The day I wrote the article titled, “Great trap in FETÖ cases,” Parliament announced the report prepared by the parliamentary commission in charge of investigating the July 15 coup attempt. I have criticisms of the report announced by Commission Chair Reşat Petek, but I need to remind several things first.
Those who follow my column will remember my providence that, after the Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 judicial coup in 2013 attempt was repelled, the Fetullahist Terror Organization (FETÖ) would certainly stage a coup attempt through its elements in the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF).
You must have read the statement that “Flowers will bloom in military barracks,” which was made by donation-maker Abdullah Aymaz much before July 15, 2016. Aymaz is one of the most important of FETÖ's fugitive ringleaders who subsidize U.S. senators.
Additionally, some of those arrested and detained after the repulse of the attempted 15 July coup and internal occupation by the nation made nonsense statements as required by their “statesmanship” or confessor identity” in an attempt to weaken, divert and shift FETÖ cases to a different point. (And one of these FETÖ members said, “I would like to tell the truth with my statesmanship identity” at the beginning of his confessions.) And I warned against respecting those poker-faced FETÖ members.
One of these poker-faced intriguers, disguised as one of those making confessions, was former Chairman of the First Chamber of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) İbrahim Okur. He resorted to all kinds of slanders and lies under making a confession.
Lastly, I mentioned another great trap in my Friday article.
I underlined that FETÖ had dangerous infrastructure efforts and touched on the dangers of the fact that “they will make forgotten the time FETÖ was declared a terrorist organization and vacate some relations before the Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 operations conducted in 2013 to these cases.”
I also said, “I notice that some who start their sentences with “FETÖ's political leg” constantly stress the times when FETÖ was not named a terror organization, did not make moves to target the survival of the state and overthrow the legitimate government and operated like a community or nongovernmental organization.”
The day when my article was published, theparliamentary commission in charge of investigating the July 15 coup attempt disclosed its report. I am hiding my criticisms of the report.
But I criticize the fact that a "charity document" that is said to belong to 1967 was mentioned in the report. This is because it is a contribution, even if it is made unknowingly, to the issue in the recent period that I call the great trap. The commission's disclosure of a document, which is said to go back to 1967, is the manifestation of the attempt to add some issues of the pre-Dec. 17/25 period to FETÖ cases and weaken the cases. Notice that this document, rather than the report on which the commission worked for months, preoccupied the public. This is exactly what FETÖ desired.
For God's sake, which one would be more effective in finding FETÖ's political leg? Disclosing the document that shows FETÖ leader Fetullah Gülen helped the Republican People's Party (CHP) in 1967, or questioning where CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu found illegal fabricated tapes, which he passionately and illegally introduced by saying, “Let us watch them together,” during the party's parliamentary group meeting soon after the Dec. 17/25 period and before the March 29 local elections?