What do the initials that the terrorist organizations use signify? PKK, DAESH, Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C)? What difference does it make? If a group uses suicide bombers, car bombs or other cowardly and insane ways to kill innocent people, what does their name matter? A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.It is long past time to wonder how much more such sentiments need to be written - surely this mantra need not be repeated.Yet the fact that a PKK tent was erected in front of European Parliament in Brussels, flags flying high, last week, that after the Brussels bombing the letters the PKK and Democratic Union Party (PYD) were marked in chalk among the flowers left for the bombing victims means that there is still a need to say that it is not possible to differentiate between terrorist organizations. Such actions in Brussels, to any Turkish observer, seem not only totally hypocritical but also incomprehensible. But this is a hypocrisy that is neither new nor surprising.Every time there has been an attack in Turkey, Western media has banged on their drums: "Turkey is dragging itself down." Their theory is that the so-called despotism of the so-called dictator has forced the "Kurds" - they mean the PKK - to resort to terrorist measures. According to these drum-beating media outlets, the fact that the PKK, which represents approximately 20 percent of the ethnic Kurdish Turkish citizens, who make up 20 percent of the Turkey, blow up innocent people is entirely the fault of this so-called dictator. After the Ankara and Istanbul bombings, there was a media blackout. People were outraged.

After the Brussels bombing there was a media blackout. Of course, this is the only sensible thing to do. Protect the people. Clamp down on the borders. Increase security. Yet, when this happens in Turkey, it is perceived as repression, as the act of a dictator, a despot.Media coverage of the Paris attacks and media coverage of the almost simultaneous bombing in Beirut were in no way comparable. Beirut, in which 43 people died and approximately 200 were injured, was, if it is possible to say such a thing about a terrorist attack, less horrific than the Paris attacks; indeed, it appeared as a footnote in the media. Paris was covered with 24-hour live streaming for days, leading these terrible attacks in the city to top the media's agenda.This dichotomy of the importance given to events in European cities over events in Middle Eastern cities looms large in mainstream and non-mainstream media. It does not affect only how the West perceives and reacts to Turkey. It also affects the Turkish mentality. The Turkish people are uniting but fall shy of showing the great unity that is shown in the West after bomb attacks. This is because media reporting drives the polarization that has always existed in the Republic of Turkey.This bias, which is not unique, has been justified in a number of ways. The fact that in Lebanon in 2014 alone there were at least 200 terrorist attacks, taking 114 lives, means that the bombing at the time of the Paris attacks did not seem so newsworthy. The old adage "When a dog bites a man, that is not news because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news" applies here. That is, bombings in the Middle East are not seen as newsworthy. But there is more to this phenomenon than this. It is not just a case of newsworthiness. This is nothing more nor less than Islamophobia, or downright racism on a national level.When Paris or Brussels or London or Boston is attacked, there is outrage. The world comes together. The flag of the country attacked is flown high, prominent buildings are decked out in the colors of the grieving nation to show solidarity. Je suis whatever is hashtagged all over the place. But when Ankara or Istanbul or Suruç are bombed the response is a shaking of the head, a gentle tsk tsk. There goes Turkey, sliding into chaos again. But didn't we know it was going to happen? Wasn't the writing on the wall? Don't you know that there is a crackdown on journalism there? That there are curfews in the southeast? That academics are being persecuted?The fact that the crackdown on journalism is almost entirely related to terrorist activities, the fact that the curfews have been imposed to eliminate a terrorist organization that bombs major Turkish cities and the fact that the problems with the academics are nothing more or less due to these so-called academics supporting - overtly supporting - terrorism are simply overlooked. When President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stands up and utters the truism "If you are not against terror, you are supporting terror," it is purposefully misquoted in both Turkish and Western newspapers as: "Those who are not with us are supporting terror" - in this case by Taha Akyol writing for Hürriyet Daily News. Anyone who speaks up for the rights of terrorists is supporting terrorism, and no amount of whitewashing with an academic coat of paint can cover up this ugly fact.Rather, these issues are wrapped up in shiny intellectual, left-wing or liberal ideals and presented to the reader; the truth that the government is doing its utmost to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks in the country is covered over, and the opinion that such attacks, such destruction, such inhumanity can only be expected from this country is brought to the fore. The twisted, perverted theory that is prevalent in Western media is that Turkey is being bombed, attacked and targeted because of its government. Yet the French or Belgian governments are not accused of oppression, repression or even incompetency. The fact that Turkey caught the two bombers of Brussels and handed them over to the Belgian authorities, who set them free, is not laid at the feet of the government. The fact that the Belgian authorities arrested one of the Paris terrorists with great fanfare, displaying the event for all to see only days before a new attack by DAESH was launched is not seen as a miscalculation or a misstep. No, indeed, the world stands with Belgium. And this is only right. The world should stand with Belgium.Yet the world does not stand with Turkey, Lebanon, Kenya or any other Muslim-majority country. The reason for this is as simple as it is ugly.It is as simple as the Black Lives Matter movement. The fact that we have to say black lives matter resonates. Of course, black lives matter, it should not even be a question. Yet, the Black Lives Matter movement came about because there are a large number of black individuals in prison in the United States as well as elsewhere, and a large number have been killed or abused when being arrested. Even worse, when a black person is treated unjustly or loses their lives due to racist reactions on the part of the police, there is an unspoken racist reaction from the public: "Well, they probably did something that forced the police to shoot them." That is, they asked for it. This social racism is so deeply rooted that it took outrage and protests for people to realize that indeed, black lives do matter. Even when there is video footage of a person being shot as they are walking away from the police, unarmed, the reaction is not always outrage. Although the victim is shot in the back, the police still claim self-defense, and can often get away with such ridiculous claims simply because the victim is black.Thus, black lives matter. Black Lives Matter emerged as a response to social racism. But Muslim lives matter. Muslim-majority governments matter. The attitude that countries like Turkey or Lebanon have to learn to live with terrorism, that they have helped cause terrorism, is a product of civilizational racism. Muslims do not deserve to be bombed, Muslim-majority governments do not deserve to be driven into chaos by internal and external forces or brought down.Perhaps dear reader this seems rather dramatic to you. Who is talking about bringing down the government? Well, there is talk. As recently as last Monday, two days after the bombing on İstiklal Avenue, Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who specializes in the Middle East who is allegedly an "expert," wrote the following chilling title: "Could there be a coup in Turkey?"

Not much needs to be quoted from the article here - it can be found on the website of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. But here are a few choice lines to whet the appetite. I will skip the blatantly ridiculous claims like: "[Erdoğan is] building palaces at the rate of a mad sultan or aspiring caliph." One palace has been built for the president - that is, not for Erdoğan, but for the president. It is a state-owned building and functions as the offices of the president, no different from the White House. It is bigger, perhaps showier. But this is Turkey, and showy goes here. It is the norm. The building of one palace in Ankara is not the work of a mad sultan or an aspiring caliph. To state this is simply libelous."In recent weeks, [Erdoğan] has once again threatened to dissolve the Constitutional Court." No, Erdoğan said he did not agree with the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which freed two journalists accused of espionage. As discussed in this column before, this decision was made in contravention of normal jurisprudential procedure. That is, Erdoğan had the right to disagree with the court; indeed, I too have the right to disagree with the court. Never was there mention of dissolving the Constitutional Court nor is there any mention of overturning the ruling.Rubin for the American Enterprise Institute wrote: "Turks - and the Turkish military - increasingly recognize that Erdoğan is taking Turkey to the precipice. By first bestowing legitimacy upon imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan with renewed negotiations and then precipitating renewed conflict, he has taken Turkey down a path in which there is no chance of victory and a high chance of de facto partition."The reason that negotiations with the PKK were started was to try to establish peace through talks. The "renewed conflict" was precipitated solely by the PKK getting up from the negotiations table, walking away and demonstrating their contempt for the peace process by slaughtering off-duty policemen and soldiers. This action on the part of the PKK clearly demonstrates that the good faith invested in the peace talks by the government had been betrayed. If the government is to blame for anything in the peace process it was that they put faith in a terrorist organization, thinking that a reasonable discussion on how to establish peace in the country could be negotiated. The West has a mantra for this, and perhaps the government should have heeded it: We do not negotiate with terrorists. Turkey's fault here was in believing that peace could be made with an organization that is hell-bent on destroying everything around them.Rubin continued: "If the Turkish military moves to oust Erdoğan and place his inner circle behind bars, could they get away with it? ... At this point in election season, it is doubtful that the [U.S. President Barack] Obama administration would do more than castigate any coup leaders ... Nor would Erdoğan engender the type of sympathy that Egyptian President Muhammed Morsi did."Sorry, here I must make an intervention. Morsi got sympathy from the West? This only happened when he was put behind bars and handed the death penalty. "When Morsi was ousted, his commitment to democracy was still subject to debate; that debate is now moot when it comes to the Turkish strongman."When did Erdoğan become undemocratic? Elections in the Turkish Republic have been fair and free for decades, audited by independent observers and confirmed by the same. Any new constitution, an idea that is causing so much worry in the West, will be subject to a referendum. That is, the people will decide. There are some more democratic measures to be introduced, clearly, but with such a limiting and flawed constitution, the government is doing its best. For democracy to really flourish in Turkey, the opposition needs to get its act together and create real alternatives to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government. At the moment, democracy is one-sided, not because Erdoğan wants it that way or the government has designed it that way, but because all three opposition parties are completely incompetent and do not know how to create a dialectic democratic opposition. "Turkey's NATO membership is no deterrent to action: Neither Turkey nor Greece lost their NATO membership after previous coups." No comment need be made to be made to such a clear and open threat."Neither European nor American public opinion would likely be sympathetic to the execution of Erdoğan, his son and son-in-law, or key aides like Egemen Bağış and Cüneyd Zapsu, although they would accept a trial for corruption and long incarceration."We have suddenly gone from a coup to the execution of Turkish leaders. The suggestion is that people might be perturbed by such taking of lives, but little more. The fact that now "execution of Erdoğan" has been put in print, has been introduced onto the agenda, is sinister."I make no predictions, but given rising discord in Turkey as well as the likelihood that the Turkish military would suffer no significant consequence should it imitate Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi's game plan in Egypt, no one should be surprised if Turkey's rocky politics soon get rockier." True, the author is not making predictions. He is sowing seeds.When Turkey needs the world, Muslims and non-Muslims, to stand by it, all it seems to get is a shrug of the shoulders, a long sigh and maybe, just maybe, a pat on the back.The reaction is what can one expect from a government in a Muslim-majority country. The AK Party is constantly (and incorrectly) depicted as an Islamist rather than a democratic party. The two terms "Islamist" and "democratic" are seen as mutually exclusive; it is not possible to be a devout Muslim and to be democratic. This fallacy leads to the situation we find ourselves in today. When Turkey is bombed, it is seen to be getting only what it deserves. This is civilizational racism; civilizational racism is an ugly term. But it is the only term that can be used to describe this reaction.Turkey's democratically elected government will continue to rule in a democratic manner. There is no question that if and when the government is voted out of office, it will step down to hand the reins over to another government. But at the moment, Turkey needs a strong government. A president who speaks out against Western hypocrisy. A prime minister who stands up and says, "We have not been cowed. We are not cowed. We will not be cowed. We have not been afraid. We are not afraid. We will not be afraid."Turkey is not cowing in the face of terrorism. Turkey is standing strong. Turkey faces a number of internal issues, and outside observers are only making matters worse. If people in the West, East, North or South do not stand by Turkey, this will not change the way the country functions. The country will continue to stand strong against all threats, internal and external. It will continue to try to protect its people as much as possible. But the people would appreciate support. We would appreciate to know that our lives, our democracy, our rights are considered as important as those of other people elsewhere.Muslim-majority countries matter, Muslim lives matter, we will not be cowed.