The Great War Is Looming

Prior to WWI, the British deep state stepped up its pressure and threats towards the Ottoman Empire and in an atypical fashion, deliberately created tension. British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, known for his hatred of the Turks, was frequently heard saying to people in his immediate circle how the Turkish lands should be shared. He would attempt to insult the Ottoman Empire with statements like ‘too rotten to survive’ and suggested that its territories should be shared by big states, particularly Britain.

His letter to Ottoman Grand Vizier Said Pasha on June 28, 1895, was full of threats:

Every day the opinion grows that the Ottoman state will not endure56

General feeling [in Britain] is increasingly to the effect that the Ottoman Empire will not continue to exist.57

With the start of the 20th century, the British deep state reassessed its friends and foes according to the plans it made for the post-war era. Russia was no longer a rival, but Germany was. It was carefully avoiding a friendly attitude towards the Ottoman Empire and pursued a passive policy. Accordingly, Edward VII of Britain and Nicholas II of Russia met at the Bay of Reval on June 8-9, 1908 and signed a treaty. These developments were clear signs that the British deep state was making good on Salisbury’s threat in his letter that read ‘What contributes to the existence of the Ottoman Empire, is the fact that Britain is not allied with Russia. If an alliance comes out, the Ottoman Empire will perish.’58

All these pre-war strategies of the British deep state were designed to establish who would be on its side, and who would be against it during the war. The only thing left was writing the script for the events that would start the war.

Arab riots during WWI

The British Deep State’s Policy to Dismember the Ottoman Empire

The British deep state slyly set the stage for the Great War, creating small but irritating reasons for tension between the European countries and empires. In the end the situation turned into a ticking time bomb. Finally, through a vile assassination by a hit man, the British deep state started WWI.

The Ottoman Empire always believed that the Allied Powers would win if the war started. Therefore, it made its best efforts to reconcile with Britain, France and Russia and ally with them. The Ottoman government of the time made numerous contacts and attempts through the triumvirate of Enver, Talat and Cemal Pashas. However, Britain would never agree to it, as one of the most important goals of the war was taking the Ottoman territories. Naturally, these efforts came to nothing. Britain declined each and every time the Ottomans offered alliance or non-aggression pacts.

Running out of options, the Sublime Porte had to forge an alliance with the Germans and joined the war on their side, exactly as the British deep state had planned. As soon as the Ottoman Empire joined the war, the British deep state quickly began its project of dismembering the Empire. Two days before Britain officially declared war on the Ottoman Empire, on November 3, 1914, it announced that it annexed Kuwait. On November 5, it announced that it invaded Cyprus and on December 18, 19, it announced that it annexed Egypt. These moves not only bolstered its control over Egypt and the Mediterranean, they also enabled it to control the seaways to the Middle East.

Fatwa for ‘A Call to Arms’ urging communities of the Ottoman Empire to join the Ottoman army. The British deep state knew that Indians and Arabs would answer the call and used provocative agents to prevent it.

In the meantime, as a part of its plan to destroy the Ottoman Empire from within, it began to provoke Indians, Arabs and other minorities against the Ottomans. This way, it hoped, the dissolution of the Empire would be faster, easier and with the least casualty for its side.

The members of the British deep state began their sedition by spreading nationalist sentiments among the Ottoman constituents and inciting riots. The primary goal of the propaganda was preventing Indian Muslims and Arabs from joining the fight on the side of the Ottoman Empire when the Caliph declared ‘Call to Arms’. It also wished to stop a potential Islamic army from forming. The notorious deep state agents of the time, like Captain T. E. Lawrence and Gertrude Bell, were used to provoke Arabs against the Ottoman Empire.

Accordingly, the British deep state signed treaties with Sheikh Sayyid of Sabya in Yemen on April 30, 1915, with Saudi Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Saud on December 26, and with the Qatar Sheikh on November 3, 1916. As a result of the British deep state’s Arab sedition, the ‘Call to Arms’ of the Ottoman Empire dated November 23, 1914 was left largely unanswered.

The British arguments intended to undermine the ‘Call to Arms’ reflected a very sly and divisive strategy. A memorandum handed out by a British cruiser that came off shore of Jeddah on June 4, 1915, included the following perfidious allegations:

◉ The Call to Arms of the Ottoman Empire was invalid, because it was cooperating with a Christian country (Germany),

◉ Germany, taking advantage of the difficult position of the Porte, fooled the Turkish government with promises and money and pushed them into a wrong war,

◉ Germans made the Ottomans declare war to provoke millions of Muslims living under British rule against Britain, because it was Germany’s archenemy,

◉ If Muslims accepted the call for the greatest struggle, they would be sacrificing themselves for the interests of Germany,

◉ Muslims living under British, French and Russian rule were against the wrong policies of the Turks.

◉Aga Khan, one of the religious leaders of India at the time and who was also an avowed anglophile, acted as an advocate for British deep state interests and made the following accusations towards the Ottoman Empire:

Now that Turkey has so disastrously shown herself a tool in German hands she has not only ruined herself but has lost her position as Trustee of Islam and evil will overtake her.59

Through such provocative arguments, many Arabic and Muslim communities that were subordinate to the Ottoman Empire were turned against the Ottomans and prevented from answering the Sultan’s Call to Arms. This development enabled the British deep state to more easily manipulate these minorities and cause them to riot and declare independence. Now no longer a part of the Empire, these former Ottoman lands couldn’t protect themselves from coming under British deep state’s control.

The British Manages to Incite Some of the Arabs against the Turks

Sharif Hussein

The first step in the plan of the British deep state was preventing the Islamic Union from forming by undermining the Ottoman Empire’s Call to Arms and separating the Arabs from the Ottomans so that it could add new colonies to its rule. Arabs were living on lands that were not only the most strategic passage points in the world; their lands were also home to rich oil reserves.

The representatives of the British deep state first made contact with Hussein, the Hashemite Arab leader and Sharif of Mecca, who was appointed in 1909 and was infamous for his rebellious and threatening attitude towards the Ottoman Empire. The British deep state promised him full support and a big kingdom after the war, if he started a riot against the Ottomans. Of course, this promise was nothing other than another British deep state trick used for temporary pawns. In truth, the British had already shared these regions with France with the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement signed in April 1916. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 also said that there would be a Jewish state in Palestine. Neither of those plans made any references to the so-called ‘Great Arab Kingdom’ promised to Sharif Hussein.

Nevertheless, Sharif Hussein, with dreams of being the king of a ‘Great Arab Kingdom’, made a deal with Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Cairo, and started the riot on June 27, 1916. The uprising was financed with British gold, amounting close to £1 million.60

British Ambassador Reader Bullard to Jeddah called Sharif Hussein a ‘cunning, lying, credulous, suspicious, obstinate, vain, conceited, ignorant, greedy, cruel Arab sheikh’.61 He was indeed an anglophile that didn’t refrain from betraying his own people and country for his personal dreams of gaining important positions. He had all the typical characteristics of the hypocrites the British deep state has picked from among Muslim communities throughout history for purposes of causing sedition.

It should be stated here that contrary to general belief, not all the Arabs joined in this betrayal and revolt. The official British records refer to this riot as the ‘Great Arab Revolt’ and state that all Arabs participated in it. This is a deliberate misinformation, an anti-propaganda intended to fuel Turkish-Arabic animosity in the long term. According to British author Robert Lacey, it was nothing but a joint British-Hashemite betrayal staged against the Ottoman Empire.62

1) T.E. Lawrence 2) Sharif Hussein’s son Emir AbdullahLawrence and Abdullah together in this photograph taken in 1931

Unsurprisingly, the British deep state didn’t have any trouble locating hypocrites and sycophants amongst the Arabs to serve the British deep state interests. These hypocrites that betray their nations and countries for petty gains, in truth gain nothing, because the British deep state never keeps its promises to them once they are done with them. Moreover, these people can’t even realize that they make themselves miserable by sacrificing their dignity and honor, and eventually cannot escape becoming outcasts. Such people are described as follows in one verse of the Qur’an:

… Anyone who takes satan as his protector in place of God has clearly lost everything. He makes promises to them and fills them with false hopes. But what satan promises them is nothing but delusion. The shelter of such people will be hell. They will find no way to escape from it. (Qur’an, 4:119-121)

A painting that depicts how some Arabs, under influence of the British deep state, betrayed the Ottoman Empire

In his book Fahreddin Paşa’nın Medine Müdafaası (Fahreddin Pasha’s Defense of Medina), Feridun Kandemir explains why it would be wrong to attribute the Sharif Hussein revolt to the entire Arab society:

Throughout the entire war, Arabs fought alongside the Turks in every frontier, starting with Gallipoli. Indeed, even during our War of Independence, many Arabs fought Greeks together with Turkish soldiers at the Aydın front and were martyred as a result. In WWI, there was not a single Arab that revolted against Turks in Arab majority areas, like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen or Palestine. The only one that revolted was Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca… The Arabs that Sharif recruited for this revolt were impoverished Bedouins that lived as nomads in the deserts of Hejaz that used to live on looting; they were Urbans. Not only did the Arabs in cities and towns like Mecca, Taif, Jeddah hadn’t participated in the riot; Sharif Hussein didn’t even attempt to recruit them. However Urban and its relevant sheikhs were poor and only looked for finances. The British was aware of this just like Sharif Hussein and used the power of money to tempt and use them until the revolt achieved its purpose.63

British diplomat Sir Henry McMahon

This fact is also mentioned in the British resources. A British diplomat, Sir Henry McMahon, also said that the reason why he provoked Sharif Hussein into rising up was to shake the loyalty of Arab soldiers fighting on the side of the Ottomans:

At that moment a large portion of the [Turkish] forces at Gallipoli and nearly the whole force in Mesopotamia were Arabs, so that the Arabs were between the two. Could we give them some guarantee of assistance in the future to justify their splitting with the Turks? I was told to do it at once and in that way I started the Arab movement.64

As McMahon clearly admits, the British deep state carried out intense propaganda and made false promises to tear the Arabs away from the Ottoman Empire. Despite that, they managed to influence only a small group of Arabs. However, the British deep state’s support allowed this minority to gain the upper hand against the Ottoman Empire.

It is important to note one historical fact: When WWI broke out, Egypt was under British control. However, the British deep state was well aware that Egyptians would seek to join the Ottoman ranks in the war, and therefore excluded Egypt from their war efforts. In other words, the British deep state knew full well that a major part of the Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire would remain loyal to the Ottoman Empire.65

Key Figure behind Sharif Hussein Revolt: British Spy Lawrence

Despite the massive financial and logistic support of the British, the revolt failed to turn into a movement that represented the entire Arabic world and was rather limited to the participation of four to five thousand armed people. During the riot, one person played an especially key role by helping Mecca Sharif Hussein. He was a British intelligence service agent and an archeologist: Thomas Edward Lawrence. As a British deep state representative, Lawrence collaborated with the Mecca Sharif Hussein and one of his sons, Faisal, to organize the Hashemite Arab uprising against the Ottomans.

British author David Garnett, who wrote a biography of Lawrence, says that he was an arrogant person with a victim complex.66 According to Richard Aldington, Lawrence had ‘pretentious egotism’, was ‘faked, boastful’ and a ‘homosexual’.67 In other words, Lawrence displayed the typical characteristics of the British deep state members.

At this point, it is important to remember that the British deep state takes care to choose homosexuals to do its bidding and especially for risky missions.

Lawrence, the homosexual spy of the British deep state (second from right), with Emir Faisal (front row), who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire

Born on August 16, 1888, in Tremadog, Wales as an illegitimate child, Lawrence began to take an interest in Arabs in 1909. Two years later he went to Tripoli for excavations, and began to live with the Arab tribes, dressing and acting like them. Despite his fascination with the Arabs, Lawrence harbored an immense hatred for the Turks. In a letter he sent to Ms. Reider in Oxford on April 5, 1913, he told of his dislike of them:

As for Turkey, down with the Turks! But I am afraid there is, not life, but stickiness in them yet. Their disappearance would mean a chance for the Arabs, who were at any rate once not incapable of good government.68

In another letter he sent to Ms. Reider on September 18, 1914, he voiced his thoughts on the prospect of Turks entering the war:

I have a horrible fear that the Turks do not intend to go to war, for it would be an improvement to have them reduced to Asia Minor, and put it into commission even there.69

Lawrence, the British spy (far left), together with Sharif Hussein’s son Emir Abdullah (second from left), Wyndham Deedes (the Chief Secretary to the British High Commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine) (second from right), and British officers. Sharif Hussein and his sons, fooled by Lawrence for petty gains, rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and brought destruction to Arab lands.

After WWI broke out, Lawrence was stationed at the British intelligence office in Cairo as a lieutenant in December 1914. He would interrogate the prisoners of war, draw maps, assess the intelligence reported by agents operating beyond the Turkish lines and build strategies with the input of the Arabs in a bid to destroy the Ottoman Empire.

He later took over the ‘Arab Bureau’ newly set up in Cairo. His unbridled Turkish hatred could not be contained and would show itself on many occasions, including in a letter he sent to his archeologist friend D. G. Hogarth on April 20, 1915:

Poor old Turkey is only hanging together. People always talk of splendid show she has made lately, but it really is too pitiful for words. Everything about her is very very sick… 70

Shia Muslims fought alongside the Ottoman Caliph

Britain presumed that the Shia Muslims of Iraq – which it had just occupied – would be on her side and made its plans accordingly. However, Shias answered the ‘call to arms’ of the Ottoman Caliph and fought alongside the Ottoman Empire. The telegram that announced the start of the British occupation and that the Islamic world was under threat was read in all Shia mosques across Iraq. Al-Sayyid Muhammad Kazim al-Yazdi, the top Shia authority called on all Shia to defend Al Kaaba Al Musharrafah, Al-Masjid an-Nabawī and the tombs of the imams. He also sent his son Sayyid Muhammad to war. Shia Sheikh Ash-Shariati al-Esfahani supported the call and said ‘those who are being too lazy to chase the British away are committing a great sin’. Furthermore, in the city of Kadhimiya, Sheikh Mahdi al-Khalissi issued a fatwa and said that Muslims should ‘spend everything they had for defending Islam until the threat of disbelief was completely gone’. The Shias announced that ‘they would join forces with the Ottoman Empire to drive the infidels out of the Islamic geography and that Turks were their brothers in religion and that they would help Turks to drive the British out of those lands’. Kuwait’s Emir Muhammara was about to send troops to support the British, but decided not to, when he saw this commendable bravery of the Shia. Shia tribes fearlessly went to the battlefield with the Ottoman forces, proceeding along the Tigris and the Euphrates in ships and on foot. Shia scholars who fought on the Qurna front: Seyyid Mustafa Keşani, Seyyid Mehdi Haydari, Şeyhül Şeriati el-İsfahani, Seyyid Ali el-Damad, Seyyid Mustafa Keşani Shia scholars who fought on the Ash-Shuaybah front: Sheikh Mahdi al-Khalissi, Syed Muhammad, Sheikh Jafar Radi, Sayed Kamal al-Khilli Shia scholars who fought on the East Basra front: Sayyed Mohammed Said, Sheikh Abdul Karim al-Jazairi, Sheikh Abdul Ridha Radi, Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim. 50,000 Shia brothers were martyred at the battle in Ash-Shuaybah front. Three thousand troops from Shia were martyred there. Furthermore, Shias played a great role in the Ottoman victory at Kut Al Amara, which was the most important Ottoman victory of WWI, and the biggest defeat of the British deep state. This victory became possible only because Muslims stood united.

After a short while, sent to Iraq on a secret mission by the British War Office, Lawrence re-emerged in April 1916 to help save the 13,000 British troops under General Townshend’s command, who were held under siege by the Turks at Kut Al Amara. Together with Colonel Beach and another British officer named Aubrey Herbert, he met the Turkish General Halil Pasha with the intention of offering him first £1 million hoping that Halil Pasha would release the British garrison. According to the plan, if he rejected, they would double the amount and offer £2 million instead. Halil Pasha, completely disgusted, not only flat out refused the offer, but also exposed their attempted bribery, humiliating them.

In the meantime, the representatives of the British deep state were deep in negotiations with the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein, for his riot against the Ottoman Empire. And Lawrence was trying his best to convince the Iraqi Arabs to join and cooperate with the British army, promising Shia leaders the caliphate. He failed.

After Sharif Hussein started the revolt, Lawrence went to Arabia in October of the same year, this time as a captain. There he met Abdullah, Ali and Zaid, the sons of Sharif Hussein, and Faisal, whom he would later greatly help in his ascension to throne in 1921 in Iraq. Together with other British officers, he helped supply weapons and money to the revolt, which was in its initial stages, and also gathered together and organized the rioting tribes and staged attacks on pre-determined targets.

North Africa and Egypt lived their happiest and most peaceful times under Ottoman rule

After joining the forces of Faisal as a communication officer, Lawrence continued his spying activities and participated in the actual fighting against the Turks. With hit-and-run tactics, he inflicted damages on Ottoman units and supply lines and captured Aqaba Port, which won him a medal and the title of lieutenant colonel. He staged attacks on Hejaz railway. Hundreds of Ottoman soldiers were martyred in the ever-intensifying attacks, and the British won the battle. Lawrence didn’t refrain from revealing his twisted state of mind as he boasted about his success:

And we were casting them by thousands into the fire to the worst of deaths, not to win the war but that the corn and rice and oil of Mesopotamia might be ours. The only need was to defeat our enemies (Turkey among them), and this was at last done in the wisdom of Allenby with less than four hundred killed, by turning to our uses the hands of the oppressed in Turkey. I am proudest of my thirty fights in that I did not have any of our own blood shed. All our subject provinces to me were not worth one dead Englishman. 71

Lawrence was the principal driving force behind the Arab revolt against the Turks72, and he would also admit that his duty was based on hypocrisy and deceit:

My people have probably told you that the job is to foment an Arab rebellion against Turkey, and for that I have to try and hide my frankish exterior, and be as little out of the Arab picture as I can. So it’s a kind of foreign stage, on which one plays day and night, in fancy dress, in a strange language…73

In the attack staged against the 4th Ottoman Army in September 1918, Lawrence ordered his men to not take any prisoners. As a result, upon the orders of Lawrence, 5,000 Ottoman soldiers were beheaded in a shocking massacre.74 By the end of the same year, together with his entourage of murderers, he entered and terrorized Damascus.

When spy T.E. Lawrence provoked some criminal Arabs into rioting in Gulf of Aqaba, the British Navy came off the shore of Aqaba to support the riot.

In October 1918, Lawrence set out for Britain, before which he would write the following lines to Major R. H. Scott on October 4:

We were an odd, small group but I believe we changed the course of history in the Middle East. 75

In the preface of his Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence explains how the British deep state, with him as their representative, deceived Arabs with false promises so that they would be convinced to riot against the Turks:

The [British] Cabinet raised the Arabs to fight for us by definite promises of self-government afterwards. Arabs believe in persons, not in institutions. They saw in me a free agent of the British Government, and demanded from me an endorsement of its written promises. So I had to join the conspiracy, and, for what my word was worth, assured the men of their reward… It was evident from the beginning that if we won the war these promises would be dead paper, and had I been an honest adviser of the Arabs I would have advised them to go home and not risk their lives fighting for such stuff: but I salved myself with the hope… I risked the fraud, on my conviction that Arab help was necessary to our cheap and speedy victory in the East, and that better we win and break our word than lose.76

Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein, who started the riot against the Ottomans and shed Muslim blood, eventually saw through this deceit when he saw that none of the promises given to him were kept and belatedly said:

I’m not going to be able to face the Muslim world. I asked them to fight the Caliph, and to sacrifice. But now I see that the European countries, whose purposes we served, are dividing the Arab countries. 77

The Sharif Hussein-Faisal-Lawrence alliance inflicted one of the greatest damages to the Islamic world. The policy of making Muslims fight each other first started with this alliance and now represents the pivotal point of the British deep state’s carefully engineered plans. This example shows the presence of hypocrites that have always existed in Muslim communities. These people fall for the lies of the British deep state and do not refrain from betraying their own countries for petty gains. The British deep state will be a risk for the Islamic world only when it uses hypocrites. For this reason and for the sake of the Islamic world, it is vital that Muslims are extremely careful and wary of the hypocrites that fall for the satanic games and ploys of the British deep state.

Ottoman Battleships Hijacked by the British and the Payment that Was Never Returned

In the early stages of WWI, the Ottoman Empire hadn’t yet joined the war and commissioned three big dreadnoughts from Britain and paid for them in advance. These dreadnoughts, named ‘Sultan Osman’, ‘Sultan Reşadiye’, and ‘Fatih’, had revolutionary technology for the early 20th century. They could move quickly, and were almost like fleets on their own. They were crucial for the improvement of the Ottoman navy and to keep it from suffering defeats on the seas. In early 1900s, land transportation wasn’t as advanced and military prowess was determined by power at sea.

The Ottoman Empire was having financial difficulties and the administration started large-scale donation campaigns to fund the battleships. Fundraising stands were erected in public places and even schoolchildren contributed with their pocket money. Large donations would be rewarded with a ‘Donanma İane Madalyası’ (Navy Donation Medal). Similarly, the ‘Donanma-i Osmanî Muavenet-i Milliyye Cemiyeti’ (Association for the Ottoman Navy) was set up in 1909 and organized fundraising campaigns, parades and even sold products to help raise the required amount for the ships.

1. Dreadnought Sultan Osman. 1915	2. Dreadnought Reshadiye followed by Sultan Osman

The dreadnought ‘Sultan Osman’ was originally called ‘Rio de Janeiro’, because it had been previously commissioned by Brazil. However, when Brazil failed to make payment, the British manufacturer Armstrong put the battleship on sale and the Ottomans purchased it. Even the commander was decided: Hamidiye’s legendary captain, Rauf Bey.

On July 27, 1914, Rauf Bey, on behalf of the Ottoman Empire, went to Newcastle, England to take delivery of the ‘Sultan Osman’ battleship. However, things took an unexpected turn. Having already decided that the Ottomans should be with the Central Powers, the representatives of the British deep state didn’t want to give such an advanced battleship to a country that would fight against them soon.

Reşadiye being launched. It was one of the dreadnoughts that Britain never delivered to Ottoman Empire, despite having received full payment for them.

Churchill was perfectly aware that requisitioning the battleship would cause an immense diplomatic scandal; nevertheless on August 3, 1914, Britain officially declared that it requisitioned the ‘Sultan Osman’ and ‘Reşadiye’. In other words, the British hijacked the battleships of the Ottomans, before even the Turkish flag could be raised. Not only did they confiscate them, they also –completely illegally and unlawfully– refused to return the gold paid for them, which amounted to £12 million. The money had been paid in advance. To put it more accurately, they unabashedly stole the money.

Rauf Bey (Orbay), who was nicknamed the ‘Hero of Hamidiye’ and who would later become the 3rd Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic, recalled the incident with the following words:

The Ottoman minelayer Nusret stopped the allied naval advance through the Dardanelles.

The final installment, seven hundred thousand liras had been paid. We wanted to get things done quickly, so decided to skip some tests and agreed with the factory that the ships would be delivered to us on August 2, 1914. However, half an hour before the flag raising ceremony, which was the day after we paid the money, the British requisitioned the Sultan Osman. Although we vehemently protested in line with the procedure, no one stirred…78

The ‘Sultan Osman’ battleship was immediately made a part of the British navy and was renamed ‘Agincourt’. ‘Reşadiye’ was renamed as ‘Erin’ but on the day of her test on August 22, it was seen that her firing equipment was not functioning well. Since it couldn’t be fully repaired and no one would buy it after that development, it was taken apart in 1922.

1. British and French scout planes flying over the Bosphorus to find out about the locations of Turkish bastions. (Middle) 2. The Battle of Gallipoli officially began after the British and French forces fired at Turkish bastions.

Volunteers headed for Gallipoli marching over the Galata Bridge before they are dispatched from Istanbul

Rauf Orbay explains:

At the onset of the World War, there was the issue of getting back our gold worth of £12 million, which we paid for our dreadnoughts Sultan Osman, Sultan Reşad and Fatih. They were built before we entered the war, but the British requisitioned although we had fully paid for them. That was clearly the debt of the British… 79

That was indeed the debt of the British, but according to the 58th article of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Turkish side surprisingly waived this right, probably under pressure from the British deep state. The 58th article of the treaty reads as follows:

Turkey, on the one hand, and the other Contracting Powers (except Greece) on the other hand, reciprocally renounce all pecuniary claims for the loss and damage suffered respectively by Turkey and the said Powers and by their nationals (including juridical persons) between the 1st August, 1914, and the coming into force of the present Treaty, as the result of acts of war or measures of requisition, sequestration, disposal or confiscation. 80

Heroic Turkish troops during the Gallipoli battle

As a matter of fact, this article didn’t apply to the confiscation by the British. The act of theft was carried out in full view of the world and took place before the Ottomans entered the war. It was nothing more than a usual trade activity between the two countries and was therefore not a war-related loss. For this reason, this article of the Treaty of Lausanne didn’t in truth cover the said sequestration. Despite this fact, the British deep state was able to make this hijacking look like it was a war loss. In the end, the Turkish side waived the money paid in full for the dreadnoughts, which were illegally and unlawfully requisitioned by the British government. The person that was in charge of the fraud operation was none other than Winston Churchill; one of the most zealous and loyal members of the British deep state.

The Biggest Defeat of the British Deep State: The ‘Gallipoli Campaign’

As explained previously, WWI was a carefully engineered project of the British deep state and went as planned. Even before there were any talks of a war, Britain had already completed its preparations. It traded its steamships for those running on oil, commissioned 18 new tankers and set up its submarine and aircraft fleets. Even as early as 1911, it began wide-scale drills and made its navy ready for war. It secured French support through diplomatic means. By the time WWI broke out, the British navy -fully renovated- was more than ready.

The planner of these preparations was Winston Churchill, the first Lord of the British Admiralty. A famous Turcophobe and an Islamophobe, Churchill was a loyal member of the British deep state and was the head designer of the Gallipoli Campaign. Before the Ottoman Empire joined the war, Churchill had submitted a project to then British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith on September 1914, and stated that the British navy should pass the Dardanelles Strait and invade Istanbul. Churchill was convinced that as soon as Istanbul was taken, the Ottoman Empire would fall.

In line with the plan, a large Allied naval fleet consisting of 16 battleships led by Admiral John de Robeck on March 18 tried to pass the Dardanelles Strait. However, the mines previously placed by the Turkish minelayer Nusret inflicted serious damage on the ships. Coupled with constant Ottoman shelling that rarely missed, the British dream of passing Gallipoli came to an abrupt end. The defeat on March 18, 1915 caused great shock in Britain.

Enemy planes during the Battle of Gallipoli. Air and sea attack combined weren’t enough to overcome the determination of the Turkish soldiers.

Although British, French and Anzac troops managed to gain a foothold after landing, the unyielding resistance and constant attack of the Ottoman forces prevented them from taking the Gallipoli Peninsula. Not only did they fail to get through the Turkish defense, they also sustained heavy losses. As a result of this big disappointment in both sea and land fights, the Allied Powers decided to close the Gallipoli front. British Major General Charles Monro sent a report to London following his inspections on site and recommended the evacuation of Gallipoli. Consequently, the British, French and Anzac forces evacuated Gallipoli Peninsula in December 1915. On December 7 the decision to close the front was made, on December 10 the evacuation began and by December 27, 1915, there were no Allied troops left in Gallipoli.

The horrible loss of the Gallipoli massacre carried out by the British is detailed as follows in British sources:

In nine months of bloody slaughter, about 58,000 allied soldiers – including 29,000 British and Irish soldiers and 11,000 Australians and New Zealanders – lost their lives during the ill-starred operation to take the Gallipoli peninsula; a further 87,000 Ottoman Turkish troops died fiercely defending their homeland, and at least 300,000 more on both sides were seriously wounded.81

Heroic Turkish troops during the Gallipoli battle.

Heroic Turkish troops during the Gallipoli battle.

The Person Truly Responsible for the Gallipoli Defeat: Churchill

As one of the most fervent supporters of British imperialism, Winston Churchill believed that Russians would advance to Istanbul and claim the Straits as soon as they got the opportunity. Therefore, he wanted to act first, believing that he would go down in history if he took Istanbul.

However, Churchill overlooked the spiritual strength of the Turks and thought that as soon as the formidable British ships with modern weapons were seen in the Bosphorus Strait of Istanbul, the Turks would surrender. This was a big mistake and Churchill had to pay for it with a shocking defeat, first at sea, then on land.

Jon Henley from the Guardian pointed out the irrationality of Churchill’s acts in his piece ‘Remembering Gallipoli: Honoring the Bravery Amid the Bloody Slaughter’ and called Churchill the ‘ambitious’ conceiver of the ‘badly planned and appallingly executed’ Gallipoli Campaign.82 Even if he was right about Churchill’s futile ambitions, Henley must have known” that the Gallipoli Campaign resulted in a defeat for the British, not because it was appallingly executed, but because of the faith and determination of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the passion of the Turkish people, resulting from their unshakable faith in God.

Martyrs’ Memorial, built to commemorate the 200,000 Turkish soldiers martyred at the Battle of Gallipoli

Following the fiasco, Churchill resigned as the person primarily responsible for the loss of the British army in Gallipoli (December 1915). When Lloyd George took over as the Prime Minister in 1917, Churchill was appointed as the Minister of Munitions and continued his political career despite minor interruptions. It is interesting that, even after the Gallipoli defeat, Churchill could make a come-back on the political scene. This was possible because he was a loyal –as the British put it– ‘British bulldog’. As a matter of fact, during WWII, instigated by the British deep state, Churchill was again on the scene.

After the British navy and army sustained a heavy defeat in Gallipoli, many criminal investigations were started against Churchill. While before the defeat, he was confident in his skills and made arrogant remarks saying that he would soon be sitting in the center of Muslims, Istanbul, in his navy uniform, he completely changed his tone following the defeat, especially in the face of accusations directed at him. One day, backed into a corner by the criticism, he said: “Don’t you understand? We didn’t fight the Turks at Gallipoli. We fought God and of course we lost.”83 (Certainly Almighty God is above such remarks).

British General Sir Ian Hamilton, who led the Allied forces during the Gallipoli Campaign, would make a similar remark:

We lost not to the physical strength but to the spiritual strength of the Turks because they didn’t even have any gunpowder left. But we fought powers descending from heavens. It was as if, even before we came here our destiny was set and it was being implemented. 84

Poisonous caltrops were among the foul methods of the British deep state. Because of these poisonous caltrops thrown from airplanes,12,000 Turkish soldiers had their legs cut off at the Gallipoli front.

The British deep state committed a war crime by using poisonous caltrops during the Gallipoli Battle, which it had produced specifically for Turkish soldiers.

These weapons were made of four sharp nails, each smeared with poison and were constructed to make sure that no matter how they landed, one sharp nail would always point upward.

Thousands of Turkish soldiers, who were wearing only rawhide sandals at the Gallipoli front, unknowingly stepped on these caltrops thrown from airplanes and got gangrene as a result. Because of these poisonous nails, 12,000 soldiers had their legs cut off with saws. The British deep state knew perfectly well that it was a war crime and a crime against humanity, but still didn’t refrain from resorting to this vile method against Turkish soldiers, because due to its sick Darwinist mentality, it didn’t consider Turks as human beings. (The noble Turkish nation is above such claims)

According to the documents at the Churchill Archives Center, Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, claimed that the Turks were not human, but barbarians, and therefore poisonous gas could be used on them.85 Churchill criticized his colleagues for their squeamishness in using chemical weapons, saying: ‘I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.’86 (The noble and respectable Turkish nation is above such remarks) When he faced objections that such an act would be a crime against humanity, he would claim that the only way to gain victory in the Gallipoli battle was through chemical warfare.

At the end of WWI, he pushed for the use of poisonous gas. Despite the horrible casualties that chemical warfare caused on the Western Front, where Churchill himself had seen active duty for six months between 1915 and 1916,87 records showed that he stressed the ‘military value’ of chemical warfare despite the horrific injuries it caused. In fact, ‘he wanted to gas the Turks at Gallipoli.’88

Churchill claimed that it was justified to use chemical weapons in warfare and that it should be used especially against the Turks.

To Churchill, chemical gas was just another advanced weapon British possessed. He told his political colleagues that mustard gas could have a destructive effect and help reach a breakthrough in the Gallipoli war, and hoped that ‘the unreasonable prejudice against the use by us of gas upon the Turks will cease.’ He even took into account the season and claimed the high wind ‘would afford a perfect opportunity for the employment of gas.’89

One document in the archive penned by Churchill himself, reveals that Churchill requested ‘gas masks’ for the British troops in Gallipoli. In May 1915, at the height of the Gallipoli battle, Churchill told British General Kitchener to send a gas-making outfit to the Dardanelles, as ‘the use of gas on either side might be decisive.’90 Churchill was arguing with Kitchener that gas should be used on the Gallipoli front as the Turks were without gas masks.91

With this approach, Churchill supported the twisted views of British politician and former Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone, who vilified the Turks by calling them an ‘anti-human specimen of humanity’ not only because of their religion but because of their race: ‘Let me endeavor very briefly to sketch … what the Turkish race was and what it is… They were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity.’92 (The noble and respectable Turkish nation is above such remarks)

The Ottoman archives also show in great detail how the British used chemical gas during the Gallipoli battle. The Ottoman Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that ‘Allied forces used poisonous gas that caused choking’ and called for an explanation from Britain.93

Churchill, when he was Secretary of State for War, ordered that chemical weapons be used against the Bolsheviks. The picture was taken in 1915 at Enfield Munition Works.

Famous writer Noam Chomsky also denigrates Churchill for his enthusiasm for using poison gas and quotes him saying, ‘Poison gas would be a fine weapon against uncivilized tribesmen and recalcitrant Arabs.’ (Arabs are certainly above such remarks) He argues Churchill considered chemical weaponry to be simply ‘the application of Western science to military warfare’ and that he had approved the use of it as experiments on Afghans and Arabs.94

After the First World War, David Lloyd George appointed Churchill as the Secretary of State for War and Air. In May 1919, Churchill gave orders for the British troops to use chemical weapons during the campaign to subdue Afghanistan.95

Some chemical weapons used during WWI (1, 2, 3) Mustard shell, white phosphorus shell, mustard bomb, mustard shell, the Livens phosgene projectile and portable chemical cylinder. (Photograph by Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research)

‘The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill’s career’ as detailed by BBC’s website revealed how Churchill used poisonous gas against his enemies: Churchill has been criticized for advocating the use of chemical weapons – primarily against Kurds and Afghans. ‘I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas’, he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919. ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes’96, he continued.

The piece continues to reveal the inhumane, sadistic character of the British deep state that Churchill so well represented:

And it’s important to note that he was in favour of using mustard gas against Ottoman troops in WW1, says [Warren] Dockter [a research fellow at the University of Cambridge and the author of Winston Churchill and the Islamic World] …97

Turkish soldiers taken prisoners by the British at the Iraq, Qarah Tapah Front during WWI

The Ottoman Empire fought on multiple fronts during WWI and the British took many Turkish soldiers as prisoners in these regions. One prisoner camp where the British kept Turkish prisoners of war was Sidi Bashir, situated 15 km northeast of Alexandria, Egypt.

The commander of the camp was the British Lt. Col. Coates. Under the supervision of the military doctor Captain Gillespie, an Armenian physician, one British corporal and 5 British nurses were in charge of the prisoners’ health.

This camp held the Ottoman troops of the 48th regiment of the 16th division that were taken as prisoners in Palestine in 1918. For two years until June 12, 1920, these soldiers were subjected to constant torture, mistreatment, insults and humiliation. One source reveals how the captive Turkish soldiers were martyred due to the inhumane treatment of the British:

Beginning from August 1, 1919, the British started to give horse and donkey meat to all Ottoman prisoners. Forced to eat rotten horse and donkey meat in the scorching heat of Egypt in the middle of August, many couldn’t escape catching dysentery, while some others got a horrible disease resembling mange, which the British doctors called Pellagra, before they died.98

However, this wasn’t the only appalling treatment that the Turkish prisoners encountered at the camp. Historical sources report that British deliberately blinded around 15,000 Turkish soldiers in the camp. This shocking violence caused great outrage during the time and was widely debated at the Turkish Parliament and in the Turkish media throughout 1919, 1920 and 1921. These claims were based on two significant documents. The first is the Turkish Parliament’s decision of June 28, 1921, which was signed by Mustafa Kemal, the Chairman of the Turkish Parliament, and eleven ministers. The decision reads as follows:

Edirne MPs Şeref and Faik Bey presented their notice of motion regarding the troops held captive in Malta, as well as about the British doctors, garrison commander and officers in Egypt who deliberately disabled fifteen thousand prisoners of war, to the Cabinet of Ministers, which submitted the same to the Turkish Parliament on 29.5.337 with number 354/706. The message was read during the meeting of the Cabinet on 28.6.337 and it was decided that scientific investigation is required and the findings shall be presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs along with the copy of the notice of motion. June 28, 1337.99

Kut Al Amara was a great victory of Turks against the British.

This document is the Turkish parliament’s decision to initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of the British doctors, garrison commander and officers that deliberately disabled 15 thousand prisoners of war in Egypt. Another document is the motion presented by Edirne MPs Faik and Şeref Bey during the 37th session of the Turkish Parliament on May 28, 1921. The last part of the motion refers to the Turkish prisoners of war who were deliberately blinded in Egyptian camps:

In Egypt, the British has deliberately blinded the 15,000 sons of our nation by making them enter baths, which contained cresol more than necessary, with the pretense of disinfecting them. We hereby ask the premeditators of this murderous crime, who are the British physicians, the garrison commander and officers, be declared as criminals…100

After the motion was read at the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Mehmet Şeref Bey took the stage and explained the horrible events:

… When the British took prisoners the sons of our nation from Anatolia and Rumelia, who fought for the dignity and honor of this country, they were directly transferred to Egypt. They were forced to enter baths that had a specially formulated, smelly solution up to their necks… When the Turkish soldiers didn’t want to immerse their heads, British soldiers would come by and force them in with their bayonets. When the helpless dear ones put their heads in the solution, both eyes would go blind. This is how the British blinded 15,000 Turks…101

At the onset of the Turkish War of Independence, the news that the British deliberately blinded Turkish prisoners of war had been widely covered by Istanbul and Anatolian media. People of Konya especially reacted very strongly and a newspaper of Konya, Öğüt covered the news with bold headlines.

As a result, a serious anti-British sentiment spread across Anatolia. It was not long until, upon the orders of the British General Milne, one of the Allied Powers commanders in Istanbul, Öğüt was forced to stop its news about the blinded prisoners of war. Not only did they stop this news; the newspaper was shut down permanently.

This incident drew the attention of Mustafa Kemal, who went to Ankara to organize the War of Independence. As soon as he found out why Öğüt was shut down, he sent a telegram to the Konya Governor on behalf of the Representative Committee, where he condemned the British pressure and attacks on the Turkish media and said that the development should be strongly protested by a rally.102

In the early stages of the Battle of Kut, British troops took Turkish soldiers as prisoners. However, in the end, it was the British that suffered a major defeat.

Another source that details the events is Eyüp Sabri Bey’s book entitled Bir Esirin Hatıraları (Memoirs of a Prisoner of War) written in 1922. Eyüp Sabri Bey was a Gaziantep resident who had previously worked in the Defter-i Hakanı (Directorate for Title Deeds). In his book, he gave a detailed account of how the Turkish prisoners of war were tortured and mistreated under British supervision. Eyüp Sabri Bey recalls his personal experiences when he was in British-controlled Heliopolis prison camp in Egypt and explains the ‘deliberate blinding procedure’ that the Turkish prisoners of war were subjected to:

However, since they [the doctors at the hospital] were given extensive powers, these horrid people felt free to act as they wished and gouged the eyes of our helpless, innocent sons that were prisoners of war there, amidst painful screams. Who is responsible for these murders? I think every conscientious person will agree that in addition to the actual perpetrators, the entire British government is to be held responsible for being the cause of these crimes.

In Abbasiye hospital… the doctors, with metal bars in their hands, sleeves rolled up to elbows, continuously operated on the Turkish soldiers and gouged their eyes out. According to the accounts of many Egyptian brothers and local prisoners, these eye surgeries took place in the past as well, but it intensified especially after the armistice, as the British felt proud with their victory. When we went there, I personally saw that it was going on at full speed.103

These examples of violence and brutality directed at the Turks once again show that the British deep state is the center of the dajjali system. Although this violence caused outrage among both the Turkish public and government, all their time and energy had to be used for the survival of the state and the nation. Therefore, it wasn’t possible to take real action about these outrageous crimes.

Regrettably, this oppression and violence were later denied and swept under the rug, just like countless other crimes of the British deep state throughout history.

Although there were talks about exchanging prisoners of war during the Conference of Lausanne, there is no indication that the situation of the 15,000 Turkish soldiers deliberately made blind was ever discussed. This shows the skill of the British deep state to hide its crimes and its true face and how it employs various threats, intimidation and pressure tactics to achieve its goals.

Turkish artilleries rewrote the history of bravery during the Siege of Kut.

The Turkish Victory that the British Wishes to Forget: Kut Al Amara

The defeat the British suffered at Kut Al Amara was the second biggest defeat of the British during WWI after the Gallipoli battle. The Kurdish tribes in particular, as well as some Arabic and Shia Arabic tribes, contributed greatly to this phenomenal victory. Many leading Shia families cooperated with the Ottomans during the fight.

As the British were attempting to invade Gallipoli with their formidable military prowess, their plans to invade other parts of the Ottoman territory were also underway. However, after their humiliating defeat at Gallipoli, they shifted most of their focus to the Middle East, North Africa and Iraq fronts and particularly to Baghdad, the heart of the region.

In 1914 they invaded Basra and opened up the Iraqi front. On July 24, 1915, the army led by General Townshend began advancing on Baghdad. To counter the advance, Ottoman units under the command of Nurettin Bey, the commander of Iraq forces, retreated to Kut Al Amara on September 28, 1915. The British troops laid a siege to the city of Kut.

Soon after, the British troops resumed their advance on Baghdad, this time through two different routes. They were forced to stop at Salman Pak by the units led by Nurettin Bey, and had to retreat to Kut Al Amara. The Ottoman troops on their heels arrived at Kut Al Amara on December 5. Now trapped in Kut, the clashes between the British troops and Ottoman troops continued throughout December, until the Ottoman troops completely besieged the former.

Despite numerous relief expeditions coming to the aid of the British, the efforts failed. Since the ammunition and food supplies were running out and supplies transported through the rivers were insufficient, the British army sustained heavy losses both due to hunger and disease. The British launched another attack on March 8, 1916 in Dujaila (Sabis) on the 13th Division of the Ottoman army led by Colonel Ali İhsan Bey, but lost 3,500 soldiers in the Battle of Dujaila and had to withdraw.

On April 22, the British units staged another attack under the command of General Townshend with 5,000 troops but once again failed at the expense of 3,000 soldiers. As the events continued to unfold, the British deep state members were trying everything they could to end the siege and even shamelessly attempted to bribe Halil Pasha. They were perfectly aware that if the siege continued any longer, the British army, already exhausted and drained, would perish completely.

Townshend offered to give Halil Pasha a cheque for one million pounds in addition to their weapons only so that he and his army could walk free. Halil Pasha responded that the British weapons would be of no use to them and dismissed the one million pound bribe offer as ‘a joke’. When the Turks captured a food and ammunition ship the British army sent to resupply their besieged troops, the British had no choice but to surrender. If the ship had reached its intended destination, the siege could have continued for another two months. Turkish soldiers renamed the aid ship to ‘Kendi Gelen’ (literally meaning ‘the one that comes itself’). The ship had three operational machine guns and joined the Ottoman transport fleet.104

After Townshend surrendered, Enver Pasha graciously hosted him and made sure that he lived in a villa in picturesque Heybeli Island until the war ended.

In an article on The Telegraph’s website on December 2, 2015, Patrick Sawer published extracts from the diary of Lieutenant Henry Curtis Gallup who was at Kut Al Amara at the time and later taken as a prisoner of war by the Turks. Sawer explains at the beginning that the British had the intention of invading Iraq, as well as other Ottoman lands, and summarized the sly and double-faced policy of the British deep state and its outcomes:

What had begun as a mission to safeguard oil and liberate Iraq from the Turks ended in ignominy, with hundreds of British and Indian soldiers dying in captivity.105

As this statement makes clear, the British deep state never refrains from deceiving innocent masses and starting large-scaled wars by means of ploys and ruses. In that period of history alone, 9 million people died, 30 million went missing or became disabled, due to the actions of the British deep state. Even today the British deep state maintains the same mentality. The ‘mastermind’ today, that martyrs and disables millions of Muslims in particularly the Middle East by dropping bombs on them, that creates millions of widows, orphans, refugees with the pretense of ‘safeguarding’ and ‘liberating countries’, introducing democracy and peace to them, is the British deep state.

The article goes on to elaborate the Kut Al Amara defeat of the British based on the diaries of Lieutenant Henry Curtis Gallup:

It [Kut Al Amara] was one of the British Army’s worst defeats of the First World War, with starving troops forced to eat their own horses and thousands more killed during an ill-fated rescue attempt.106

Some of the Muslim Indian soldiers in the British army were brought to the battlefield at gunpoint.

An Indian soldier on duty in front of a British aircraft hangar

The piece reveals the existence of one of the most sinister British deep state methods: making Muslims kill one other:

Gallup’s diary entries detail how the continuous Turkish offensives, and the appalling conditions endured by his comrades, eventually wore down the exhausted British forces. By December 1915 food supplies were desperately low and the prospect of starvation was looming – forcing the soldiers to begin eating their horses. Attempts to relieve the beleaguered troops ended in disaster, with two Indian divisions dispatched by the British halted by the enemy [Turks], with more than 23,000 Indian losses. 107

Referred to as the ‘Indian losses’ by the British, those people were all Indian Muslims. In other words, the British hadn’t risked their own soldiers, but used instead unaware Muslim subjects from British colonies, which they made soldiers at gunpoint. This cruel and perfidious strategy of the British deep state is why tens of thousands of Indian Muslims were told to attack their Muslim Turkish brothers at Kut Al Amara and lost their lives. Finally, conceding defeat, the British surrendered to the Ottoman army, after a 6-month siege, on April 29. This historic victory, welcomed with jubilation at all Ottoman fronts, provided a great moral boost to the Turks, while causing great shock in Europe. The British newspapers would cover the Turkish victory on their front pages calling the incident ‘the biggest humiliation for the British after Gallipoli…’

The British newspapers covered the British defeat at Kut Al Amara on their front pages calling the incident ‘the biggest humiliation for the British after Gallipoli’. Brave Turkish soldiers who fought in the Gallipoli Battle.

British historian James Morris would call the defeat at Kut ‘the most abject capitulation in Britain’s military history’.108 Christopher Catherwood, another British historian calls this defeat ‘the worst defeat of the Allies in World War I.’109

Halil Pasha’s words in the army diary of April 29, 1916 beautifully summarizes the Kut Al Amara victory:

To my army; Lionhearts!

1- Today the spirits of our martyrs are ascending happily and joyfully in the sunny skies under which Turks achieved a glorious victory while the British suffered a heavy defeat. I kiss you on your pure foreheads and congratulate you all.

2- Praise be to God Who helped us achieve a success, which has been unprecedented for the last 200 years. And God the Almighty gave you the glory to be the ones who for the first time recorded such a defeat in 1,500 years of British history.110 There has not been a similar achievement in the World War, which has been going on for two years now.

The victory at Kut Al Amara was celebrated in Turkey as Day of Kut until 1952. April 29 should continue to be a day of celebration in the future. (Above) A drawing depicting the defeated British commander’s surrender to the Turkish commander at Kut

3- My Army has given its 350 officers and 10,000 privates as martyrs in both Kut and when facing the armies marched on to save Kut. But, in return, today in Kut, I am taking 13 generals, 481 officers and 13,300 under captivity. English forces, which came to save this now surrendered army, returned with losses of 30,000.

4- Looking at these two numbers, what one can see is an astonishing difference. History will have a great difficulty to find words in recording this episode.

5- We saw the first victory in Gallipoli and the second victory here where the Turkish have broken the stubbornness of the English.111

6- This victory that we achieved only by the means of our bayonets and hearts is the beginning of our future successful ventures.

7- I declare this day the ‘Kut Day’. May every member of my army recite prayers of blessings, Ya Sin and Fatiha for our martyrs and celebrate this day every year. As our martyrs live on in the Heaven, may our gazhis (injured heroes) stand guard for our victories in the future.

Brigadier General Halil
Commander of the 6th Army
29/April /1916- Baghdad112

After Turkey became a NATO member, the Kut Al Amara victory was no longer officially celebrated. However, just like every other one in our history, this victory should be remembered every year and our martyrs that made it possible should be proudly commemorated. (1) NATO members

Interestingly, until 1952 when Turkey became a NATO member, the Turkish Army celebrated ‘Kut Day’ on every 29 April. The British deep state must have not liked to be reminded of it though, because the Victory of Kut was suddenly removed from school curriculums upon the request of the British and the festival was no longer celebrated after that year. It was an attempt to keep the new generations from learning about this victory. This clearly shows how important it is to constantly remember and talk about Kut Al Amara, a massive defeat of the British deep state, and similar victories, with great zeal and determination.

Interesting Details in General Townshend’s Memoirs
The commander of the British forces at Kut Al Amara, General Townshend, wrote My Campaign in Mesopotamia, in 1920 to offer his view of the war in Mesopotamia. According to Townshend, more than one million Indian soldiers –some combatants, some reinforcements- fought for the British army during WWI and of them, 74,000 lost their lives and 67,000 thousand were injured. The 6th British Division included Indians, Sikhs, Bangladeshis, Gurkhas, and Muslim Pashtuns. Townshend explains how the Muslim soldiers amongst his troops didn’t want to fight the Turks during the ‘Battle of Qurna’. In his book he writes that in other battles Muslim troops in the Indian battalions acted in a similar way.1 The historical sources reveal why the Indian Muslims were reluctant to fight Muslim Turks, whom they considered the soldiers of the Caliph. After the Iraq front was opened, Indian Muslims including Shia Indians, refused to fight the Turks. So much so, three Indian regiments refused to participate in the fight near Ctesiphon and instead chose to rebel against the British en masse.2
1. General Townshend under arrest right after he surrendered.	2. General Townshend
However the biggest Indian revolt against the British took place in Singapore. Refusing to fight the Ottoman Muslims with the British, Indian Muslims started a riot on February 15, 1915 in the 5th Light Infantry Regiment that consisted of Pashtun, Moghul and Rajput Muslims. Muslim soldiers didn’t want to be taken to Europe under the British flag and forced to fight against Ottoman soldiers. However, the riot proved ineffective, as the officer in charge wasn’t experienced. As a result, the British colonial administration in Singapore clamped down on the rioters with the support of their French and Japanese allies in the region. A ‘court-martial’ was set up which gave its verdict with shocking speed. In the end, half of the Muslim regiment, which included 850 troops and more than 200 officers, were executed either by a firing squad or by hanging. The rest were either sentenced to penal servitude or dispatched to Cameroon and German East Africa to fight the Germans. In 1917, these units were forced to fight the Ottomans in Aden together with the Malay States Guides, who were known with their pro-Turkish stance. This grim incident alone is enough to show how the British deep state doesn’t refrain from using force to make Muslims fight each other. Brave Indian soldiers who didn’t want to fight Muslims preferred martyrdom rather than commit such treachery.3 At this point, it is important to note that many historical details have been carefully covered up by the British deep state. It is known that during WWI, many Muslims that were subordinated to the Caliph refused to fight the Turks and accepted martyrdom instead. However, the documents available today pertaining to those days are usually limited to the British sources. Therefore, riots against the British that took place during those days were carefully hidden in an attempt to erase the memory of Muslims’ alliance and brotherhood.
1. “İngiliz General’in Kut Anıları” (British General’s Memories of Kut), Al-Jazeera, http://appsaljazeera.com/interactive/kutul-amare/tr/ingilizin-anilari.html 2. İsmet Üzen, “Türklerin Kut’ül Amare Kuşatması Sırasında İngiliz Ordusunda Bulunan Hintli Askerlerin Tutumu (December 1915 – April 1916)” (The Behavior of Indian Soldiers within the British Army during the Turks’ Kut Al Amara Siege), Akademik Bakış Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, p. 81 3. Emre Gül, “Hintli Askerler Singapur’da Osmanlı İçin İsyan Etmişti” (Indian Soldiers Revolted in Singapore in favor of the Ottoman), Dünya Bulletin, July 25, 2014

The First Step in the Design of the Middle East:
Sykes-Picot Agreement

Seventeen days after the Kut Al Amara humiliation of Britain, while WWI was still raging on, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed secretly between Britain, France and Russia, on May 16, 1916, to determine how the Middle Eastern territories of the Ottoman Empire should be shared between Britain and France. The deal was exposed to the public when Russia withdrew from WWI and the agreement in question, as a result of the Russian Revolution in 1917. In other words, with the onset of the communist revolution that the British deep state had been working to start for years through provocations, spying and social engineering, Russia, one of the biggest powers to claim rights on the Ottoman lands, was left out.

According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Eastern Mediterranean, the coastline of modern Syria and Lebanon, Adana, Antep, Urfa, Diyarbakır and Mosul provinces, would be given to France. Britain would take the Haifa and Aqqa ports in the Eastern Mediterranean along with Baghdad, Bara and South Mesopotamia. An international administration would be set up in Palestine because it was a holy site. A major part of modern Iraq and Syria would also be handed over to British and French mandates.

Lebanon was placed under French mandate with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. 1. A caricature depicting how Sykes- Picot Agreement dismembered the Ottoman Empire 2. The French army entering Beirut after the agreement

However, this sharing scheme with France didn’t sit well with Britain, due to its aspiration of becoming the sole power in the region. Leaving Mosul to France and losing out on Palestine wasn’t in line with the interests of the British deep state. Since the early 1900s, the British had been sending technical teams to Mosul and were keenly aware of the rich oil reserves of the region. Furthermore, they were convinced that if the British took Mosul, the region could be an important leverage against a potential Islamic Union. The British deep state also considered it important to take Palestine under its control to secure the route to India.

Having already captured the Arabian Peninsula in 1915, however, the most important goal of Britain at the time was building a Britain-dependent Arab state on the lands of Iraq and Palestine by supporting Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who they had already provoked to rebel against the Ottomans. There was already a secret deal between Sharif Hussein and McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt. Strangely enough, the British were also secretly talking to Hussein’s rival, Suud, the Emir of Wahhabis. As the British deep state was pursuing its agenda with multiple back up plans, France saw that it was being slowly left out of the game. This is why it pressured Britain to accept the Sykes-Picot Agreement: so that the lands could be shared equally.

A picture representing the Battle of Gallipoli

Turkish troops during the Siege of Kut

However, in the past, when Britain took Cyprus and Egypt, it didn’t need France’s permission and the French even didn’t think of asking for a share in those territories. So much so that even though the French opened the Suez Canal in 1869, the British took the canal under its control when it took Egypt in 1882 and the French response was nothing more than subdued resentment.

Things changed when the British were heavily defeated at Gallipoli and Kut Al Amara. Britain was now facing a bolder France, one that was protesting, reacting and pressuring. Britain didn’t want to defy France at Sykes-Picot, as it wouldn’t be good to have French as an enemy, especially after the loss of considerable prestige and power.

For this reason, it humored France, since Britain needed France on its side, albeit temporarily. This is how the Sykes-Picot Agreement was drawn up on the basis of an equal sharing principle. A more British-oriented sharing of the former Ottoman lands could be postponed until later. Although Sykes-Picot was never officially implemented, as it was a secret agreement that somehow became exposed, it was still largely used as a basis in the partition process of the Ottoman lands. The part of the secret agreement that involved Anatolian territories could never be implemented because Mustafa Kemal had started the Independence War in Anatolia. Even today, the British deep state wants to compensate for what it gave up on during those days, and by using the communist terror group PKK and coup plots, is seeking to achieve its century-old goals.

British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes	French diplomat François Georges-Picot

With the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British deep state was throwing away its previous promises to rebel Sharif Hussein. In the new sharing plan, no land was given to Sharif Hussein. Hussein, thus, is an important example of how the British deep state fools the hypocrites it locates in the Islamic world with crafty but empty promises and disposes of them after it is done with them.

It didn’t take long for the British to compensate themselves for what they had lost with Sykes-Picot Agreement. On November 15, 1918, British invaded Mosul by using the 7th article of the Armistice of Mudros as a pretense. Its so-called justification included the usual excuses like ‘ensuring the safety of the Christians in the region’ and that ‘British POWs were mistreated’. During the San Remo Conference in Italy on April 24-25, 1920, the British managed to persuade the French with ‘its usual tactics’ and obtained the French rights in Mosul and Palestine in exchange for Syria.

The basics of the modern borders in the region were determined by Sykes-Picot Agreement. However, after 1919, they were slightly revised with various agreements (such as the ones made in Paris and San Remo). The leading figure in the determination of the borders was once again the British deep state, and the region was divided into small parts in line with the future plans of the dajjal system.

This is how the British deep state tore apart Muslim communities that had for centuries lived together on those lands in peace. The process that started with Sykes-Picot and sped up after the Balfour Declaration introduced artificial borders that completely ignored the political and cultural sensitivities in the region. As a result, mandate states like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Hejaz were set up.

A. Sykes-Picot Agreement May 1916 1. British rule 2. French rule 3. Russian rule 4. Under British, French and Russian protection 5. Arab state under British protection 6. Arab state under French protection	7. Russian Empire 8. Turkey 9. Armenia 10. Caspian Sea 11. Cyprus 12. Mediterranean Sea 13. Palestine 14. Egypt	15. Syria 16. Iraq 17. Arabia 18. Persia 19. Kuwait 20. Persian Gulf 21. Qatar

The British deep state always knew that the Islamic world would be an immense power, would enjoy unrivalled influence and become a deterrent force if it united as one. Therefore, throughout its history, the British deep state considered such a prospect as the biggest threat to its existence. It used nationalism, sectarian divides, and tribalism for sedition and carefully created a volatile atmosphere of conflicts, clashes, wars and pain that continues today.

Over time the countries of the region, almost half-colonies, became scenes of constant oppression, persecution and poverty under the rule of British-controlled dictators. Nevertheless, the British deep state and its affiliates continued to exploit the richness and diverse natural resources of those countries.

To sum it up, the road to the Greater Middle East Project which was first mentioned in the early 21st century as a plan to divide the Islamic world into even smaller pieces before eventually destroying it, and which amounts to handing over the region unconditionally to the British deep state, started with Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Footnotes

56. Taner Akçam, From Empire To Republic, New York: Zoryan Institute, 2004, p. 77

57. Prof. Dr. Ömer Kürkçüoğlu, An Evaluation of the Ottoman Empire’s Entry Into the World War, p. 29; Grand Vizier Said Pasha, Sait Paşa’nın Hatıratı (Memoirs of Said Pasha), Vol. 1, Dersaadet: Sabah Press, 1328, p. 271

58. Prof. Dr. Ömer Kürkçüoğlu, “An Evaluation of the Ottoman Empire’s Entry Into the World War”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. XXXVIII, no. 1-4, 1983, pp. 227-243

59. Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 2015, iBooks

60. Ronald Storrs, The Memoirs of Sir Ronald Storrs, Van Rees Press, 1937, p. 167

61. Hassan S. Abedin, Abdul Aziz Al-Saud and the Great Game in Arabia, 1896-1946, King’s College London, 2002, p. 138

62. Robert Lacey, The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Sa’ud, London: Avon Books, 1983, p. 119

63. Feridun Kandemir, Fahreddin Paşa’nın Medine Müdafaası: Peygamberimizin Gölgesinde Son Türkler [Medina Defense of Fahreddin Pasha: Turks on Path of the Prophet], Istanbul: Yagmur Yayınevi, 2007; http://www.dunyabulteni.net/tarih-dosyasi/301594/ odoguda-yuzyil-suren-bir-paylasim-sykes-picot-anlasmasi

64. Gary Troeller, The Birth of Saudi Arabia: Britain and the Rise of the House of Sa’ud, London: Frank Cass, 1976, p. 79

65. Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 2015, iBooks

66. David Garnett, The Letters of T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, New York: Spring Books, 1964, pp. 351-353

67. Richard Aldington, Lawrence of Arabia a Biographical Enquiry, London: Collins, 1969, pp. 312, 331-332, 380

68. T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, 1922; Garnett, p. 15; Richard Aldington, Lawrence of Arabia, A Biographical Enquiry, London, 1955, p. 99

69. Geoffrey Miller, Straits, University of Hull Press, 1997, p. 303

70. T. E. Lawrence, “To D. H. Hogarth April 20, 1915”, The Collected Works of Lawrence of Arabia, 2015

71. T. E. Lawrence, “Introductory Chapter”, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, 1922; T. E. Lawrence, The Evolution of a Revolt, 2014

72. Simon Anglim, Orde Wingate and the British Army, 1922-1944, p. 49

73. “T. E. Lawrence to V. W. Richards”, T. E. Lawrence Studies, 15 July 1918, http://www.telstudies.org/writings/letters/1917-18/180715_richards.shtml

74. Malcolm Brown, T. E. Lawrence in War and Peace, Greenhill Books, London, 2005, p. 173; Arab Bulletin, No. 106, 22 October 1918

75. Toby Thacker, British Culture and the First World War: Experience, Representation and Memory, Bloomsbury Academic, p. 222

76. T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, London: Manning Pike and H. J. Hodgson, 1926

77. Süleyman Kocabaş, Osmanlı İsyanlarında Yabancı Parmağı, Bir İmparatorluk Nasıl Parçalandı? [Foreign Intrusion in Ottoman Riots, How An Empire Was Dismembered], Vatan Publication, October 1992, p. 103

78. “Alınamayan Gemiler: Sultan Osman I ve Reşadiye” [Battleships Not Taken: Sultan Osman I and Reşadiye], http://www.canakkale.gen.tr/bilinmeyenler/b1.html; NTV Mag, January 2001, pp. 136-137

79. Feridun Kandemir, Hatıraları ve Söyleyemedikleri ile Rauf Orbay [Rauf Orbay In His Memoirs and Things He Could Not Say], Istanbul: Sinan Matbaası, pp. 103-104

80. Article 58, “Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne”, July 24, 1923, 81. 81. 81. http://sam.baskent.edu.tr/belge/Lausanne_ENG.pdf

81. Jon Henley, “Remembering Gallipoli: Honouring the Bravery Amid the Bloody Slaughter”, The Guardian, April 24, 2015

82. Jon Henley, “Remembering Gallipoli”

83. Yavuz Bahadıroğlu, İnancın Zaferi Çanakkale (The Victory of Faith at Dardanalles), Nesil Yayınları, 2015

84. Mustafa Turan, Destanlaşan Çanakkale [Legendary Gallipoli], Istanbul: Cihan Publication, 2012

85. Gökşen Keskin, “Barbar Türklere Karşı Zehirli Gaz Kullanalım” [Let’s Use Poisonous Gas Against Barbarous Turks], Sabah, March 20, 2007, http://arsiv. sabah.com.tr/2007/03/20/gnd116.html; Tuncay Yılmazer, Gelibolu’yu Anlamak [Understanding Gallipoli], 2009, http://www.geliboluyuanlamak.com/204_populer-bir-muamma-canakkale-de-kimyasal-silah-kullanildi-mi-2-ozan-bodur.html

86. Winston S. Churchill, editor Martin Gilbert, “WSC, minute from the War Office, 12 May 1919”, The Churchill Documents, Volume 8: War and Aftermath, December 1916-June 1919, Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press, 2008, p. 649, https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-and-chemical-warfare/

87. Phil Mason, How George Washington Fleeced the Nation, Skyhorse Publishing, 2010

88. Boris Johnson, The Churchill Factor, Riverhead Books, New York, 2014, p. 161

89. Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Companion, Volume III, p. 1230; Jeremy Havardi, The Greatest Briton: Essays On Winston Churchill’s Life and Political Philosophy, London, 2009

90. Jeremy Havardi, The Greatest Briton: Essays On Winston Churchill’s Life and Political Philosophy

91. Andy Thomas, “The minutes from the Dardanelles Committee and the War Committee Papers”, Effects of Chemical Warfare, London: Taylor and Francis, 1985, pp. 18-20

92. William Ewart Gladstone, Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, NY: Lowell, Adam Wesson & Company, 1876, p. 10

93. Tülay Alim Baran, “Çanakkale Savaşı’nda Hukuk İhlalleri” [Violations of Law in Gallipoli War], Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, vol. 73, http://www.atam.gov.tr/dergi/sayi-73/canakkale-savasinda-hukuk-ihlalleri

94. Noam Chomsky, “U.S. Middle East Policy”, Columbia University, April 4, 1999, https://chomsky.info/19990404/

95. Warren Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World, I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2015, p. 193

96. Martin Gilbert, “Churchill papers: 16/16, 12 May 1919 War Office”, Winston S. Churchill: Companion, Volume IV, London: Heinemann, 1976, http://www. globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

97. Tom Heyden, “The 10 Greatest Controversies of Winston Churchill’s Career”, BBC, January 26, 2015

98. Eyüb Sabri Akgöl and Nejat Sefercioğlu, Esaret Hatıraları: Bir Esirin Hatıraları ve Matbuat Ve Istihbarat Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi: Yunan İllerinde Zavallı Esirlerimiz [Memoirs of Captivity], Istanbul: Tercüman, 1978

99. “Türk Esirleri”, Akın Tarih, http://www.akintarih.com/turktarihi/osmanli/turk_esirleri/turk_esirleri.html

100. Cemalettin Taşkıran, Ana Ben Ölmedim / 1. Dünya Savaşı’nda Türk Esirleri [Mother I Did Not Die / Turkish Prisoners of War in WWI], Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2001, pp. 143-147

101. Cemalettin Taşkıran, Ana Ben Ölmedim, pp. 143-147

102. Cemalettin Taşkıran, Ana Ben Ölmedim, pp. 143-147

103. Eyüb Sabri Akgöl and Nejat Sefercioğlu, Esaret Hatıraları

104. “Battles from Basra to Kut”, Al Jazeera, http://interactive.aljazeera.com/ajt/2016/kutul-amare/en/kut-siege.html

105. Patrick Sawer, “Rarely Seen WWI Diaries Reveal Agony of Ignominious British Defeat”, The Telegraph, December 2, 2015

106. Patrick Sawer, “Rarely Seen WWI Diaries Reveal Agony of Ignominious British Defeat”

107. Patrick Sawer, “Rarely Seen WWI Diaries Reveal Agony of Ignominious British Defeat”

108. Russell Miller, Uncle Bill: The Authorised Biography of Field Marshal Viscount Slim, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, UK, 2013, chapter 4

109. Christopher Catherwood, The Battles of World War I., Allison & Busb, 22 May 2014, pp. 51-52

110. “Memoirs of Khalil Pasha”, Al Jazeera, http://interactive.aljazeera.com/ajt/2016/kutul-amare/en/ khalil-pasha-memoirs.html

111. Pat Walsh, “Centenary of Kut Al Amara”, History and Politics, April 3, 2016, https://drpatwalsh.com/2016/04/03/centenary-of-kut-al-amara/

112. Furkan Düzenli, “Kızgın Kumlarda Kazanılan Büyük Zafer: Kûtü’l-Amâre” [Great Victory Won on Hot Sand], Haber10, April 30, 2016, http://www.haber10.com/tarih/kizgin_kumlarda_kazanilan_buyuk_zafer_kutul_amare-629101