ANKARA, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Turkey said on Wednesday that a deadly attack was carried out at the headquarters of Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAS) near Ankara, while media reported a loud explosion at the site and showed footage of an exchange of gunfire there. “A terrorist attack was carried out against the TUSAS facilities in Kahramankazan, Ankara. Unfortunately, we have martyrs and injured people,” Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said on social media X.
If you have “martyrs” from a terrorist attack that are not the terrorists, you’re doing something wrong.
Wtf is that supposed to mean? Terrorists kill people and you shouldn’t victim blame.
“Martyrs” I think seems to be the conservative Muslim politician lingo of saying “unjustly killed” or “killed in the line of duty” or “our honourable dead” somesuch. It is not surprising that extremists would use the same language, just like e.g. European far right organization have also used “honourable dead” style terminology, such as in the case of Golden Dawn in Greece for example.
That’s not victim blaming, bud. To the contrary.
Webster’s, definition 2:
That leaves aside the religious overtones of the first definition.
If you are treating deaths due to terror attack as anything other than tragedy, there is something deeply wrong with your society.
To suggest that it is in any way voluntary, or intentional for the sake of religion, is disgusting.
Are you equally disgusted when officials use the language of “ultimate sacrifice” for cops, firefighters, etc who are “killed in the line of duty”?
Or are you just triggered that the language used here reminds you of Iran, Hezbollah, etc?
It depends.
Were they killed in the line of duty? Did they make a choice that is at bare minimum well-intentioned? Or did they just happen to be there and died by bad luck?
Firefighter dies trying to save someone from a burning building? Sure, okay. Dies in a vehicle crash while responding? Maybe.
Dies by someone else’s actions and is never aware of any possibility of a choice? That’s not any sacrifice, let alone the “ultimate” sacrifice.
Here is an example from Canada: «‘He paid the ultimate sacrifice’: Hamilton solider remembered in Ottawa». This was a soldier standing sentry, who was shot in the back before even realizing he was a target. He just happened to be there when the gunman decided to go at him with no warning. Now, there are many things broken with Canada, but this turn of phrase is not one of them.
The “martyrs” referenced by the Turkish minister are people working at a defence industry. Arguably, the minister is reasonable to consider them as people engaged in the performance of a national duty. Hence the language of “sacrifice”.
Now, we can of course have a discussion about the meaning of sacrifice, the problems with nationalism and militarism, alienation in modern society, etc. But beyond that, there is nothing extraordinary here, other than using a vocabulary that sounds muslimish.
I associate that term more with archaic Christianity (Joan of Arc and other old saints spring to mind) much more than Islam.
I think the phrase hits the exact intersection of nationalism, militarism, false hero worship for people who are just doing a job, and theocracy that in combination I find deeply repulsive, no matter which specific religion it is.
This has gone on long enough, but I just have to mention one last thing: non-protestant christianity is not “archaic”. The Orthodox church for example classifies Maria Skobtsova -that woman was a legend- who got killed in WW2 as a martyr.
Have a nice day.
I’m sure once the paper gets ahold of the terrorists PR team for a quote, they’ll say they killed 5 infidels and had 2 martyrs.
But for now, it’s the government giving the quote, and they’re saying they killed 2 terrorists, and had 5 martyrs.
Editing to add: I don’t see martyr as a loaded term. It’s an honorific about someone’s death, when other words fail. It’s just a colloquial use of the word.
Anybody who is killed serving Allah is considered a martyr. Since every country with a majority Muslim population claims to be islamic, of course they will refer to people killed in fighting on their side as martyr.
That does not require particular nationalism or “conservative” religiousness. In the same way if Muslims say “alhamdullilah” which translates to “all praise is with Allah” it does not require to be super religious. It is an everyday expression.
It’s a very strange assumption to me that going to work and doing one’s job is “serving Allah”, let alone “fighting for Allah”
It is quite simple. If you believe and you do what is lawful and encouraged by the laws of Allah you serve him.
Now whether turkish defense engineers fall into the category of “encouraged” is debatable, but it is normal for the country to claim that, as Erdogan considers himself to be a Muslim leader.