The Differences Between The Security Policies of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama by Ahmet Gencehan Babiş

obama-bushThe security policies of United States of America (USA) during George Walker Bush presidency and Barack Hussein Obama era have some different aspects that effect the perceptions all around the world. After September 11 terrorist attack, George W. Bush and his Neocon administration implemented its security policy which has realist demands in the core of it and flourished with liberal values like freedom of speech, especially democracy. The countering against terrorism became a primary concern of the security policy. With his popular “Change” slogan, Obama won the elections and reevaluated the security policy agenda of USA. Liberal paradigm is started to be more dominant after his inauguration but it is also designed in way of US hegemony strategy. This article will try to examine the changes in American security policy with referring to National Security Strategy Documents which was declared by White House in 2002, 2006 and 2010. In addition to that, the important events which are related with the security policy of US will be mentioned.

From Monroe Doctrine to Obama Doctrine, the security concerns and paradigms were seen in US history but they all served to the long term strategy of the state. The dual system of American politics formed by Republicans and Democrats creates a ground for USA to maintain its supreme position. In Bush and Obama periods, a good example of this situation is easily seen. During “pure neocon” (Neo Conservative) Bush presidency, the foreign policy aim was tried to be achieved by military interventions to Afghanistan and Iraq. It has to be noted that, while doing this anti-Americanism surged all around world. Unlikely, Obama chose nonmilitary ways and attached more importance to international institutions. By this way, Obama started to rebuild American credibility among the international community again.
Bush Administration: Between the Theories
First of all, it is better to start with the delineation of American national security. U.S national security is the confidence held by the great majority of the nation’s people that it has the military capability and effective policy to prevent adversaries from using force to prevent the pursuit of national interests.[1] While coding “terrorism” as a threat, Bush administration saw some liberal values a tool to realize their goals but they act with realist paradigm while doing that. In this point, it is fruitful to give the main specialties of liberalism, realism and democratic peace theory.
Liberalism is the one of the main theories of international relations whose roots are buried in the Enlightenment Era. “Democratic values”, “institutionalism” and the “free trade” are the main features of this school. More corporations between the states open a door to more stable global order. The concern is not democracy; the main concern is transforming the creating allies which can work in accordance with American system. So, Neocons have no problem with free trade and market economy. Either 2002 or 2008 National Security Strategy Document tries to reinforce the free market economy. Obama attaches more importance to the economic issues than Neocons.
Bush era has also some features form offensive realism. The “anarchic” structure of international relations from this theory has weight on this type of opinions. It has to be emphasized that Bush’s real intention is creating modest regimes and get rid of the ones who is not harmonious with global American order rather than implementing democratic values. Besides, Bush sees the international as power politics likes realism asserts unlike Obama. Bush’s policy used something from both offensive realism and liberalism. 
The legitimacy was given to this type of politics by Michael Doyle’s “democratic peace” thesis. For democratic peace, democratic states have never fought with each other. Bush delineates the states as anti-democratic failed states and by this way gives himself a right to protect the communities of these countries. In 2006 National Security Strategy Document stressed that Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe bring instability to the international relations because of the “tyranny” there and their anti-democratic regimes.
Communism Gone, Terrorism Came
After the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the threat of hostile ideology of US “communism” lost its importance and power. Some professors like Francis Fukuyama declared the permanent victory of liberalism in his article “The End of History” in 1989. However, 9/11 attacks showed world that history did not end and new American “nightmare” would be terrorism. Then, both in domestic and foreign policy, a new mobilization period started. The old tactics like deterrence and containment are far way to answer the necessities of post-Cold War era dangers. By the time passes, it can be seen that the harsh look transformed and some new threats related with the human security were added to the National Security Strategy Document in 2006. That means that, from 2002 to 2006, the threats during Bush administration also vary. Although, terrorism was always in the primary position. For example, with the worrying atmosphere of September 11, the focus point of 2006 NSSD is just terrorism. But in 2006, such issues like human and drug trafficking, natural disasters are counted as threats to humans.
Global War on Terror
The main concerns during Bush era were terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and rogue states. To cope with terrorism; George Bush declared his “global war on terror” strategy. The “preventative war” and “preemptive war” notions help to implement this strategy and try to legitimize American interventions. Both of them are the produced due to too wide interpretation of UN Charter Article 51 which defines self-defense. Preemption is the taking of military action against a target when there is incontrovertible evidence that the target is about to initiate a military attack. Prevention is the taking of military action against a target when it is believed that an attack by the target, while not imminent, is inevitable, and when delay in attacking would involve greater risk.[2] The difference between them seems very foggy and open to various evaluations. Both of them have the same aim so the usage of the true terms are determined according how close the threat is. Additionally, it can be said that prevention is for defense and the preemption is for hegemony. The result of them in real politics is setting up “Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)” in Afghanistan to eradicate Taliban regime in 2001 with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces. In the framework of OEF, US sent soldiers to some different regions like Philippines to combat the terrorist activities of Al Qaeda braches there, terrorist Islamist organizations like Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah. Under this action, a fight against terrorism and piracy in Africa were wanted to be confronted.
Creating the Homeland Security
In 2002, with the Homeland Security Act a new body in the state mechanism, Department of Homeland Security was established. The missions of this new body is to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism and minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.[3]
In addition to military preparedness, foreign interventions must be endorsed by the public support and will. Thus, in accordance with the non-governmental organizations, think-tanks and media a good example of public diplomacy was adopted by Bush administration. For example; Saddam was shown to Americans as a negative stereotype. Rather than seeing as a religion, discourse of Bush administration showed Islam as a marginal value system and also triggered Islamophobia all around.
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was not the only event. During Bush presidency, the legal procedures inside the state were created in line with the terrorism threat. Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001[4] has brought many regulations from “penalties for terrorist conspiracies” to “period of orders of electronic surveillance of non-United States persons under foreign intelligence surveillance”. To fight against terrorism and cut its financial support from various sources; on September 24, 2001, Fact Sheet on Terrorist Financing Executive Order was enacted. In the context of it, “The President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State and others are working with our allies around the world to tackle the financial underpinnings of terrorism[5]
Patriot Act is another important act about US countering again terrorism method. This act reinforces the cooperation between intelligence bodies of US, increase the penalties and stricken surveillance on terrorism. Remembering Bush’s these words; “The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology[6]” from the introduction part of the 2002 National Security Strategy paper, the base of the act can be seen easily. The Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats.[7] Moreover with the Joint Resolution for Authorization for Use of Military Force, the authority of the president rised.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Tool and A Danger
One of the most important factors in Bush security policy agenda is the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). For the new preventative war concept, WMD was designed as a casus belli andthe accession to these weapons and their means of delivery by the terrorist states must be avoided for Bush. With a big international propaganda, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was alleged to have weapons of mass destruction. After the war, no biological weapons were found in Iraq. It has to be noted that, Bush do not fully opposes WMD, the point that he refuses is collecting them in “irresponsible” hands. In 2002, Bush described North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an “axis of evil” saying these countries have WMD and support terrorism.
While establishing alliances and friendly ties to combat against terrorism in 2002 National Security Strategy Document, Bush also underlines the unilateral actions of USA with these words; “the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international coming unity, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country[8]”. Here the fingertips of Iraqi invasion of US can be noticed. The military intervention to Iraq in 2003 has undermined international law because the vetoes of Russia, China and France in United Nations Security Council. Here, it can be easily said that, “cooperation” part of liberal argument was ignored by Bush administration.
The United States attacked what was thought to be a biological weapons facility in Sudan, but it turned out that the building was probably an innocent aspirin factory. Saddam’s chemical weapon warehouses were not found. Meanwhile, North Korea and Pakistan became nuclear weapon states, India prepared to resume nuclear testing without detection and Iran accelerated its nuclear weapons development program.[9]
Obama Era: A Shift In Security Policy
When the first black man came to Oval Office in White House, there have been some problems inherited from the past years. He noticed it in his election campaign and used a softer language than his republican opponent John McCain. After leader like Bush, George Walker Bush, he won the sympathy of international community. He said, there will be a “change” in American strategy and without doing anything, just with his commitment about the future, he won the Nobel prize in 2009. Many things in various field gained a new ground in Obama era. But one thing was still the same; US leadership.
Obama’s discourse is close to liberal school. Unilateral point of view was transformed into multilateralism with reference to liberalism. Instead of “hard power”, for the survival of US lead global order, Obama selected “smart power” which is a compound of hard and soft power.
In 2006, a working group called Commission Smart Power started working for the preparation of the infrastructure of this notion in Center for Strategic and International Strategies (CSIS) which is one of the world-wide known think tank. In 2007, “A Smarter and More Secure America” report says that; United States should focus on five critical areas: alliances, partnerships, and institutions; global development, public diplomacy, economic integration, technology and innovation.[10] The education of all level section of 2010 National Security Strategy Document is the reflection of the necessities of being a smart power.
During his address after he received the Nobel Peace Prize, he talked about the different type of war, the preventative and preventive war gave their place to “just war”. He said; “The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”[11] Obama’s way of war is more “disciplined” comparing with President Bush.
Obama’s Way of Countering Terrorism
The Bush policy was defined Islam as an enemy but Some of his personal feature also gives advantages to transform this view in US security policy. For example, having Muslims relatives, gives reliability to some which has effects. But, he defined the new enemy with referring to Islamic radicalism. Obama’s Top Counterterrorism Adviser John O. Brennan’s words must be underlined in this sense. He said that “Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because use of these religious terms would play into the false perception that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are religious leaders and defending a holy cause, when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers.”[12]
The source of the terrorism is both in the country and out of the state. But he also wants to control the terrorist attacks that can come inside the country. He also stressed the radicalized people inside the country pose a threat to the state, as it is said in 2010 National Security Strategy Document, the defeat this threats; well informed and equipped families, local communities, and institutions for a good solution. But on the other hand, he did not describe them as “other”. His discourse is more inclusive than Bush, he still underlines that the differences in the country is the source of being strong instead of being insecure.
The success of Obama administration is the killing the head of Al Qaeda, Usama Bin Laden in the first period of his presidency, in 2011. In contrary to occupation idea of Bush administration, Obama’s military policy abroad US rise on the withdrawal concept. Which has two main causes; the first one is the rising military expenditures and in the time global financial crisis and the other one is the infelicity of the nation from ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama withdrew American troops from Iraq in December 2011 and setting the conditions for the withdrawal in Afghanistan in 2014. However, it cannot be said that the counter again terrorism policy ended in Obama era. The best example of it is Pakistan. In Pakistan, where the CIA greatly sharply increased unilateral drone strikes – to nearly 200 – against “high-value” al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in the first two years of the Obama administration, the tactic has contributed heavily to an increase in anti-Americanism. An overwhelming 97% of respondents in a recent Pew Research Center poll in Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is at an all-time high, said they viewed drone attacks negatively.[13] Obama was globally peacefully, but regionally, there are some exceptions as it is seen in this example.
Obama’s Homeland Security
For Kagan, the war on terrorism was never a sufficient paradigm for American foreign policy. It was too narrow, too limited and less than ideal for mustering the support of others around the world.[14] In this point, Obama says that the homeland security notion has to be integrated with broader American national security approach. Obama tried to renew these legislations and revise the organs of the states, but it must be remembered that he signed the bill about the extension of Patriot Act in 2011. Moreover, The organized crime in the state and border protection is the other key points in Obama’s review.
The cyberspace security is the one of the component of the new security policy of Obama. Considering the technological improvement, US wanted to take the leadership in terms of cyberspace activities. Like Bush did in terrorism issue, Obama established new organs in cyberspace. Late in May 2009, President Barack Obama instituted the post of Cyberspace Coordinator within his administration, with the coordinator sitting on both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. The same month saw the establishment of the US Cyber Command, headquartered at Fort Meade, Maryland, and headed by Army General Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head of the National Security Agency, America’s most powerful intelligence service.[15]
Part of the National Security: Economy
In the beginning of Bush era, the most problematic issue for him was the security concerns and terrorism. The most difficult duty for Bush was how survive with a strong economy under the heavy financial crisis. No more than two months after the elections in 2008, the whole world shocked with the collapse of one of the biggest companies in US, Lehman Brothers. Obama tells the situation as “the most devastating recession that we have faced since the Great Depression”[16]. Obama is aware of that the US influence abroad is highly linked to state economy and the military supremacy is also tied with the economy. But the only dimension of his economical approach is not military spending, investing on research, a sustainable growth of the nation, the reinforcement of civil aviation, increasing education level and expanding on clean energy has place in the context of it. In general, like every US President in history, Barack Obama is in favor of global free trade and market. Its best and brightest would devote themselves to clean energy, not financial speculation. Reinvigorated public investment in education and infrastructure would revitalize manufacturing, boost middle-class incomes and meet the competitive challenge from China.[17]
With a stimulus package in 2009, the economic recovery was wanted to be realized. By most economic indicators, the Economic Stimulus Package was a success. In March 2009, before it was launched, Q1 GDP was -6.4% (it has since been revised to – 4.9%) and the Dow Jones had slid to 6,500. By Q4 2009, GDP was +5% and the Dow had risen to 10,428. Not all of that success can be attributed to the Stimulus Package, since expansive monetary policy and strong emerging markets also helped boost the economy.[18]
WMD: More Moderate View
Like Bush era, Obama is sensitive about the spread of WMD and the possibility of their use by terrorist groups but his discourse was much more accommodationist than his predecessor. In relations with its global competitor, like Russia, US prefer to solve the questions together. “Pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons” is a topic in his national security document.
Neo conservative Bush administration was consisted by the officers like Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condelezza Rice did not use an exact theoretical background in the security policy. We can see both the tips of neo-realist approach and liberal schools in their activities. Obama administration is more liberal comparing with George Bush. The most distinguished difference between them is a shift from hard power to smart power.
From 2002 to 2010, three national security strategy documents were published by US are relevant to each other. Some In the Middle East issue, and in all national strategy documents Israel was shown as US’s loyal ally.
In 2002, unilateral look to the international relations was dominant but in 2006 this attitude was turned into a more moderate view. In 2010, US opened itself to the idea of institutionalism but three of them have the same aim. In 2002 and 2006, the majority of topics are about military issues, in 2010 some alternatives like climate change, clean energy were added to the agenda. On the other hand, supporting the rights of women was in 2010 NSSD and in many places both words; “men and women” were used to refer the gender equality. Fighting against corruption is another issue in the document. 
While examining Bush presidency in terms of security, a pro-active interventionist idea is seen. The formal discourse of this era was defeating states who threats the stability to international area. There is no exaggeration to say that, democracy grows in tens of years in a community not with a military occupation. When the situation in Iraq is analyzed now, the in stability source was US, itself. So, in one side asserting the stability, US actions in Middle East ruined the Iraq’s integrity, caused sectarian conflicts in the country that poses an insecure atmosphere for the region and approximately 1,5 million civil deaths. 
Secondly, Bush has showed freedom of speech as a valuable opinion to the world, the legal acts that for the mobilization inside the country do not fully respect this. Internationally, the freedom of speech and human rights were the main concern but at home, these ideas are not really taken into account during these legislations.
In Obama era, it must be underlined that despite the economic crisis, the military expenditures were not decreased. If the Pentagon were a cooperation, it would be the largest in the world as well as the sloppily run. (The Pentagon in 2010 reported 1.7 trillion dollars in assets, 2.1 trillion dollars in liabilities and 676 billion in net operating costs) Its procurement budget, at a a staggering 107 billion in 2012, expands even as the number of deployable war planes, combat ships and troops diminished.[19] In US politics the place of anti-war protests during Bush era was taken by Occupy Wall Street Movement which gives us clues about the economic concerns of Americans. OWS protesters declared that, one percent of the world population takes all the assets and describe themselves as “99%”.
Bush also perceives threat in technological area but the practical steps are taken in Obama era about that as a consequence of using its smart power. Bush used WMD issue as a reason for interventions, in Obama era we cannot see the same tendency. However, about the uprising in Syria, Obama warned that the use of the WMD by Assad regime is the “red line” for US, in August, 2012. There is a difference between them, Obama refers to the “use” of these weapons but for Bush just “prediction” is sufficient for the intervention.

[1] Bush George Walker, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, White House, Washington, 2002, p. 13
[2] Barnes Joe, Stoll J. Richars, Preemptive And Preventive War: A Preliminary Taxonomy, James A. Baker III Institute For Public Policy, Houston, 2007, p. 7.
[3] Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Act of 2002, (Accession Date: 07.01.2013)
[4] Electronic Privacy Information Center, Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, (Accession Date: 07.01.2013)
[5] White House, Fact Sheet on Terrorist Financing Executive Order (Accession Date: 08.01.2013)
[6] Bush, p. ii
[7]Department of Justice, The USA Patriot Act: Preserving Life And Liberty,, (Accession Date: 08.01.2013)
[8] Bush, p. 6.
[9] Sapolsky M. Harvey, Gholz Eugene, Talmadge Cailin, US Defence Politics The Origins of Security Policy, Routledge, New York, 2009, p. 155.
[10] Armitage L. Richard, Jr. Nye S. Joseph,  A Smarter and More Secure America, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington D.C, 2007, p. 1.
[11] CS Monitor, Text Of Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, (Accession Date: 08.01.2013)
[12] DeYoung Karen, Obama Redefines National Security Strategy, Looks Beyond Military Might, Washington Post (27.05.2010)
[13] Loeb Jim, New Bases Extend US’s Drone War, Online Asia Times ( Accession Date: 10.01.2013)
[14] Kagan Robert, Higher Realism, Washington Post (27.05.2010), p. B07.
[15]RT, Supremacy In Cyberspace: Obama’s ‘Star Wars’?, Date: 13.01.2012)
[16] Obama Barack Hussein, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, White House, Washington D.C, 20102, p.3.
[17] Economist, Barack Obama’s Economic Record, Date: 12.01.2013)
[18] CNN, What Was the Stimulus Package? Obama’s First Major Act to Stimulate the Economy, (12.01.2013)
[19] Galin Stephen, State vs. Defense, Crown Publishers, New York, 2011, p. 409.

This article is published in TURKSAM (20.01.2013): 


Basbug AtaturkAn International Conference 


Professor of international relations at Boston University and author of Crescent & Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds.

Date: On Friday, April 19, 2013 Location: Stevens Institute of Technology, 6th & River Streets, Hoboken, New Jersey

The Light Millennium and the College of Arts and Letters at the Stevens Institute of Technology will jointly present a conference on the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations and their relation to ideals advanced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938), founder of the Turkish Republic.

The conference will be held on April 19th on the campus of the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Keynote speaker Stephen Kinzer, the first NY Times Chief Correspondent to Turkey (1996-2000), author of the book Crescent & Star: Turkey Between in Two Worlds (2001), and Professor in International Relations at Boston University, explains in his book: “The origins of this transformation [may be found] by examining the life of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic and still, despite his death in 1938, the most influential figure in Turkey’s history.”

The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals include the eradication extreme poverty and hunger, the attainment of universal primary education, the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women, the reduction of child mortality, the improvement of maternal health, the combating of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, the attainment of environmental sustainability, and the development of a global partnership for the development of international peace.

Atatürk regarded universal education and equal rights for girls and women as pillars of the society he wished to building in the 1920s. He established the Turkish parliament and constitution to advance his ideals. He created institutes in villages for poor children and universities where women would be encouraged to study. He adopted the Roman alphabet for the Turkish language and introduced western values, culture, and lifestyles. Atatürk advanced the notion of “Peace at home, peace in the world.” [Read more…]

Remembering the “Day of Infamy” by Ayhan Ozer

This year on December 7 this country will commemorate the 71st anniversary of the “Day of Infamy”. On that day, without any provocation and any formal declaration of war Japan dastardly attacked on the United States. There were no hostilities between the two countries to justify Japan to commit a surprise attack. Peace prevailed between the United States and Japan; the American public was aghast and outraged; President Roosevelt called that day “A Day of Infamy”.

On that day, Japan surreptitiously came from a distance of 8,000 miles with an armada of 350 planes, combined of fighters, bombers and torpedo planes. A Task Force of 28 ships, including six aircraft carriers provided support for this surprise attack on the U.S. Pacific Navy Base in Honolulu, Hawaii. They created an inferno where 2,403 military and 68 civilians were killed, and 1,282 innocent civilians were wounded, 9 ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk, 21 ships were severely damaged. It was a cowardly assault unprecedented in the annals of history.   [Read more…]

Linguistic Makeup of the Latinized Name SULFOLOBUS SOLFATARICUS by Polat Kaya

In a previous paper entitled “Revealing the secret make up of the Latinized terms “PROKARYOTIC” and “EUKARYOTIC” – and more”,, where I had pointed out the linguistic make up of the scientific terms “PROKARYOTIC” and “EUKARYOTIC” that described single cell organisms, In this exercise, I dwell on the linguistic make up of theLatinized name Sulfolobus solfataricus describing another single celled micro-organism and also some other related terms.

 “One of the best characterized members of the Crenarcheota is Sulfolobus solfataricus. This organism was originally isolated from geothermally-heated sulfuric springs in Italy, and grows at 80 °C and pH of 2-4.[9] Since its initial characterization by Wolfram Zillig, a pioneer in thermophile and archaean research, similar species in the same genus have been found around the world. Unlike the vast majority of cultured thermophilesSulfolobus grows aerobically and chemoorganotrophically (gaining its energy from organic sources such as sugars). These factors allow a much easier growth under laboratory conditions than anaerobic organisms and have led to Sulfolobus becoming a model organism for the study of hyperthermophiles and a large group of diverse viruses that replicate within them.”  See also . [Read more…]

Revealing the secret make up of the Latinized terms “PROKARYOTIC” and “EUKARYOTIC” – and more by Polat Kaya

These two words are used in describing what is called Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Cells in scientific biological studies.  The link at gives the following definitions about these words and the cells that these terms represent.

“Part of our definition/description of what it means to be a living thing on Earth includes the assertion that living things are made of cells and cell products. In other words, we consider the cell to be a pretty fundamental structural aspect of life. [Read more…]

Mars Landing – A Tribiute to the engineers by Ayhan Ozer

For centuries, this country has been a fertile ground for the untold engineering marvels. The latest one on the list is the exploration of Mars. On August 6, 2012 America successfully landed a Rover on Mars. This was a flawless, triumphant technological Tour-de-Force for the American engineers and scientists. We salute them.

This enterprise began on November 26, 2011, and ushers in a new era of space exploration. The objective was to determine if the Red Planet, Mars, has the necessary ingredients for life. This was a huge project with a price tag of $2.5 Billion. Other than a big budget, it required the talents, skills, creativity, innovation and the collective mental energy of an army of top engineers and scientists in this country. The 8-month voyage of the spacecraft went smoothly, and it entered the Mars atmosphere at the appointed time, the thrusters guiding it toward the Mars crater worked perfectly. The parachute to help the landing of the “Rover” deployed exactly as intended.  [Read more…]

Feast of sacrifice and its origins by Ayhan Ozer

According to the Islamic Tradidion, in this lunar month of Zulhijja the Muslim world performs the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. The Hajj is one of the five pillar of Islam. At the end of the Hajj the devout ritually sacrifice an animal, usually a sheep or ram which is called “Kurban”. This religious offering, called in English oblation, commemorates the Prophet Ibrahim’s (Abraham) readiness to sacrifice his son identified in Islam as Ismail, at God’s request. Through their actions, Ibrahim and Ismail demonstrated an unflinching faith, and unswerving obedience to God. The Muslims re-enact that sacrifice as a commemoration of Ibrahim’s example of belief and submission to God’s will. The Feast that follows marks the culmination of the pilgrimage.

“Kurban” literally means “approaching”, “approximation”. From a religious context it implies coming closer to the Divine through faith and piety. Etymologically, the word of “Kurban” is related to Korban, a Hebrew word, which also means “to approach”. The origin of this custom is in Judaism; later it was adopted by the Muslims. Kurban is referred in both Old Testament and the New Testament. Yet, Christians and Jews do not sacrifice animal. Even though it did not originate in Islam only the Muslims perpetuate this barbaric and wasteful custom. And why??   [Read more…]

Jihad – The American Way by Ayhan Ozer

It is fair to admit that one component of Jihad is, in fact, “divinely sanctioned” holly war, but only as a last resort. Muslims are enjoined to search for peaceful solutions to resolve their disputes and the conflicts. Understanding, compromise and empathy should precede the confrontation as they are more constructive, and they lead to a healthy relationship

Jihad is a multi-level concept, and has a larger connotation than its casual meaning would suggest. It is, in principle, to strive in the way of God, to struggle against evil inclinations within one self. It may come as a surprise to most people, it is not strictly religion-specific, it is a way of dealing with the human conditions; therefore it is universal. During their lifetimes most individuals as well as the societies have had their own moments of Jihad. With a stretch of mind, for instance, the tremendous will power put forth by a drug addict to free himself from the tentacles of the addiction can be construed as a Jihad. Similarly, the ordeal of an alcoholic who seeks liberation from his “purgatory” can also be characterized as Jihad. All private struggles, such as gambling, over-eating habit, and all other lonely human vices that demand unrelenting will power and nervous energy to overcome the evil within ourselves can also be termed as Jihad. [Read more…]

The make up of the Latin words SURDASTER, SURDITAS and SUURDUS

We have the Latin word SURDASTER meaning “somewhat deaf”, [Castell’s Compact Latin-English, English-Latin Dictionary, 1962, p. 246].

1a. When the Latin word SURDASTER, (that means “somewhat deaf”), is deciphered as “SAURDER-TS”, I find that it is the altered and restructured form of the Turkish word “SAĞURDIR” meaning “he/she is deaf”. Turkish word SAĞUR means “deaf”.

Additionally, this Latin word has the following Turkish sayings embedded in its formatted structure:

1b. SURDASTER, deciphered as “AUR-SSTER-D”, I find that it is the altered form of the Turkish expression “AĞUR iŞiTİR” meaning “he/she hears hard”, that is, “someone with hard of hearing”. Turkish word AĞUR in the context of hearing, means “heavy, difficult” and İŞİTİR means “hears”.

1c. SURDASTER, deciphered as “SUR-ESTAR-D”, it is the altered form of the Turkish expression “ZUR İŞiTİR” (ZOR İŞİTİR) meaning “he/she hears with difficulty”. Turkish word ZOR means “difficult, difficulty”.

1d. SURDASTER, deciphered as “AS-ESTUR -DR”, it is the altered form of the Turkish expression “AZ İŞİTUR” meaning “he/she hears little, he/she/it is deaf”.

All of these sayings in Turkish: SAĞURDIR, AĞUR İŞİTİR, ZOR İŞİTİR and AZ İŞİTİR are used presently in describing someone as being “somewhat deaf”. Evidently, the fabricators of the “Latin words” from Turkish combined all of these four different Turkish sayings in the word SURDASTER! Clearly, these Turkish sayings were not lost in the newly fabricated Latin word, but rather were preserved in a broken up and confused way.

Decipherment of this “Latin” word once again shows that not only the words of the so-called “Latin” language have been manufactured from Turkish words and expressions, but it also shows how powerful and rich a language is Turkish, that is, probably the first scientifically formatted language of the world!


2. In the same manner, when we decipher another Latin word SURDITAS that means “deafness”, we find that it is from Turkish word “SAĞURDI” (SAĞIRDI) meaning “he/she is deaf, he/she hears little, he/she is hard of hearing”.


3. Another Latin word is SUURDUS that means “deaf” is also made up from Turkish word “SAĞURDU” meaning “he/she is deaf”.

Polat Kaya


A brief hopscotch scroll in the Ottoman history and economy.






This program originally produced as 90 minutes presentation. It is divided into three parts by Bircan Unver in order to schedule it under the Light Millennium TV Weekly Series in Queens and Manhattan.

DISCLOSURE BY THE PRODUCER AND AUHTOR SUKRU SERVER AYA: The information given in this pocket size pictured booklet, is excerpted from neutral or anti-Turkish foreign sources. All references can be founded in the index sections of the books referred on the cover! This trial work is not intended a library book, but it is the written text of a Power Point Presentation available separately in English and Turkish.

I convey my open thanks to below friends for their valued assistances:

Mrs. Meral Silahtaroğlu – for inspiring the need of a condensed DVD
Mrs. Alexandra Yeliz Ataç – for narration of English text
Mr. Naki Ataman – for the music
Mr. Tarık Keremoğlu – for the sound laboratory and DVD preparation
Mr. Melih Berk – for the valued and time spending coordination
Dr. Mustafa Şevki Ataç and his team – for the all time full support and team work!
My book “the Genocide of Truth” and chapters from the second book “The Genocide of Truth Continues…but Facts Tell the Real Story” plus over 330 articles can be read and downloaded at “” including my previous TV shows or conferences.

Şükrü Server Aya – İstanbul 2011

July 2012. The Light Millennium presented. – E-mail: