I think you might have been misinformed about fruits/comfort/your house thing.

First of all, nobody is saying that they wont  defend defend country.. Of course they will.. But what I am saying is that they dont NEED TO BE A RACIST to do that.

It will be quite wrong to think ONLY racist people can defend  or die for their country.

Second mistake is your house thing.. Countries are not a single house.. That is a huge mistake.. What if then the others claim they are the owner of the house and tell you if you want to keep eating the fruit, you will listen to what they say and accept it? What if they tell you that you are not a Turk anymore and a Kurd from now on?etc etc.

Anyway.. The bottom line is that :

Our oath was a racist oath, it was embaressing for all of us and it has gone for good..

The problem with the purported revolution is the same as the criticism traditionally made about Ataturk´s reforms: prescriptive.

When Ataturk prescribed those changes he was addressing an impoverished people who had not been allowed to choose. Their literacy rate stood at a fraction of what it is today. They had paid a great price for their ignorance and illeteracy hence waiting aimlessly for someone or some institution to give them a new direction. These were the people who would chant: Long live Sultan in the streets. Ataturk had to fill this gap or else his own people would tear him into pieces. He had the power to make his reform thanks to his heroic efforts during the war and his people knew this very well.

Furthermore, literature in his age was a mix of didactic and romantic and the philosophy and religion were a lot more prescriptive. The Japenese were considering their King a God and the Germans were preparing to declare themselves as the ubermensch. Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin would turn the world in a blood bath. Every other little or big ruler of the day would adopt this prescriptive approach and some would commit serious crimes. Ataturk did none of this. He just tried to stimulate his people by abandoning superstitions.

Funny thing is that they are trying to reverse engineer Ataturk in a modern world and the method they use is prescriptive just like thehandsom´s. i.e. justice and development (it only happens when you close your eyes to the real world)

The problem with the purported revolution is the same as the criticism traditionally made about Ataturk´s reforms: prescriptive.

When Ataturk prescribed those changes he was addressing an impoverished people who had not been allowed to choose. Their literacy rate stood at a fraction of what it is today. They had paid a great price for their ignorance and illeteracy hence waiting aimlessly for someone or some institution to give them a new direction. These were the people who would chant: Long live Sultan in the streets. Ataturk had to fill this gap or else his own people would tear him into pieces. He had the power to make his reform thanks to his heroic efforts during the war and his people knew this very well.

Furthermore, literature in his age was a mix of didactic and romantic and the philosophy and religion were a lot more prescriptive. The Japenese were considering their King a God and the Germans were preparing to declare themselves as the ubermensch. Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin would turn the world in a blood bath. Every other little or big ruler of the day would adopt this prescriptive approach and some would commit serious crimes. Ataturk did none of this. He just tried to stimulate his people by abandoning superstitions.

Funny thing is that they are trying to reverse engineer Ataturk in a modern world and the method they use is prescriptive just like thehandsom´s. i.e. justice and development (it only happens when you close your eyes to the real world)

Nobody is reverse engineering anything/anybody  specially Ataturk and his reforms.

But when people bring Ataturk to defend their primitive ideas such as praising a racist oath from 1930s, I think they seriously damage Ataturk´s image.

This is the most frightening thought: that victims of wars suffered and died in vain. That the ultimate injustice was done to them. In order to get rid of this disturbing thought cults of honor and rememberance are created in every country. If not it would be impossible to find soldiers for the next meaningless wars.

i smell an anti-militarist aproach here

formal rememberance ceremonies arent necessary but they didnt died for nothing also. wars are necessary in some conditions. we cannot tell the enemy that we dont want war so we will let you in freely! Many soldiers in dardanelles were young students who went to war voluntarily. Defending the country is extremely important and worths to die for in our belief system.

In vain? what do you mean? They all died for their country. If they didn´t, thing would have taken diffrent paths and probably there was no Turchia where she is today.

Houston, we have problem. So far no answer has been received.

That is what I said: it is an unbearable thought.

Maybe it is unavoidable in certain historical situations. But I do not believe in clean wars. There is always someone somewhere who benefits. And the rest just suffer. (It does not lessen the sorrow we feel for them.)

I agree with Abla´s approach here.. No war is necessary. As long as you have the army and show that you are ´more ready´ than the others, you are making the justification for others to arm as well. Pakistan makes atom bombs because India has some; Russia sells rockets to Syria and Turkey buys some rockets to stop them etc.. So it is a circle in the end.. The result is a very good portion of budgets spared for the defense and the arms. We could cure and erase many bad/evil things in the world if that money had been spent for people´s needs.