problem in such a way of announcing. Everywhere in the world the people unite and stick together against terrorism. When the Sept. 11 attack occurred, the people in the U.S. received the attacks as one and gave an image of social unity against the terrorists and those behind them.
When these attacks took place in France, Spain, the U.K. and even in Russia, nobody thought to accuse their own state or someone among them. Had they thought of such a thing, without a doubt, it would have been perceived as the voice or perpetrator of the attack against that country.
Once the bodies are buried and wounds are somewhat relieved, of course it is right - in fact a duty - to question the negligence of the officers on duty at the scene of the incident. But please, first allow the burial of the dead, condolences and mourning...
The simplicity of accusing people in Turkey without a basis, people's recklessness in this regard, is a clear expression that there is no intention of living together or one day solving the problems that exist. The sirs don't see themselves as part of this country, they don't consider themselves as part of the nation or even the community with the people of this country.
Pointing to a perpetrator right after the terror attack, trying to have him lynched, is nothing other than making political gains from the deaths and serving terror and terrorism. If you are showing a target with baseless claims right after the attack, trying to drag masses to violent demonstrations, and attempting to ensure the feeling of hatred and revenge to take hold in certain segments of the society, in other words, if instead of trying to unite responsibly, you are trying to irresponsibly separate, then you needn't be disturbed about the idea that you have a partnership in this terrorist act.
Because such provocative political style complements the terrorist act. An interesting example of this was the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) Co-Chair Selahattin Demirtaş's irrational accusation following the atrocious terrorist attack in Ankara. It was as though Demirtaş was waiting for this bomb to explode. He made a statement along the lines of, "we no longer have a brotherhood agreement." For God's sake, is this something that would be said by someone who has seen the people of this country as brothers even once?
Similarly, a piece written in a militant tone, which I got the impression that it was written by someone who adopted Etienne Balibar's stance, was urgently published on the Birikim magazine website on the day of the blast. While claims that the blast was part of a plan "to ensure more votes for the HDP," were criticized in the piece, people displaying such an approach toward the HDP even "before the bodies were removed," was condemned as a moral problem. Elhak is right... However, the author of the piece himself does not refrain from displaying a more superficial moral problem "before the bodies were removed," like he stated. He is trying to determine the culprit himself to activate the lynching mechanism. The similar attitude of certain circles, in other words, immediately announcing the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) as a perpetrator, supporting this with a rhetoric that will activate the political lynching culture, necessarily creating the suspicion that this is an organized act aimed at the AK Party.
The author of the provocative piece on Birikim's website ends his piece like this: "Each vote cast for the AK Party on Nov. 1, will be a vote for the enemies of democracy and humanity, who have carried out bloody plans or prepared the appropriate ground for them to take place by holding the HDP's passing the threshold as the reason for this nightmare."
It seems old habits die hard. This is a sentence that reminds of the level of discourse of those who attempted a coup on Feb. 22 upon the inclination of voters to the Justice Party (AP) in the first election after May 27. This approach is an extension of efforts aimed at breaking the democratic resistance of the AK Party in the face of outside forces endeavoring to shape Turkey and redesign its politics, as well as efforts aimed at punishing the millions of voters who are trying to protect the AK Party's struggle for democracy in the most legitimate of ways, by voting for it.
It appears that the broadcast ban in relation to the incident has disturbed those who are known well to work for certain organizations. It shouldn't be forgotten that terrorism is a strategy aimed at creating fear, at spreading that fear. An act in a terrorist attack, for instance, a suicide bomber killing so many of our people, at a point, remains symbolic. Because the aim of terrorist attacks is to expand the base of fear and terror. A terrorist attack gives no comprehensible message, on the contrary, its message addresses plain archaic feelings.
Even if terror may increase the impact of its bomb onefold, it multiplies its impact by the thousands with the part impacts of the mass communication tools helping him. The attack is increased every day through hourly repetition.
Of course a terrorist act carries news value, nobody wants the prevention of the freedom to get news and make news. However, it is not possible to defend a broadcasting policy that paralyzes the susceptibility and reflexes of people and leads to the spread of fear and the threat of violence on a horizontal plain after a ruthless attack that has deeply affected the society. Those who defend such a broadcasting policy serve the same aim as the terrorist who conducts the attack. Who know which dirty partnership, which organization they are involved in.
