Welcome
Login:   Pass:     Register - Forgot Password - Resend Activation

Turkish Class Forums / Turkey

Turkey

Thread locked by a moderator or admin.
Moderators: libralady, sonunda
Absurd news from Turkie
(180 Messages in 18 pages - View all)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...  >>
1.       si++
3785 posts
 11 Oct 2010 Mon 08:25 am

“No Kurdish husband”

October 06, 2010 | 17:29

A participant in the “Marriage with Esra Erol” TV show on Turkish ATV was removed from the hall after claiming twice that does not want marry a Kurd.

During the TV show, 22 year-old Duygu from Igdir refused to meet with a groom candidate from Silopi (a district in Turkey’s southeastern region), saying she does not want a husband from Silopi. Thereafter, the girl confessed that she does not want a Kurdish husband.



Edited (10/11/2010) by si++

2.       sazji
47 posts
 11 Oct 2010 Mon 11:12 am

Well, I guess when you take personal issues into the public sphere, you can expect problems like that. It´s her own choice of course to marry who she wants or not, and having been to Silopi, and seen the dominant attitudes and way of life there, I can see why she wouldn´t want to marry into a family there. There are not many women with modern attitudes that could be comfortable in that environment and with those expectations.

3.       si++
3785 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 08:53 am

 

Quoting sazji

Well, I guess when you take personal issues into the public sphere, you can expect problems like that. It´s her own choice of course to marry who she wants or not, and having been to Silopi, and seen the dominant attitudes and way of life there, I can see why she wouldn´t want to marry into a family there. There are not many women with modern attitudes that could be comfortable in that environment and with those expectations.

 

Actually it tries to point to the negative feelings (I don´t want to use bad names here) in Turks´ subconscious minds towards Kurds. See the bold text, that´s the point what they are trying to make.

catwoman liked this message
4.       si++
3785 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 10:33 am

A rooted tradition in which two families exchange daughters to be
brides for their sons, called "berdel," caused a young girl to hang
herself in the southeastern province of Gaziantep, Turkish daily Star
reported Friday.
  Emine A., 22, had been promised to marry Fethi T. while her brother
was to marry Fethi T.´s sister, Naime T.
  During the wedding preparations, the families of the couples had an
argument and decided to break the "berdel" deal. Emine A. was
allegedly depressed over the tension between two families and hanged
herself from a rope from the ceiling of her family´s home.

5.       TheAenigma
5001 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 04:31 pm

 

Quoting si++

“No Kurdish husband”

October 06, 2010 | 17:29

A participant in the “Marriage with Esra Erol” TV show on Turkish ATV was removed from the hall after claiming twice that does not want marry a Kurd.

During the TV show, 22 year-old Duygu from Igdir refused to meet with a groom candidate from Silopi (a district in Turkey’s southeastern region), saying she does not want a husband from Silopi. Thereafter, the girl confessed that she does not want a Kurdish husband.

 

 

 

The most absurd thing about this post is that such a TV show exists!!! {#emotions_dlg.puking}

 

sesese, catwoman, ayse-eski, passer-by, ValeriYa and 3 others liked this message
6.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 04:57 pm

Isn´t it something similar to The Bachelor or whatever the programme is called here? I wonder how ok it would be for an American contestant to say she wouldn´t want to meet an Afro-American candidate in the States

catwoman liked this message
7.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 06:55 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

 

Actually it tries to point to the negative feelings (I don´t want to use bad names here) in Turks´ subconscious minds towards Kurds. See the bold text, that´s the point what they are trying to make.

It only shows that "brotherhood" days are now over. Kurds have been foolish enough to allow themselves to be led into antagonizing the rest of the country. Somebody will have to pay for this.

There is nothing subconcious about people electing more than 4 Presidents of Kurdish origin in a Republic, barely 100 years old. I doubt if any Kurd will ever see that seat again.

 



Edited (10/12/2010) by AlphaF

8.       TheAenigma
5001 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 06:58 pm

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

It only shows that "brotherhood" days are now over. Kurds have been foolish enough to allow themselves to be led into antagonizing the rest of the country. Somebody will have to pay for this.

There is nothing subconcious about people electing more than 4 Presidents of Kurdish origin in a Republic, barely 100 years old. I doubt if any Kurd will ever see that seat again.

 

 

Again, why don´t you just stop beating about the bush and publish your proposals for ethnically cleansing Turkey.  Ataturk did not do a good enough job...

 

catwoman liked this message
9.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 12 Oct 2010 Tue 07:03 pm

I like listening to Sivan Perveri...like a human being !

10.       si++
3785 posts
 13 Oct 2010 Wed 08:40 am

“Ayakta bevletmek dinimizce uygun değil” diyerek cami tuvaletlerindeki pisuvarları söktürmesiyle gündeme gelen eski OrduValisi Ali Kaban, Başbakan’a danışman oldu.

 

Translation:

The former governor of Ordu, Ali Kaban has been appointed as a consultant to Turkish PM Tayyip Erdoğan. Kaban is remembered with his word about urinals and removing them from WCs of Mosques in Ordu.

 

He had said:

"It´s not acceptable according to our religion to pee on foot"!

Mysty and Annette Faye liked this message
11.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 13 Oct 2010 Wed 07:59 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Isn´t it something similar to The Bachelor or whatever the programme is called here? I wonder how ok it would be for an American contestant to say she wouldn´t want to meet an Afro-American candidate in the States

 

It would be viewed in the media as being extremely racist.  People would probably talk about how racist this woman is.  She would be ostrasized from polite society but in the back of some American´s minds the thought would be, "I can see what she means."  Unfortunately, racism is something we like to think we are over, but we still have a lot of issues.  Thank goodness, seeing/living amoung mixed couples is becoming a more accepted thing.  I can tell you from experience that when some people find out that my husband is Muslim, there is a palpable and uncomfortable feeling that takes over the room.  I am fortunate to come from a very racially, ethnically, and religiously mixed family so I get a lot of support from everyone...but society at large is still a bit weird about it. 

 

In any case, the concept of the show is very strange, but it raised a good talking point!

12.       si++
3785 posts
 13 Oct 2010 Wed 08:09 pm

Erdogan has over 350,000 Facebook friends, whereas Ahmadinejad only 43,000

October 13, 2010 | 13:40

Israeli Walla web portal decided to check popularity of regional leaders on Facebook social networking website.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tops the standings with a list of 369107 friends. He became very popular after he openly adopted anti-Israeli position.  

The second is Jordan king Abdullah II. He does not have his own profile but his fan page unites about 87,000 people, while Lebanese President Michel Suleiman – 86,000.

President of Syria Bashar al-Assad (unlike his spouse Asma) also does not have his profile but fan page features 67,000 people. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has 43,077 friends on Facebook, whereas the leader of Iranian opposition Mir-Hossein Mousavi – 140,000.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has official profile on Facebook with 47,000 friends.

 

source: here

13.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 13 Oct 2010 Wed 08:33 pm

Hahaha...my President has more friends than your President!  {#emotions_dlg.computer}

14.       vineyards
1954 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 03:01 am

If we consider this as a racist reaction then we must put a label on almost any woman I have known so far. Women are selective by nature. We expect her to have the final say about the man to enter her life. They have a huge array of criteria which entails in most cases that a man to be rich, powerful, influential, handsome -at least by the standards of the social group they share. Looking back in time, I remember girls rejecting me because I have a big head, am not quite the type she finds attractive that I did not have the nice and expensive car or because I did not have the money to afford the life she was after. Some women even found me a bit too fair skinned to their taste even when there was no talk of relationship. I would say most women analyze you from perspectives that you normally never give a thought about. (There is a big contrast here. We men have a certain way to look at a woman and the only thing that changes is the order of them They often want someone who could take care of them. 

So, I don´t think that woman is a racist. She has a right to say no to a man from Silopi if she so desires. The guy may be heart-broken but anyone wishing to meet a woman must naturally be prepared for an anticlimax. If this happens before the TV audience, that person must also be prepared for being scandalized. If you are watching or raving about these programs, you are realizing the expectations of its producers. Some guys are watching these programs in order to develop their marketing strategies.Their audience forms the largest target group for many key sectors. That is why we have these stupid programs. The wise guys use these show to gather info on what is going on in their quarters, what is fashion and what is not. 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 Unfortunately, racism is something we like to think we are over, but we still have a lot of issues. 

 

 



Edited (10/14/2010) by vineyards [Numerous mistakes, omissions etc.]

15.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 03:36 am

I agree about people making some deliberate choices about their partners and I don´t find it racist that somebody does not date outside their race (works both ways) or religion. I find it ridiculous that someone´s preferences in choosing a partner should be subject to discussion. If I don´t date men shorter than me or men with hairy backs, am I a heightist or a hairist? If we´re free to be fussy, why can´t race, nationality, accent or the number of limbs be sufficient reasons to turn somebody down? Doesn´t the R word make us all hypocrites? If I find black people as sexually appealing as ginger-haired men, why is it ok for me to say the latter but the former makes me racist?

16.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 10:12 am

 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

It would be viewed in the media as being extremely racist.  People would probably talk about how racist this woman is.  She would be ostrasized from polite society but in the back of some American´s minds the thought would be, "I can see what she means."  Unfortunately, racism is something we like to think we are over, but we still have a lot of issues.  Thank goodness, seeing/living amoung mixed couples is becoming a more accepted thing.  I can tell you from experience that when some people find out that my husband is Muslim, there is a palpable and uncomfortable feeling that takes over the room.  I am fortunate to come from a very racially, ethnically, and religiously mixed family so I get a lot of support from everyone...but society at large is still a bit weird about it. 

 

In any case, the concept of the show is very strange, but it raised a good talking point!

 

Of course it is racism..Sheer racism.. If you dont call that girl racist, who will you call a racist? 

She is as racist as the ones who give you that weird feeling when they learn you are married to a Turk and muslim..Possibly more actually..

The funny thing is that many still wont see her as racist. That is what I was trying to say that ´many things/ many sayings etc are considered as normal´. That girl wont accept the fact that she is racist. Years ago my father was in shock when I told him that I could marry a Kurd.. My uncle still does not hide his resentment about the fact his son got married to a Kurdish Alevite girl and he still semi jokes that they have ´tails´. 

 

17.       si++
3785 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 12:09 pm

The salary of Guus Hiddink (the current coach of Turkish National football team) will be questionned in TBMM (Turkish National Assembly). Similarly the salary of previous coach Fatih Terim had also been discussed in TBMM. The questionaire given by Ali Uzunırmak has questions like "What is the current salary of Hiddink?", "Why is it kept as a secret?", "Did he really put a condition in his contrat for it not to be disclosed?".

 

source: here

18.       Tulip
106 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 01:11 pm

Me as Dutch heard an interview with Mr.Guus and it went as follows:

The journalist´: ´How do you like it so far working and living in Turkey do you feel at home?

GH:´´ Smile, yes, I feel very much at home with the players and the team´.

Journalist;"How do you experience the football culture in Turkey? ´

GH;"Smile... silence. Well, like everything in Turkey it is taken with Emotion, emotion and emotion... big smile.. ´.

Whichh is big contrast for Dutch especially for Mr Guus as he is from Eastern part of Netherlands.

 

When a team is not performing well it is always blamed to the coach, when the team performance well it is the work of the players {#emotions_dlg.confused}

Why do the Turks care so much about qualification for EuropeanChampionShip if they don´t see themselves as Europeans and most don´t want to be part of Europe???!!!  

 

 

19.       Henry
2604 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 01:36 pm

Guus Hiddink is a very good coach. But you also need a good team and some luck to do well. He inspires players, and did very well with Australia in the 2006 World Cup. Unfortunately Australian Football could not afford to pay him what he expected after this success, and he left. He was also dropped from Fenerbahçe years ago, and when you pay someone a lot of money you expect results. Luckily for Guus he always finds another country that is happy to pay him. Hopefully Turkey will regain their confidence and start winning again.

20.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 04:08 pm

 

Quoting vineyards

If we consider this as a racist reaction then we must put a label on almost any woman I have known so far. Women are selective by nature. We expect her to have the final say about the man to enter her life. They have a huge array of criteria which entails in most cases that a man to be rich, powerful, influential, handsome -at least by the standards of the social group they share. Looking back in time, I remember girls rejecting me because I have a big head, am not quite the type she finds attractive that I did not have the nice and expensive car or because I did not have the money to afford the life she was after. Some women even found me a bit too fair skinned to their taste even when there was no talk of relationship. I would say most women analyze you from perspectives that you normally never give a thought about. (There is a big contrast here. We men have a certain way to look at a woman and the only thing that changes is the order of them They often want someone who could take care of them. 

So, I don´t think that woman is a racist. She has a right to say no to a man from Silopi if she so desires. The guy may be heart-broken but anyone wishing to meet a woman must naturally be prepared for an anticlimax. If this happens before the TV audience, that person must also be prepared for being scandalized. If you are watching or raving about these programs, you are realizing the expectations of its producers. Some guys are watching these programs in order to develop their marketing strategies.Their audience forms the largest target group for many key {#emotions_dlg.scared}sectors. That is why we have these stupid programs. The wise guys use these show to gather info on what is going on in their quarters, what is fashion and what is not. 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 Unfortunately, racism is something we like to think we are over, but we still have a lot of issues. 

 

 

 

 I was commenting on Daydreamers post and not really on the original post.  However, I do agree that women have certain criteria when it comes to picking a mate....however, aren´t men a bit selective as well?  For example, I think some men are overly concerned about the size of a woman´s mammory organs rather than other attributes like her intelligence.  TV programs like this one are just an underscore of how vein and superficial our cultures have become.   

21.       alameda
3499 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 11:45 pm

True, but this sounds like the Bachelorette, Bachelor shows here.  I wonder if people really take them seriously? ....ugh...{#emotions_dlg.head_bang} They put them in fantastic places with fantasy dates....I saw one of them once... it seemed like a pretty sad situation. I think the winners get a million $...so what is the motivation?

Really, it is just a cheap way of having a show, you don´t have to pay for actors and a lot of union issues are avoided.

Quoting TheAenigma

 The most absurd thing about this post is that such a TV show exists!!! {#emotions_dlg.puking}

 

 

 

22.       alameda
3499 posts
 14 Oct 2010 Thu 11:57 pm

 I´ve believe it´s actually the hips/buttocks/pelvis that causes the spark in the charts when scientists actually have researched the subject of male attraction to females.

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 I was commenting on Daydreamers post and not really on the original post.  However, I do agree that women have certain criteria when it comes to picking a mate....however, aren´t men a bit selective as well?  For example, I think some men are overly concerned about the size of a woman´s mammory organs rather than other attributes like her intelligence.  TV programs like this one are just an underscore of how vein and superficial our cultures have become. 

 

 

23.       alameda
3499 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 12:09 am

 It probably would not be mentioned, although it would probably be a reason. She/he would find some other reason to eliminate those whose race or ethnicity they aren´t attracted to.

Attraction is a subtle almost magical thing. We really have little control, in any, of who we are attracted to. An odour, movement, sound of the voice or some other thing can be a complete turn off, even though other attributes are in line and we think we "should" like the other person. In reality, they can be found absolutely revolting when in the flesh meetings are conducted.

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Isn´t it something similar to The Bachelor or whatever the programme is called here? I wonder how ok it would be for an American contestant to say she wouldn´t want to meet an Afro-American candidate in the States

 

 

24.       si++
3785 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 10:27 am

Turkish State Minister calls Christians “gavur”

 

The Chair of the Syriac Culture Association Yuhanna Aktas stated Turkish State Minister Faruk Celik should apologize to Christians for calling them gavur (an offensive ethnic slur used by Muslims in Turkey to describe all who are non-Muslim) in one of the TV programs several days ago.

Aktas sharply criticized Turkish Minister’s cynical statement, saying Celik insulted Christianity and should apologize to all Christians in Turkey.

This irresponsible statement proves what the Turkish Minister thinks of non-Muslims in Turkey. We fiercely criticize his attitude,” Aktas stressed.

 

source: here

25.       vineyards
1954 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 03:26 pm

From my bygone university years I remember how it is possible to find out that there is simply no chemistry between two person who fancy each other before going to the bedroom for purposes other than decoration. Before that experience, you´d think, you could spend your life with that person and after it you add "as a dear friend, of course."

Quoting alameda

 It probably would not be mentioned, although it would probably be a reason. She/he would find some other reason to eliminate those whose race or ethnicity they aren´t attracted to.

Attraction is a subtle almost magical thing. We really have little control, in any, of who we are attracted to. An odour, movement, sound of the voice or some other thing can be a complete turn off, even though other attributes are in line and we think we "should" like the other person. In reality, they can be found absolutely revolting when in the flesh meetings are conducted.

 

 

 

 

 

26.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 04:10 pm

 

Quoting si++

Turkish State Minister calls Christians “gavur”

 

The Chair of the Syriac Culture Association Yuhanna Aktas stated Turkish State Minister Faruk Celik should apologize to Christians for calling them gavur (an offensive ethnic slur used by Muslims in Turkey to describe all who are non-Muslim) in one of the TV programs several days ago.

Aktas sharply criticized Turkish Minister’s cynical statement, saying Celik insulted Christianity and should apologize to all Christians in Turkey.

This irresponsible statement proves what the Turkish Minister thinks of non-Muslims in Turkey. We fiercely criticize his attitude,” Aktas stressed.

 

source: here

 

 

And if he is made to apologize, does that mean he will all of a sudden stop hating Non-Muslims?  I doubt it!  {#emotions_dlg.get_you} Just add his name to the list of haters!  Gosh, I hate haters!!!{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

27.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 04:57 pm

 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 

And if he is made to apologize, does that mean he will all of a sudden stop hating Non-Muslims?  I doubt it!  {#emotions_dlg.get_you} Just add his name to the list of haters!  Gosh, I hate haters!!!{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

"Gavur" means "non-moslem" and differs from "kafir" which means "infidel".

Whether or not an apology is required, after calling a "non-moslem" person, non-moslem is for non-moslems to decide...

PLEASE HELP CREATE A NEW TURKISH WORD TO COLLECTIVELY DESCRIBE PERSONS FAITHFUL TO SOME RELIGION, EXCEPT ISLAM.

ONCE THE NEW WORD IS AGREED UPON, THE WORD "GAVUR" WILL BE PERMANENTLY ERADICATED FROM TURKISH LANGUAGE.

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}



Edited (10/15/2010) by AlphaF

28.       vineyards
1954 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 05:53 pm

TDK dictionary sites a Persian root word gavur and an Arabic one for kafir. The similarity between these two words may indicate it being a loan word for either of these two languages. We seem to have imported both versions. Both words have more or less the same meaning. The word Kufr in Arabic means blasphemy and kafir is the one who commits blasphemy. The plural küffar also exists as a loan word in our language. Until quite recently, these words were freely used to describe non-muslims. It was normal for the past statesmen and historians to use them. Somewhere in between, the politically correct "gayri-müslüm" was introduced. This one is still in use and therefore there is no need to invent a new word.

As a general information for word inventors, words are not prescribed by a group of people for public use. Instead, languages evolve in their own natural course. Don´t think you are not contributing to your mother tongue. Your very existence is instrumental in eroding certain uses and paving the path for novelties which must take place in a relatively longer period of time. The so called prescriptive approach belongs to the past. Curiously, language reformers usually flourished at the times of dictators. In one example, Adolf Hitler issued a command for the German linguists to gather evidence to establish the German language as the proto-language mentioned in the Bible as bestowed upon man by God which was altered when they attempted to build the Tower of Babel to reach heaven. 

 

29.       missclimpson
2 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 06:24 pm

Since Turks and Kurds are the same race, this is hardly racism. Prejudice is a more accurate word.

Surely a woman has a right to decide who she wants to marry. How many women from metropolitan areas want to marry men from backwaters and move there with them. Not many, I think. I would never want to marry a Texan and move there!! The climate alone would kill me.



Edited (10/15/2010) by missclimpson [typo]

30.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 06:37 pm

 

Quoting missclimpson

Since Turks and Kurds are the same race, this is hardly racism. Prejudice is a more accurate word.

Surely a woman has a right to decide who she wants to marry. How many women from metropolitan areas want to marry men from backwaters and move there with them. Not many, I think. I would never want to marry a Texan and move there!! The climate alone would kill me.

 Well, since I live in Texas, I feel a bit insulted{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}...so I will let some of our Turkish members tell you about the differences between Turks and Kurds.  Welcome to TC...the welcome wagon should be around shortly!  {#emotions_dlg.stoneage}

 

31.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 06:54 pm

 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 Well, since I live in Texas, I feel a bit insulted{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}...so I will let some of our Turkish members tell you about the differences between Turks and Kurds.  Welcome to TC...the welcome wagon should be around shortly!  {#emotions_dlg.stoneage}

 

Welcome, Missclimpson. We´re having a short delay with your welcome party.

/note to self: call off rodeo and barn dancing

 

32.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 06:59 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

Welcome, Missclimpson. We´re having a short delay with your welcome party.

/note to self: call off rodeo and barn dancing

 

 

 Actually, a wagon has arrived but its the chuck wagon...and its from Texas!  Rodeo and Barn Dancing will commence IMMEDIATELY!

Chuck Wagon



Edited (10/15/2010) by Elisabeth

33.       stumpy
638 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 07:04 pm

woohoo! does that mean there will be some of the infamous Texas chilli???

34.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 07:11 pm

 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 Actually, a wagon has arrived but its the chuck wagon...and its from Texas!  Rodeo and Barn Dancing will commence IMMEDIATELY!

 

 

Yes, M´am

 

Elisabeth liked this message
35.       stumpy
638 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 07:41 pm

But seriously folks, what do people expect?  This is a reality show and the bigger the controversy the higher the ratings.  Not much though is put in behind some of those reality shows, you take a bunch of people and put them in a situation, either be it on a deserted island, in a weight loss program or a marriage program.  Reality TV is mind numbing, there is not much to it, in my point of view. 

But I must confess I do watch one series in question, Hell´s Kitchen with Gordon Ramsay!

36.       girleegirl
5065 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 10:05 pm

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics} 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 Actually, a wagon has arrived but its the chuck wagon...and its from Texas!  Rodeo and Barn Dancing will commence IMMEDIATELY!

Chuck Wagon

 Ouuhhh I bet I know what´s in that barrel!!!  TEQUILA!!!  Woot!

 {#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

Elisabeth liked this message
37.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 15 Oct 2010 Fri 11:18 pm

Ha! Now we´ve got a proof that whenever the T(equilla) word is spoken, GG appears. You´re like a genie in a tequilla bottle GG lol

38.       mltm
3690 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 12:28 am

 

Quoting TheAenigma

 

 

 

The most absurd thing about this post is that such a TV show exists!!! {#emotions_dlg.puking}

 

 

Ohhhhh, it´s very fun {#emotions_dlg.bigsmile} I like it. Whenever I go to Turkey, I can´t stop watching it.

39.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 12:52 am

 

 



Edited (10/16/2010) by AlphaF [deleted - repetition]

40.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 01:01 am

 

Quoting vineyards

TDK dictionary sites a Persian root word gavur and an Arabic one for kafir. The similarity between these two words may indicate it being a loan word for either of these two languages. ............

 

 

Bazi konularda bilgiyi sozlukten edinmek insani yaniltabilir, boyle durumlarda - desteksiz atmak yerine - biraz daha mutevazi olmak faydalidir.

Blasphemy in Islam

Blasphemy in Islam is irreverent behavior toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs that Muslims respect.

Yukarida gorecegin gibi Islamda "blashemy" dine karsi olmakla degil, Islami degerlere karsi olmakla ilgili bir gunahtir. Kafir sozcugu ise tanrinin varligini inkar edenleri tarif eder.

Temelde Islam - ve kuran´in ogretisi - Hz Musayi da Hz Isayi da tanrinin peygamberleri olarak kabul eder. Ancak ne Yahudiler, ne de Hristiyanlar Hz Muhammedi peygamber kabul etmediklerinden esasda Islamin cok temel bir olgusunu reddetmekte, dolayisi ile de (hakaret veya degil) GAVUR tanimina girmektedirler. Ancak Islam inancina gore, her iki grup da Islamin tanrisina inandiklarindan (farkli bir tanriya degil) kendilerine KAFIR demek caiz degil, hatta gunahtir.

Gavura, gavur demek sonradan ayip telakki edilmeye baslanmistir. Yazdigin mesaj dogru degil...Bence geri cek.

 

 



Edited (10/16/2010) by AlphaF

41.       vineyards
1954 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 01:12 am

OK. AlphaF thinks the word blasphemy has a different meaning in the Islamic faith. Since the forum language is English, I have to respond in English. I may be 100% wrong and he may be right. It is up to those who are interested to find out what is right and what is wrong.  The Internet is full of references. You can either do the Waka Waka or Wiki Wiki it is up to you.

For the time being, I include a list of items which are considered acts of blasphemy in Islam. Source: Wikipedia

  • speculating about how Prophet Muhammad would behave if he were alive (Nigeria).[29][30]
  • writing Prophet Muhammad´s name on the walls of a toilet (Pakistan).[37]
  • naming a teddy bear Muhammad (Sudan).[38][39]
  • stating facts such as: Prophet Muhammad´s parents were not Muslims (Pakistan).[40][41]
  • invoking Allah while committing a forbidden act.[8]

[edit]Blasphemy against beliefs and customs

Individuals have been accused of blasphemy or of insulting Islam for:

  • saying Islam is an Arab religion; prayers five times a day are unnecessary; and the Quran is full of lies (Indonesia).[46]
  • finding fault with a belief or a practice which the Muslim community (Ummah) has adopted.[47]
  • finding fault with or cursing apostles, prophets, or angels.[47]
  • using words that Muslims use because the individuals were not Muslims (Malaysia).[25][63][64]
  • praying that Muslims become something else (Indonesia).[65]
  • whistling during prayers (Indonesia).[66]
  • reciting Muslim prayers in a language other than Arabic (Indonesia).[66]
  • being alone with persons of the opposite sex who are not blood relatives.[66]
  • publishing an unofficial translation of the Quran (Afghanistan).[72]
  • watching a film or listening to music (Somalia).[74]
  • wearing make-up on television (Iran).[75]
  • insulting religious scholarship.[8]
  • wearing the clothing of Jews or of Zoroastrians.[8]
  • claiming that forbidden acts are not forbidden.[8]
  • uttering "words of infidelity" (sayings that are forbidden).[8]
  • participating in non-Islamic religious festivals.[8]

[edit]Blasphemy against artifacts

Individuals have been accused of blasphemy or of insulting Islam for:

  • touching a Quran or touching something that has touched a Quran because the individuals were not Muslim (Nigeria).[76][77][78][79]

42.       girleegirl
5065 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 05:12 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Ha! Now we´ve got a proof that whenever the T(equilla) word is spoken, GG appears. You´re like a genie in a tequilla bottle GG lol

 

 Jeanie

AlphaF liked this message
43.       missclimpson
2 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 06:45 am

I guess I hit a nerve. I was only talking about my tolerance of the heat.

 

I live in Minnesota. Feel free to comment on our climate! Those sub-zero days when the wind bites your face. Yummy!

44.       si++
3785 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 10:09 am

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

"Gavur" means "non-moslem" and differs from "kafir" which means "infidel".

Whether or not an apology is required, after calling a "non-moslem" person, non-moslem is for non-moslems to decide...

PLEASE HELP CREATE A NEW TURKISH WORD TO COLLECTIVELY DESCRIBE PERSONS FAITHFUL TO SOME RELIGION, EXCEPT ISLAM.

ONCE THE NEW WORD IS AGREED UPON, THE WORD "GAVUR" WILL BE PERMANENTLY ERADICATED FROM TURKISH LANGUAGE.

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

 

Gavur is offensive word. Non-muslims in Turkie are offended by this word to be used to describe themselves. Someone of a state minister shouldn´t have used it.

 

That said, I use it (with good intentions of course) more often than "gayr-i muslim" but in closed circles (among family, close friends or people I am comfortable in using the word with). I wouldn´t use it when I am speaking on TV for example.

 

45.       si++
3785 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 10:15 am

Video of Azerbaijani army made fuss in Turkey (video)

October 15, 2010 | 14:59

Starting October 15 morning Turkish users of the Facebook have been actively discussing a video called “Shots of brutal treatment in the Turkish armed forces” demonstrating officers who are beating and insulting soldiers.

The Turkish press also made a fuss, as they initially thought the video depicted Turkish army. In the video Turkic words are heard as well. However, according to another version, the video was shot in the Azerbaijani army, as the portraits of the Aliyevs, father and son, as well as Azerbaijani flag were hung on the walls.

A number of Turkish outlets reported that the video is a provocation by Kurds who are well aware of the fact that it was shot in Azerbaijan. However, they posted it to defame the Turkish army.

The video appeared on the Internet over a year ago, but has recently reached Turkey.

 

source: here

46.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 11:05 am

 

Quoting si++

 

 

Gavur is offensive word. Non-muslims in Turkie are offended by this word to be used to describe themselves. Someone of a state minister shouldn´t have used it.

 

That said, I use it (with good intentions of course) more often than "gayr-i muslim" but in closed circles (among family, close friends or people I am comfortable in using the word with). I wouldn´t use it when I am speaking on TV for example.

 

 

"Essek" can also be an offensive word, but not when used with reference to a jack ass.

Yahu, siz okudugunuzu anlamiyormusunuz?

 

47.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 01:01 pm

I´m not fluent enough in Turkish to know whether the word is insulting or not, but, I assume, we might compare it to the word "infidel." Somehow I can´t imagine any public person talking about non-believers as infidels, let alone blasphemers. The thing is public officials, especially in a secular country should best avoid using derogatory terms describing people having a different set of beliefs. Non-Muslim would seem more appropriate as it is quite neutral.

48.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 01:21 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

 

Gavur is offensive word. Non-muslims in Turkie are offended by this word to be used to describe themselves. Someone of a state minister shouldn´t have used it.

 

That said, I use it (with good intentions of course) more often than "gayr-i muslim" but in closed circles (among family, close friends or people I am comfortable in using the word with). I wouldn´t use it when I am speaking on TV for example.

 

 

+1000

It is vulgar and derogatory. It is quite cheap too!!

A state official using it makes you think what sort of cultural level, what sort of mind set those people, who are running the state, have..

49.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 01:26 pm

 

Quoting si++

Video of Azerbaijani army made fuss in Turkey (video)

October 15, 2010 | 14:59

Starting October 15 morning Turkish users of the Facebook have been actively discussing a video called “Shots of brutal treatment in the Turkish armed forces” demonstrating officers who are beating and insulting soldiers.

The Turkish press also made a fuss, as they initially thought the video depicted Turkish army. In the video Turkic words are heard as well. However, according to another version, the video was shot in the Azerbaijani army, as the portraits of the Aliyevs, father and son, as well as Azerbaijani flag were hung on the walls.

A number of Turkish outlets reported that the video is a provocation by Kurds who are well aware of the fact that it was shot in Azerbaijan. However, they posted it to defame the Turkish army.

The video appeared on the Internet over a year ago, but has recently reached Turkey.

 

source: here

 

I have seen the video. But I can not understand what´s the fuss about it ..May be it was years ago but I have seen the same treatments when I was in the army.. (apart from the fact that I have seen very similar one -one sergeant slapping the entire team first then kicking them on their shinbone, I have seen much worse than that in the video.Somehow, I still remember sergeants beating a boy because he stole a quarter of a bread loaf when getting his food..He was just hungry, I guess)

And all those were considered as normal..

Somehow I remember the incident ´an officer pulling the pin of a hand granade and giving it to a soldier as a punishment´ a year ago.

 



Edited (10/16/2010) by thehandsom

50.       si++
3785 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 02:57 pm

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

 

A state official using it makes you think what sort of cultural level, what sort of mind set those people, who are running the state, have..

 

I think there is example of it in the post #10 in this thread.

51.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 16 Oct 2010 Sat 09:15 pm

About stealing bread from other mates´ rations

Well !..there is a fine line difference between Turkish Army and the Salvation Army, when it comes to such matters.

 

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

Unmei-de-Lange liked this message
52.       stumpy
638 posts
 17 Oct 2010 Sun 12:19 am

Video of Azerbaijani army made fuss in Turkey (video)

Firstly if people think that joining the army is a picnic, especially the training period they are mistaking and secondly the one doing most of the kicking and slapping looks like he has either been drinking or taken something.

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}



Edited (10/17/2010) by stumpy

53.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 17 Oct 2010 Sun 01:16 am

When Poland had compulsory army service, the topic of violence (we call it wave) in the army would come back every in the media every month. There were some cases of death, that´s how far stupidity goes in such places. Older soldiers would bully younger ones just because they had been bullied themselves. Sometimes it would go over the top, and media would pick it up.

Correct me if I´m wrong but all kinds of organisations have their brutal ways, I´ve recently rread an article about Greeks in the US (I mean students organisations not the immigrants). A few cases of death have been reported during the initiation.

I have no idea why we, humans, forget our morality as soon as we get minimum power.

yilgun-2010 liked this message
54.       yilgun-2010
572 posts
 17 Oct 2010 Sun 02:44 am

Daydreamer:

"I have no idea why we, humans, forget our morality as soon as we get minimum power".

Good observation.This is the question.

55.       si++
3785 posts
 17 Oct 2010 Sun 08:48 am

Armenian madam arrested in Turkey

October 16, 2010 | 08:01

Turkish law enforcement arrested 18 people in the city of Trabzon, among them 15 women, Armenian and Georgian nationals, who were engaged in prostitution, their madam - Gohar Kirakosyan from Armenia and one policeman.

According to Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 10 months ago, Turkish police received information that illegal women were brought from Armenia and Georgia to Turkey and were forced into prostitution. October 14 during a search of three hotels, six cafes and eight houses, 18 people were brought to police station.

It was discovered that the head of the gang, 48 year old Gohar Kirakosyan who became a Turkish citizen by marrying a Turk is wanted in Armenia on trafficking charges.

In addition, it appeared that most of the arrested women were in Turkey illegally. Members of the group acted quite cautiously, used codes. For example, the word prostitution is replaced by the phrase “drinking tea”, but the word prostitute, “bag”, etc.

All 18 detainees were brought to court; foreign women will be deported from Turkey by a court order.

 

source: here

56.       si++
3785 posts
 19 Oct 2010 Tue 09:48 am

Swaying causes running wariness over Bosphorus Bridge

 

Some experts in Turkey fear the Bosphorus Bridge may share the fate of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which collapsed due to wind-induced vibrations in 1940. AA photo


Some experts in Turkey fear the Bosphorus Bridge may share the fate of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which collapsed due to wind-induced vibrations in 1940. AA photo
Play this video


Vibrations created by the footsteps of the tens of thousands of people who crossed the Bosphorus Bridge on Sunday caused the span to swing dangerously, experts have said, a claim the Istanbul Highways Directorate disputed.

According to experts, the phenomenon behind the swinging of the bridge, called “resonance,” occurs when an external vibration – such as that caused by the wind or heavy pedestrian traffic – matches the natural sway of the span, creating a feedback loop that amplifies the motion, potentially to the point of collapsing the bridge.

The provincial highways directorate said in an official statement Monday, however, that the swinging of the bridge was due to resonance and that the motion observed in the bridge’s electricity pillars was within safe limits.

“In order to create resonance, all the pedestrians would have to have been taking their steps at the same time, as in military order, creating only one frequency level,” the statement said. It added that the bridge’s systems issue a warning if safe swinging limits are exceeded and no such warning was given during Sunday’s Intercontinental Istanbul Eurasia Marathon.

Professor Ahmet Vefik Alp, an engineer, disagreed, saying the situation on the bridge was very dangerous. “A great threat was avoided,” he told daily Milliyet on Sunday. Asked why the same thing did not happen during last year’s marathon, the only time each year that the bridge is open to pedestrians, Alp told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review that the incident was the result of coincidence. “This time, the resonances overlapped,” he said.

This year’s marathon, which included a 15-kilometer race and an 8-kilometer “fun run,” also saw a large increase in the number of people participating, in part due to the sunny weather Sunday. Officials with the Istanbul Governor’s Office and the highways directorate, as well as police officials and bridge engineers, will meet with event organizers Tuesday for a routine evaluation of the marathon. They are also expected to discuss the swinging on the bridge and the massive amount of public participation in the event.

“Of course the [resonance] issue will be on the table. And not only the physical security of the bridge, but also the long time it took to get the crowd off the bridge and the problems caused by this will also be discussed,” Ozan Çakır, the coordinator of the Eurasia Marathon told the Daily News. According to Çakır, more than 200,000 people crossed the bridge as part of the marathon-related events. Due to the higher-than-expected participation, it took 100 minutes longer than the estimated time to reopen the bridge to traffic.

If bridge engineers and police officials conclude that the masses of people on the bridge put the structure and human life at risk, the organizers will reconsider how they structure the public race on the bridge, Çakır said.

.graybox2 { font-family: Georgia,Times,Times New Roman,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; }.graybox2 a { padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none; }.graybox2 a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }

More on Tacoma bridge
VIDEO: Watch the collapse in 1940 of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the United States. (Outside link)

Construction experts said the fact that the resonance effect stopped after a time showed that the bridge had overcome the risk of collapse. A similar effect famously caused the collapse in 1940 of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the United States.

Engineer Alp said pedestrians should no longer be allowed to cross the Bosphorus Bridge and advised officials to examine whether the motion created Sunday had caused any damage to the bridge.

Architect Orhan Erdil also said the resonance of the bridge created a dangerous situation that could have led to the bridge’s collapse, daily Milliyet reported. According to Erdil, the motion was caused by having so many people run over the bridge at the same time. “If a division of soldiers marched over a bridge, the same thing could happen again,” he said.

The number of participants in the Eurasia Marathon was limited in 2000 for bridge security after the massive attendance in a prior event. Some 150,000 people participated in 1999, less than the estimates for this year.

 

source: here

57.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 19 Oct 2010 Tue 11:21 am

 

Quoting si++

Swaying causes running wariness over Bosphorus Bridge



 

Where are the Kurds or the Armenians in this news? 

Ah.. Maybe some Kurds and Armenians blended in as the runners and marched like soldiers to create´ resonance´ on the bridge to scare people..eh? lol

ps..Theoretically, it is possible that ´only one person´ can create resonance on a suspension bridge by stomping with a carefully selected timing..

58.       si++
3785 posts
 19 Oct 2010 Tue 11:30 am

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

 

Where are the Kurds or the Armenians in this news? 

??

 

59.       slavica
814 posts
 19 Oct 2010 Tue 12:49 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

??

 

 

If I understand well, it is so called "sarcasm" {#emotions_dlg.suspicious}

thehandsom liked this message
60.       si++
3785 posts
 20 Oct 2010 Wed 08:26 am

Turkey’s chief negotiator for EU membership under an egg attack

October 19, 2010 | 23:08

After participating in a conference, held at the University of Ankara, Turkey’s chief negotiator for EU membership Egemen Bağış was the victim of an egg attack, organized by university students.

As the Turkish NTV reports, at a time when Bağış was accompanied out of the building by bodyguards, a group of students - members of the Communist Party - began shouting slogans against the wearing of headscarf and threw eggs at the Minister.

Stunned bodyguards did not have time to open umbrellas, and one of the eggs hit the Minister in his head.

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/EhKfLfUYCQk

 

 

61.       si++
3785 posts
 20 Oct 2010 Wed 06:18 pm

And Rijkaard leaves

Turkey´s Galatasaray parts ways with coach, approaches former coach; yet fails again.

And Rijkaard leaves

Galatasaray says it has ended its contract with coach Frank Rijkaard.

In a statement posted on its official website on Wednesday, Galatasaray also says it terminated trainer Johan Neeskens´ contract.

Galatasaray made a disappointing start to the season and fans have been calling for Rijkaard´s resignation.

The decision to part ways with Rijkaard follows a 2-1 defeat to Karabükspor last week, and a 4-2 loss to Ankaragücü this week in the Turkish Superleague.

Followingly Galatasaray approached its former coach Fatih Terim for the position, but Terim rejected the offer for “family reasons.”

Rijkaard coached Barcelona before moving to Galatasaray.

 

source: here

62.       si++
3785 posts
 26 Oct 2010 Tue 08:53 am

Iverson, Beşiktaş to have official deal Friday

Basketball-Iverson set to join Turkey´s Besiktaş.

Iverson, Beşiktaş to have official deal Friday

Allen Iverson, one of the NBA´s most prolific scorers, is set to sign for Turkey´s Besiktaş on a two-year contract worth an annual $2 million, Turkish media reported on Monday.

Iverson played 10 seasons with the Philadelphia 76ers between 1996-2006, winning the league MVP award in 2001, before rejoining the team in 2009.

In March 2010 he announced he would miss the remainder of the season for personal reasons.

"Iverson wants to come and play for Besiktaş," club board member Şeref Yalçın told state-run Anatolia news agency.

"I will go to the United States on Friday and talk to him face to face... I think we´ll have an official deal after this meeting," he added. Besiktaş Basketball club was unavailable for comment.

Turkey hosted this year´s basketball World Championships and lost to the United States in the final 81-64.

 

source: here

63.       si++
3785 posts
 27 Oct 2010 Wed 09:34 am

Erdogan’s demand makes newlyweds blush

 

 

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a witness at the wedding party of member of Istanbul Provincial Parliament Filiz Altun and Sukru Murat Akaycan.

Before handing the marriage certificate to the couple, Turkish Premier stressed men do not keep the certificate properly and gave it to the bride.

Erdogan advised the newlywed to have at least 3 children. “For years, some forces have been trying to dry up roots of Turkish people and making every effort to make Turkish nation old. Taking into account birth-rate growth, age of 60% of Turkish population will be under 65 by 2037. This is the reason I advise my brothers to be consistent with the matter. I repeat this at every weeding party,” Recep Edogan noted.

 

source: here

64.       si++
3785 posts
 28 Oct 2010 Thu 02:53 pm

 

I thought there was ban for smoking cigarettes in closed areas. Today I went to the cafe I usually go and there were people smoking cigarettes and even nargiles inside. I immediately left and I checked 2 more cafes nearby to find a place where nobody smokes. I couldn´t find any.

 

I don´t think I will go there again.

65.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 28 Oct 2010 Thu 05:05 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

I thought there was ban for smoking cigarettes in closed areas. Today I went to the cafe I usually go and there were people smoking cigarettes and even nargiles inside. I immediately left and I checked 2 more cafes nearby to find a place where nobody smokes. I couldn´t find any.

 

I don´t think I will go there again.

 

 I can definitely sympathize, si++!  I went to Turkey a few months ago and people where still smoking inside of many restaurants (more so in the smaller cities.  I didn´t encounter this in Istanbul at all).  I wouldn´t be so concerned but I had my children with me and one is just a baby.  It will take some time before people get used to the idea of not smoking in public areas.  It isn´t something that happens overnight.  I could absolutely see an improvement from my past visits however! 

66.       catwoman
8933 posts
 28 Oct 2010 Thu 11:11 pm

 

Quoting si++

Erdogan’s demand makes newlyweds blush

 

 

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a witness at the wedding party of member of Istanbul Provincial Parliament Filiz Altun and Sukru Murat Akaycan.

Before handing the marriage certificate to the couple, Turkish Premier stressed men do not keep the certificate properly and gave it to the bride.

Erdogan advised the newlywed to have at least 3 children. “For years, some forces have been trying to dry up roots of Turkish people and making every effort to make Turkish nation old. Taking into account birth-rate growth, age of 60% of Turkish population will be under 65 by 2037. This is the reason I advise my brothers to be consistent with the matter. I repeat this at every weeding party,” Recep Edogan noted.

 

source: here

 

Muhahah Crazy talk. {#emotions_dlg.you_crazy} I´d be curious to know what/who these "forces" trying to "dry up roots of turkish people" are...

67.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 28 Oct 2010 Thu 11:35 pm

 

Quoting catwoman

 

 

Muhahah Crazy talk. {#emotions_dlg.you_crazy} I´d be curious to know what/who these "forces" trying to "dry up roots of turkish people" are...

 

Cat, he has figured out the West´s evil plan to empower women with human rights (working, how many babies to have, who to marry, whether to have sex before marriage)!  {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}  How DARE they! 

 

68.       si++
3785 posts
 29 Oct 2010 Fri 08:16 am

Turkey hikes tax on alcohol

The raise on special consumption tax on alcoholic beverages is to meet 2011 budget goals .

Turkey hikes tax on alcohol

Turkey raised the special consumption tax it applies to alcoholic drinks. The flat charge on a liter of beer rose 26 percent to 44 kuruş (31 cents), the levy on a liter of wine increased 25 percent to 2.44 liras and the tax on national drink raki advanced 30 percent to 51.48 liras, according to a directive published in the Official Gazette in Ankara today.

The government aims to raise 61.1 billion liras from the special consumption tax in 2011, compared to 41.3 billion liras from the tax in the first nine months of this year. Forecast income tax receipts in 2011 are 47.3 billion liras.

 

source: here

69.       oeince
582 posts
 31 Oct 2010 Sun 12:00 am

Youtube is available in Turkey again. {#emotions_dlg.alcoholics} {#emotions_dlg.computer} Lets see when they will ban facebook and google {#emotions_dlg.razz}

70.       si++
3785 posts
 31 Oct 2010 Sun 08:29 am

 

Quoting oeince

Youtube is available in Turkey again. {#emotions_dlg.alcoholics} {#emotions_dlg.computer} Lets see when they will ban facebook and google {#emotions_dlg.razz}

 

What´s going on?

 

This page says it´s been lifted because a German company having the copyright of Atatürk videos have removed them from utube?? Whatta f*** is this?

71.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 31 Oct 2010 Sun 02:50 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

 

What´s going on?

 

This page says it´s been lifted because a German company having the copyright of Atatürk videos have removed them from utube?? Whatta f*** is this?

 

it´s the Turkish government´s idea of democracy and freedom of speech

catwoman, x-man and Elisabeth liked this message
72.       si++
3785 posts
 01 Nov 2010 Mon 06:45 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

it´s the Turkish government´s idea of democracy and freedom of speech

 

Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?

 

That said, yeah if there is such a law, it is banned as aresult.

 

Law No. 5651 on Internet bans was enacted during the time the current government is in power and because the ruling party is the one with the numbers in Parliament to potentially change it. But they don´t it.

73.       tomac
975 posts
 01 Nov 2010 Mon 12:42 pm

 

Quoting si++

Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?

 

This also surprised me - until now I thought it were just some videos uploaded by someone (not by some company), like millions of others on youtube.

74.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 01 Nov 2010 Mon 05:34 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

 

Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?

 

That said, yeah if there is such a law, it is banned as aresult.

 

Law No. 5651 on Internet bans was enacted during the time the current government is in power and because the ruling party is the one with the numbers in Parliament to potentially change it. But they don´t it.

 

I think it´s a bit different, a quick Google search returned this site. From what I read there, I gather that a gwermany-based Turkish company found a legal right to claim ownership of all videos featuring Ataturk. To me it seems like they trademarked him ha ha. So, logically, if all that features Ataturk belongs to them, they have the right to order Youtube removing copyright content.

Having said that, I find the Turkish law protecting Ataturk against freedom of speech ridiculous. What if the USA passed a similarily idiotic law to protect its presidents lol i wonder if Turks would be appalled at every instance of violation of this law. I don´t understand why people have to have "heros" imposed on them. Atatur was a human being. Love him if you want to, others may laugh at him - they should have the right to do it.

Demanding respect for public figures or religions by means of law is ridiculous. People can have their opinion about everything and everyone and should be free to voice it.

catwoman liked this message
75.       si++
3785 posts
 01 Nov 2010 Mon 06:01 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

I think it´s a bit different, a quick Google search returned this site. From what I read there, I gather that a gwermany-based Turkish company found a legal right to claim ownership of all videos featuring Ataturk. To me it seems like they trademarked him ha ha. So, logically, if all that features Ataturk belongs to them, they have the right to order Youtube removing copyright content.

Having said that, I find the Turkish law protecting Ataturk against freedom of speech ridiculous. What if the USA passed a similarily idiotic law to protect its presidents lol i wonder if Turks would be appalled at every instance of violation of this law. I don´t understand why people have to have "heros" imposed on them. Atatur was a human being. Love him if you want to, others may laugh at him - they should have the right to do it.

Demanding respect for public figures or religions by means of law is ridiculous. People can have their opinion about everything and everyone and should be free to voice it.

 

Well, you may find it idiotic, but I don´t like the idea people would swear at our great leader and not punished for that. No thanks. That law will be there.

 

By the way that law is not about protesting but swearing at him for example and some other nasty stuff.

76.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 01 Nov 2010 Mon 06:33 pm

 

Quoting si++

 

 

Well, you may find it idiotic, but I don´t like the idea people would swear at our great leader and not punished for that. No thanks. That law will be there.

 

By the way that law is not about protesting but swearing at him for example and some other nasty stuff.

i take it you are also against your people swearing against other world leaders? Like George W Bush or Putin for example? You know some people consider them to be great leaders too. And it´s only because their countries do not have as idiotic law protecting them that Turks may swear at them on, among others,  Youtube site

Funny how things work one way, isn´t it?

 

77.       si++
3785 posts
 01 Nov 2010 Mon 07:06 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

i take it you are also against your people swearing against other world leaders? Like George W Bush or Putin for example? You know some people consider them to be great leaders too. And it´s only because their countries do not have as idiotic law protecting them that Turks may swear at them on, among others,  Youtube site

Turks should have better things to do than swearing at them. Why would they do such things? Personally I wouldn´t, why should I?

Funny how things work one way, isn´t it?

 

 

I think we are talking about different things.

 

Yes there is a law for punishment of those who swear at Atatürk but utube ban is not based on that law. There is another law (Law No. 5651 on Internet bans) which we should be talking about. As I said earlier that law was enacted by the current political party in power.

78.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:55 am

Oh, I wouldn´t swear at anyone, that´s not my style. Ok, I might be guilty of an occassional "idiot" comment but I´d never call someone names. Still it doesn´t mean I never pass judgements. Quite contrary, if I don´t like something, I say it. The difference between name calling and criticising lies in the language and means used. My favourite way to get my point across is ridicule, it works better than swearing, which seems a bit too boorish.

I think some laws in Turkey are anti-democratic and certainly do nothing but ridicule the person they´re trying to protect. You know, real heroes protect themselves by living a life nobody can find a reason to criticise. Turning a regular human being into a godlike creature only makes them seem weak and pitiful. It´s amusing to see an 80 million country taught to love and respect the memory of a guy who had his faults like everyone else. There have been systems like this, ie 3rd Reich, Castro´s Cuba or Stalin´s Russia. In all of these countries "not loving the leader" was considered a coup d´etat. From a perspective, though, all "heroes" were as pitiful and ridiculous as the laws that protected them.

Again, hero´s memory protects itself. If it can´t then it´as not a hero, just a propaganda device...

catwoman liked this message
79.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 01:11 pm

What is amusing?? Atatürk is the founder of TR, he had affected the history of Turks, and of course Turks have love and respect for their leader, what is wrong with that? He is hero for Turks, and possibly not a hero for the nations whose aims tripped by him. In any society swearing is not welcomed, and may provoke people of that society if you are swearing to one who is respected. By the way numerous times I had witnessed that you are parroting the same thing that he was turned into godlike, and I will respond to you with the same argument, you are obsessed with the respect of Turks to Atatürk. Lastly check your description of hero dear, fits much like the definition of godlike...

Quoting Daydreamer

It´s amusing to see an 80 million country taught to love and respect the memory of a guy who had his faults like everyone else.

 

 

80.       si++
3785 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 02:20 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Oh, I wouldn´t swear at anyone, that´s not my style. Ok, I might be guilty of an occassional "idiot" comment but I´d never call someone names. Still it doesn´t mean I never pass judgements. Quite contrary, if I don´t like something, I say it. The difference between name calling and criticising lies in the language and means used. My favourite way to get my point across is ridicule, it works better than swearing, which seems a bit too boorish.

I think some laws in Turkey are anti-democratic and certainly do nothing but ridicule the person they´re trying to protect. You know, real heroes protect themselves by living a life nobody can find a reason to criticise. Turning a regular human being into a godlike creature only makes them seem weak and pitiful. It´s amusing to see an 80 million country taught to love and respect the memory of a guy who had his faults like everyone else. There have been systems like this, ie 3rd Reich, Castro´s Cuba or Stalin´s Russia. In all of these countries "not loving the leader" was considered a coup d´etat. From a perspective, though, all "heroes" were as pitiful and ridiculous as the laws that protected them.

Again, hero´s memory protects itself. If it can´t then it´as not a hero, just a propaganda device...

 

Yes we have turned into a godlike creature and yeah he was an human but you know what? I don´t have any problem with his godlike status. If I live here where we call Turkiye today we all owe it to him. If he´s godlike so be it! What´s the problem with it for you when we don´t see it as a problem??

 

81.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 02:39 pm

I don´t have a problem with Ataturk´s cult, I just find it silly. Of course you´re free to admire whoever you want, there´s nothing wrong with it. It does appear a bit dangerous when it becomes the law. I mean, shouldn´t people be able to decide themselves who their hero is?

 

Armegon - that´s the thing, Ataturk doesn´t seem to be treated like a hero but like a god. I wonder what the results of a poll asking "Whom do you like best: god or Ataturk?" would be in Turkey lol Don´t misunderstand me, I´m not obssessed with being anti-Ataturk. On the contrary, I think he did a fine job reducing religious influence in Turkey. It´s the idea of incorporating love for an actual person into your legal system that makes me laugh.

It might be a cultural thing, we Poles are anti-authoritarian and hate being forced into anything. the more propaganda we got, the more we rebelled against it. Maybe for Turks it´s different - force them to love somebody and they will, especially if you may end up in prison if you don´t follow the crowd

82.       yilgun-2010
572 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 03:09 pm

I have read the world history.

BUT:I have not seen a perfect leader like ATATÜRK in the world history. 

 

PS=

I think of course you don’t know the world history like a historian.You have no time to read it.But if you wish to learn the History of the Republic of  TÜRKİYE (since 1923) after The OTTOMAN EMPIRE (1300-1922) and other Turkish states and empires in Asia, Africa and  Europe (There were 17 Turkish states or empires ( 204 BC – AD 1922) founded by Turks in the history before the foundation of Republic of TÜRKİYE)   read the World History and these books:

1- “ Nutuk “ ( Söylev ) by M.K.ATATÜRK (1927) 

2- “ Diriliş – Çanakkale 1915 “ by Turgut Özakman (2008) 

3- “ Şu Çılgın Türkler “ by Turgut Özakman (2008) 

4- “ Cumhuriyet – Türk Mucizesi “ by Turgut Özakman (2009) 

5- “ Cumhuriyet – Türk Mucizesi – İkinci Kitap “ by Turgut Özakman (201

Bir batılı tarihçi şöyle diyor: “Türkleri dünya tarihinden silerseniz, o zaman dünya tarihi diye bir şey kalmaz.Unutmayınız ki, kim bilir, siz de belki Türk geni taşıyorsunuzdur…”.

TURKISH EMPIRES AND STATES İN THE HİSTORY:

1-BÜYÜK HUN İMPARATORLUĞU (MÖ 204-MS 216)  - Great Hun Empire (204 BC - 216 AD)

2-BATI HUN  İMPARATORLUĞU ( MS 48 - 216) - Western Hun Empire (48 - 216 AD)

3- AVRUPA HUN İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 374 - 453) -European Hun Empire (374 - 453 AD)

4-AK KOYUNLU HUN İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 420-552) - Ak (White) Hun Empire (420 - 552 AD)

5-GÖKTÜRK İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 552-745) -Gokturk Empire (552 - 745 AD)

6-AVAR İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 565-835) - Avar Empire (565 - 835 AD)

7-HAZAR İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 651-983) - Khazar (Caspian) Empire (651 - 983 AD)

8-UYGUR DEVLETİ  ( MS 745-1368) - Uygur State (745 - 1368 AD)  

9-KARAHANLI DEVLETİ (MS 940-104 - Karahanli State (940 - 1040 AD)

10-GAZNELİ SULTANLIĞI (MS 962-1183) - Gazneli Sultanate (962 - 1183 AD)

11- BÜYÜK SELÇUKLU İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 1040-1157) - Greater Seljuk Empire (1040 – 1157 AD)

12-ANADULU SELÇUKLU DEVLETİ (MS 1015-1085) – Anatolian Seljuk State ( 1015- 1085 AD)

13- HARZEMŞAH DEVLETİ (MS 1097- 1231) - Kharzem Shah State ( 1097 - 1231 AD)

14- ALTIN ORDU DEVLETİ (MS 1236-1502  - The Golden Horde (1236 - 1502 AD)

15-BÜYÜK TİMUR İMPARATRLUĞU (MS 1368-1501) - Greater Timur Empire (1368 - 1501 AD)

16-BABÜR İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 1526- 1858) - Babur Empire (1526 - 1858 AD)

17-OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU (MS 1299-1922) -Ottoman Empire (1299 - 1922 AD)

18-TÜRKİYE CUMHURİYETİ DEVLETİ (MS 1923- &hellip  - Republic of Turkey (1923 AD - today)  

19-KUZEY KIBRIS TÜRK CUMHURİYETİ (1983-&hellip – Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ( 1983 AD – Today)

 

TURKS HAVE PLAYED CRUCİAL ROLES İN HİSTORY, THROUGHOUT THE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF THEİR HİSTORY.TURKS HAVE FOUNDED MORE THAN A HUNDRED SMAL AND LARGE STATES ON THE CONTİNENTS O ASİA, EUROPE AND AFRİCA.

 

İT İS WİDELY BELİEVED THAT THE TERM “TURKS” REFERS TO A PLİTİCAL ENTİTY RATHER THAN TO AN ETHNİC İDENTİTY.

THERE İS NO ANY DEFİNİTE ETHNİCAL İDENTİTY İN TURKS.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE MARRİED  PEOPLE OF ASİAN, MONGOL, SPANİSH, FRENCH, RUSSİAN, AMERİCAN, AUSTRALİAN, ARAP, ROMANİAN, JEW, SERBİAN, İTALİAN, CHİNESE, ETC.

WİTHİN TODAYS WORLDS, THERE ARE SİX İNDEPENDENT TURKİSH STATES FROM THE MODERN TURKİSH REPUBLİC, THESE İNCLUDE AZERBAİJAN, KAZAKHSTAN, KYRGYZSTAN, TÜRKMENİSTAN, UZBEKİSTAN AND THE TURKİSH REPUBLİC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS –WHİCH İS ONLY RECOGNİZED BY THE REPUBLİC OF TÜRKİYE-.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL TURKİSH AUTONOMOUS REPUBLİCS, THESE  İNCLUDE BASHKİR, CHUVASH, TATAR, KABARDİNO-BALKARİA, KARA-KALPAK, NAKHİCHEVAN AND XİNGJİAN.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TURKİSH AUTONOMOUS REGİONS, THESE İNCLUDE THE ALTAİ REPUBLİC, KARACHAY-CHERKESSİA, KHAHASS, GAGAUZ AND NOGORNO-KARABAKH İN AJERBAİJAN WHİCH CAME UNDER ARMENİAN OCCUPATİON İN 1991.

 

SOME OTHER TURKİSH PEOPLE ARE İN THE CRİMEAN TATARS, THE KARAİM AND THE KRYMCHAKS İN THE  CRİMEAN PENİNSULA, THE MESHETİAN TURKS, THE NOGAİ AND THE KUMKY İN DAGESTAN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLİC.

İN ADDİTİON, THERE ARE SEVERAL TURKİSH-İNHABİTED REGİONS İN İRAN, IRAQ, GEORGİA, BULGARİA, GREECE, MACEDONİA, TAJİKİSTAN, AFGHANİSTAN AND WESTERN MONGOLİA.

SOME TURKİSH TRİBES MİGRATED TO EASTERN AND WESTERN EUROPE, BALKANS, AFRİCA, AMERİCA, ASİA  AND AUSTRALİA. 

AN ANOTHER RESEARCH O TURKS BY EUROPEANS:

TURKIC - TURKISH  STATES  IN HISTORY  and  OUR TİME
 
A- There was 16 Turkish empires and states founded by the Turks before the foundation  of  Republic of Türkiye  - Turkey - in history =
 
1- Asya Hun Devleti : Great Hun Empire (204 BC - 216 AD) - Teoman, Mete Han -
2- Batı Hun Devleti :  Western Hun Empire (48 - 216 AD)
3- Avrupa Hun Devleti : European Hun Empire (375 - 469 AD) - Attila
4- Ak Hunlar : Ak (White) Hun Empire (420 - 552 AD)
5- Göktürk Devleti :  Gokturk Empire (552 - 745 AD) - Bumin Kağan -
6- Avarlar : Avar Empire (565 - 835 AD)
7- Khazar (Caspian) Empire (651 - 983 AD)
8- Uygurlar : Uygur State (745 - 1368 AD) - Kutluk Bilge Kül Kağan -
9- Karahanlılar : Karahanli State (840 - 1242 AD) - Bilge Kül Kadir Han -
10- Gazneliler : Gazneli Sultanate (963 - 1187 AD) - Alp Tiğin -
11- Büyük Selçuklu Devleti : Greater Seljuk Empire (1040 - 1157 AD) - Tuğrul Bey, Çağrı Bey -
12- Harzemşahlar : Kharzem Shah State (1157 - 1231 AD)
13- The Golden Horde (1236 - 1502 AD)
14- Timurlar : Greater Timur Empire (1368 - 1501 AD)
15- Babürler : Babur Empire (1526 - 1858 AD)
16- Osmanlı İmparatorluğu : Ottoman Empire (1299 - 1923 AD) -
Ertuğrul Gazi, Osman Bey, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman -
 
B- There are 7 states founded by the Turks in the world at the present time =
 
1- Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti  (Republic of Turkey) – Ankara (1923 - today)
2- Özbekistan ( Uzbekistan – Taşkent )
3- Kazakistan ( Kazakhstan – Astana )
4- Kırgızistan ( Kyrgystan – Bishkek )
5- Türkmenistan ( Turkmenistan – Asgabat )
6- Azerbaycan ( Azerbaijan – Baki )
7- Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti ( Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – Nicosia )
 
C- And there are 30 Turkish unities  ( union, identity ) in the some world countries at the present time =
-Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region ( Urumqi)
 -Others

 

 

 



Edited (11/2/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (11/3/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (11/3/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (11/7/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (11/7/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (11/7/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (12/23/2010) by yilgun-2010
Edited (12/23/2010) by yilgun-2010

83.       catwoman
8933 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 05:07 pm

 

Quoting si++

Yes we have turned into a godlike creature and yeah he was an human but you know what? I don´t have any problem with his godlike status. If I live here where we call Turkiye today we all owe it to him. If he´s godlike so be it! What´s the problem with it for you when we don´t see it as a problem??

 

You have the right to treat anyone as godlike creature, but those who don´t, should also have the right not to.. would you agree? That is what Daydreamer is talking about when she talks about freedom of speech and democracy for everyone, not just you.. etc.

At the same time, I agree with you that Ataturk is special. Even though Erdogan would like to, he doesn´t have the same ´godlike´ status as Ataturk does, and it´s not Ataturk himself who´s enforcing these anti-democratic laws. Actually I think it´s ironic that Ataturk fought for freedom and democracy and now he´s being protected in anti-democratic ways. I think that if he was around, he´d end these laws and would continue to push Turkey towards more freedom. If I remember correctly though, some of these laws were started by Ataturk himself so that his reforms cannot be abolished by the oposition, and some of that is still a concern today. However, in my opinion, if there was freedom in Turkey to criticize both Islam and Ataturk, that would not be a threat. At this point there seems to be to many taboo subjects and insecurities among Turkish people and a great fear to change. Erdogan is scaremongering every day that the "turkish nation is under a threat of being uprooted".

Elisabeth liked this message
84.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 08:21 pm

Kitty got my point. A country should grant its citizens freedom to love, hate or stay indifferent to ANY person living or dead.

Yilgun - you can´t be more wrong, each single country has its Ataturk, a person who had a huge impact on how the country evolved. The difference is, not many countries, if any, ban publication of books or documents that might not be favourable to this person. Thus, if you grow up in a society that teaches only about how great a person was and doesn´t give you a chance to see the other side of the story, you will never be able to say that person is wonderful. It simply means you were given insufficient data I´ve read a nice Polish article about how speculations about Ataturk´s alcohol problems were immediately forbidden from seeing the light and has any critique of him. Not quite fair, is it? After all, it´s not like he turned Turkey into what his idea of a good country was overnight or without bloodshed. Just like all revolutionaries, he´s guilty of thousands of deaths of people who didn´t agree with him. That´s hardly unique or hero-like

When I read Turkish debates, it is like there are just two ways: either Islamic one or Kemalist one. And it´s not true. You can have a third one, and a fourth one...just like the world is not black and white, there are more than 2 ways for Turkey.

85.       catwoman
8933 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 08:41 pm

 

Quoting yilgun-2010

I have read the world history.

BUT:I have not seen a perfect leader like ATATÜRK in the world history.

 

lol {#emotions_dlg.stoneage}

86.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 09:25 pm

 

Quoting catwoman

You have the right to treat anyone as godlike creature, but those who don´t, should also have the right not to.. would you agree? That is what Daydreamer is talking about when she talks about freedom of speech and democracy for everyone, not just you.. etc.

 

 

But those who do, should not have right to request not to insult to him, would you agree? Insulting to him categorized as freedom of speech and democracy for everyone??

87.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 09:32 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

I´ve read a nice Polish article about how speculations about Ataturk´s alcohol problems were immediately forbidden from seeing the light and has any critique of him. Not quite fair, is it? After all, it´s not like he turned Turkey into what his idea of a good country was overnight or without bloodshed. Just like all revolutionaries, he´s guilty of thousands of deaths of people who didn´t agree with him. That´s hardly unique or hero-like

 

Yeah that Polish article writer knows the all truth about him, perhaps he/she cheated from Rıza Nur...

88.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:30 pm

 

Quoting armegon

 

 

Yeah that Polish article writer knows the all truth about him, perhaps he/she cheated from Rıza Nur...

 

haha you missed the point. The article was not a statement that he actually was an alcoholic but a description of the fact that as soon as such voices were heard they were immediately silenced. Of course, how could a Polish author know the truth if even Turkish ones don´t? lol I don´t think you can find any articles or books criticising Ataturk in libraries, can you? I´ve read somewhere that even letters and diaries of Latife are securely locked in a bank and neither historians or journalists cannot get to them. What if they contain the sad reality where Ataturk spends evenings drinking and playing cards with male friends rather than his wife? Would that make him a less important person in turkish history? I doubt it. What he did was crucial for the rise of the Republic. You don´t need to make a saint of him to appreciate him. 

Democracy and freedom of speech don´t grant you the right to insult. Of course! If somebody calls you an idiot for no reason, you can sue them. But there´s a line between criticising public people and insulting them. If stating you don´t love Ataturk is considered an isult, there´s something very wrong with the law

 

stumpy liked this message
89.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:36 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

.. It does appear a bit dangerous when it becomes the law. I mean, shouldn´t people be able to decide themselves who their hero is?

 

 that´s the thing, Ataturk doesn´t seem to be treated like a hero but like a god. ...

It might be a cultural thing, we Poles are anti-authoritarian and hate being forced into anything. the more propaganda we got, the more we rebelled against it. Maybe for Turks it´s different - force them to love somebody and they will, especially if you may end up in prison if you don´t follow the crowd

 

It is not different in Turkey either.. I think people generically speaking are anti-authoritarian... Even the North Koreans..I am sure they are showing that solidarity because of the stick!! Even in Romania..I remember late Chauchesku was elected with  100% votes and clapped by everyone standing up, just a month before he got killed by the same people.. People have started to criticise Ataturk with the latest law changes without fearing prosecution.. Those laws are not helping anything but causing a huge embarresment for all of us..

Anyway..

One of the best analysis about people worshipping Ataturk comes from Murat Belge.
He mentions about a joke: It is about a conversation between Ataturk and Hasan Ali Yucel who was the first education minister and also Can Yucel´s father.
Ataturk asks ´what is a zero?´, Hasan Ali Yucel replies ´zero is me standing in front of you´!!


Murat Belge thinks that this was not an ordinary flattering. He think there were people around Ataturk and they really thought ´that way´ about their leader. Their feelings against Ataturk, were transformed into rituals later on with all those festivals like ´19 may youth festival; 23 April children´s festival etc´

He thinks ´if a person is able to describe himself as "I am a zero" towards the person he respects´ is up to that person..But if the message to the entire people is that ´you are nothing where as he is everything; you can not even come close to him, dont even think about it´ or the worshipping towards him is presented in this way, there is a serious defect, there is a pathology in that society.

As a matter of fact there is.

 

90.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:45 pm

I do not think I missed the point. Did I say that article says he was alcoholic? I only mentioned that he was maybe affected by some slanderers. Of course he was drinking, he has also weak belief in traditional Islam teachings but those does not change anything about the importance of him.

It is true there is a line between criticizing and insulting, and everyone has right to comment on if the statement about him is a critical or an insult, and everyone has right to appeal the courts, in the end Turkish judiciary will decide...

Quoting Daydreamer

haha you missed the point. The article was not a statement that he actually was an alcoholic but a description of the fact that as soon as such voices were heard they were immediately silenced. Of course, how could a Polish author know the truth if even Turkish ones don´t? lol I don´t think you can find any articles or books criticising Ataturk in libraries, can you? I´ve read somewhere that even letters and diaries of Latife are securely locked in a bank and neither historians or journalists cannot get to them. What if they contain the sad reality where Ataturk spends evenings drinking and playing cards with male friends rather than his wife? Would that make him a less important person in turkish history? I doubt it. What he did was crucial for the rise of the Republic. You don´t need to make a saint of him to appreciate him. 

Democracy and freedom of speech don´t grant you the right to insult. Of course! If somebody calls you an idiot for no reason, you can sue them. But there´s a line between criticising public people and insulting them. If stating you don´t love Ataturk is considered an isult, there´s something very wrong with the law

 

 

 

91.       tomac
975 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:48 pm

 

Quoting si++

Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?

 

This article contains a little bit more information about this case:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-lifts-ban-on-access-to-youtube-2010-10-31

Quote: A German-based international licensing service owned by a Turkish citizen bought the right to remove the disputed videos from YouTube and announced Friday that they were no longer viewable on the site. Following this development, the court in Ankara acted immediately to allow access to YouTube.

92.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:52 pm

It is again banned now{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

Quoting tomac

 

Quoting si++

Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?

 

This article contains a little bit more information about this case:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-lifts-ban-on-access-to-youtube-2010-10-31

Quote: A German-based international licensing service owned by a Turkish citizen bought the right to remove the disputed videos from YouTube and announced Friday that they were no longer viewable on the site. Following this development, the court in Ankara acted immediately to allow access to YouTube.

 

 

93.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:11 pm

I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god

94.       stumpy
638 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:13 pm

Quote:armegon

It is again banned now{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}
{#emotions_dlg.wtf} I just check the post 15 minutes ago and the ban was lifted now it´s back on!

the law makers are changing their minds faster than a PMS´ing woman who is getting dressed for a diner party( I just know I am going to get slammed for this one {#emotions_dlg.eeek} )

95.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:21 pm

Some people can also remain sceptical about the objectivity if some statements are not seen as insult which has many examples. Then let ask God to decide {#emotions_dlg.lol}

Quoting Daydreamer

I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god

 

 

96.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:21 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god

Why dont people go insult the likes of Winston Churchill; he miserably lost two important wars...Is there a law against insulting him, too?

 

97.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:21 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god

Why dont people go insult the likes of Winston Churchill; he miserably lost two important wars...Is there a law against insulting him, too?

 

98.       armegon
1872 posts
 02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:23 pm

This one is because of the videos of Baykal on youtube.Wink

Quoting stumpy

{#emotions_dlg.wtf} I just check the post 15 minutes ago and the ban was lifted now it´s back on!

the law makers are changing their minds faster than a PMS´ing woman who is getting dressed for a diner party( I just know I am going to get slammed for this one {#emotions_dlg.eeek} )

 

 

99.       oeince
582 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 12:03 am

Almost all authoroties in the world want the society to act within the borders they drow. Authorities want their policies to remain forever, thats why, they can forbid anything that may be a risk against their ethos. Indeed, almost none of the authorities care about how the society feels but how the societies feelings effect their power.

The reason why not to wear a scarf is forbidden in Iran is saving the regime. The same as the ban not to accept so called genocide in France. The authority existing there wishes, low profile relations with Turkey.

Eventually, The law of protecting Ataturk is existing just because to save the regime he brought. The authority do not want the symbol of the regime to be questioned in order it may be risky for the regime.

I think that kind of forbids remain as long as the communuties are leader based groups of human beings who gathers under the cloak of adorable supreme leaders. I know that anyone is adorable. Everyone has goods and foults. Me, as a person who tries to be responsible of his own life can not combine my self esteem with another human being. That chilidsh and sluggishly action would be disrispect to myself. If i did that, i would feel that i adore power!

If anyone think that there is democracy in the world, s/he fails. The democracy i believe doesn´t mean to choose one of the two alternatives that is introduced to the society. I am for the third way. I reject to be an extra passionate supporter of another human being but the supporter of my own values like justice, freedom, respect and etc.

tomac liked this message
100.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 12:36 am

 

Quoting armegon

Some people can also remain sceptical about the objectivity if some statements are not seen as insult which has many examples. Then let ask God to decide {#emotions_dlg.lol}

 

 

 

What if there´s no god? lol no hope for objective sentence either way

Alpha - you´re free to criticise Churchil. How about starting with giving Poland to Stalin? lol

101.       stumpy
638 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 12:36 am

Quote:AlphaF

Why dont people go insult the likes of Winston Churchill; he miserably lost two important wars...Is there a law against insulting him, too?

I agree that Ataturk was a brilliant statagist especially in the Gallapolie battle and yes Churchill and the King of England at the time used men from their "Dominions" ie Canada, Australians, ect... to fight their battles and if their were laws here in Canada forbiding us to speak against the king, queen and historical figures I would be the first one put to the gallows.

I do not know the history of Ataturk but under the cloak of a hero there is but a man.

 

 



Edited (11/3/2010) by stumpy

102.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 02:15 pm

Well actually, I read something about the whole youtube saga and the things seems quite bizarre:

-2 years ago some people put up some Ataturk videos containing insults to him from  Germany. (4 videos)

-in 2008, Turkey asked youtube to remove them.

-Youtube replied by ´fine, we will stop those videos being viewed by Turkish user with IP blocking´

-Then when everything was fine, the prosecutor asks one more thing: ´Blocking them for Turkey is not enough, stop them being viewed by the world´

-Youtube says ´That is well beyond Turkey´s jurisdiction´ and Turkey then bans youtube

-A Turkish entrepreneur living in Germany, undertakes the protection of copyright of the TRT (Turkish Radio Television) material.

-And they discover the videos are from TRT archives!!!!!!!-If you have the copyrights of a clip, you can ask youtube to remove those even if they are not uploaded by you.

-The  Turkish entrepreneur /the German company asks youtube to remove copyrighted materials and youtube removes them as their normal procedure..The ban is lifted!!

-And youtube did not understand how the ban was lifted as they did not know. 

-The vidoes are back into youtube apparently..

-And the ban has been reinstated for another reason..

 

How more embarrassing can it get?

catwoman liked this message
103.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 04:04 pm

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

Well actually, I read something about the whole youtube saga and the things seems quite bizarre:

-2 years ago some people put up some Ataturk videos containing insults to him from  Germany. (4 videos)

-in 2008, Turkey asked youtube to remove them.

-Youtube replied by ´fine, we will stop those videos being viewed by Turkish user with IP blocking´

-Then when everything was fine, the prosecutor asks one more thing: ´Blocking them for Turkey is not enough, stop them being viewed by the world´

-Youtube says ´That is well beyond Turkey´s jurisdiction´ and Turkey then bans youtube

-A Turkish entrepreneur living in Germany, undertakes the protection of copyright of the TRT (Turkish Radio Television) material.

-And they discover the videos are from TRT archives!!!!!!!-If you have the copyrights of a clip, you can ask youtube to remove those even if they are not uploaded by you.

-The  Turkish entrepreneur /the German company asks youtube to remove copyrighted materials and youtube removes them as their normal procedure..The ban is lifted!!

-And youtube did not understand how the ban was lifted as they did not know. 

-The vidoes are back into youtube apparently..

-And the ban has been reinstated for another reason..

 

How more embarrassing can it get?

 

hahaha we should be glad Turkey did not demand to close Youtube worldwide lol

I agree it makes Turkey a laughing stock but, hey, whatever rocks your boat lol

 

104.       lemon
1374 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 04:45 pm

{#emotions_dlg.think} quite interesting! Why dont Turks see that this obsession is over the top?

Quoting thehandsom

 

Well actually, I read something about the whole youtube saga and the things seems quite bizarre:

-2 years ago some people put up some Ataturk videos containing insults to him from  Germany. (4 videos)

-in 2008, Turkey asked youtube to remove them.

-Youtube replied by ´fine, we will stop those videos being viewed by Turkish user with IP blocking´

-Then when everything was fine, the prosecutor asks one more thing: ´Blocking them for Turkey is not enough, stop them being viewed by the world´

-Youtube says ´That is well beyond Turkey´s jurisdiction´ and Turkey then bans youtube

-A Turkish entrepreneur living in Germany, undertakes the protection of copyright of the TRT (Turkish Radio Television) material.

-And they discover the videos are from TRT archives!!!!!!!-If you have the copyrights of a clip, you can ask youtube to remove those even if they are not uploaded by you.

-The  Turkish entrepreneur /the German company asks youtube to remove copyrighted materials and youtube removes them as their normal procedure..The ban is lifted!!

-And youtube did not understand how the ban was lifted as they did not know. 

-The vidoes are back into youtube apparently..

-And the ban has been reinstated for another reason..

 

How more embarrassing can it get?

 

 

 

105.       catwoman
8933 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 05:20 pm

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

Well actually, I read something about the whole youtube saga and the things seems quite bizarre:

-2 years ago some people put up some Ataturk videos containing insults to him from  Germany. (4 videos)

-in 2008, Turkey asked youtube to remove them.

-Youtube replied by ´fine, we will stop those videos being viewed by Turkish user with IP blocking´

-Then when everything was fine, the prosecutor asks one more thing: ´Blocking them for Turkey is not enough, stop them being viewed by the world´

-Youtube says ´That is well beyond Turkey´s jurisdiction´ and Turkey then bans youtube

-A Turkish entrepreneur living in Germany, undertakes the protection of copyright of the TRT (Turkish Radio Television) material.

-And they discover the videos are from TRT archives!!!!!!!-If you have the copyrights of a clip, you can ask youtube to remove those even if they are not uploaded by you.

-The  Turkish entrepreneur /the German company asks youtube to remove copyrighted materials and youtube removes them as their normal procedure..The ban is lifted!!

-And youtube did not understand how the ban was lifted as they did not know. 

-The vidoes are back into youtube apparently..

-And the ban has been reinstated for another reason..

 

How more embarrassing can it get?

 

 

106.       MrsBee
190 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 05:44 pm

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

Youtube did not understand how the ban was lifted as they did not know. 

-The vidoes are back into youtube apparently..

-And the ban has been reinstated for another reason..

 

How more embarrassing can it get?

 

"Just two days ago, Transport Minister Binali Yildrim had said in a statement, "Ever since the insulting content was removed, there is no reason to continue the ban. I hope that they have also learned from this experience and the same thing will not happen again. YouTube will hopefully carry out its organization in Turkey within the limits of law in the future."
Source: http://www.usanewsweek.com/news/Turkey-Bans-Youtube-Once-Again-1288724889/

Personally, I don´t think that Google (Youtube) gives a flick.


"The world doesn´t just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?" (Memento)

107.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 05:55 pm

Yeah, I agree that Youtube doesn´t care about whether turkey allows it or not, especially that it´s more than easy to access Youtube from Turkey via proxy servers. It´s much ado about nothing, I think the Turkish government wants to show the country they´re fighting for their god´s respect and fail to see they do him more harm than good

108.       MrsBee
190 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:14 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Yeah, I agree that Youtube doesn´t care about whether turkey allows it or not, especially that it´s more than easy to access Youtube from Turkey via proxy servers. It´s much ado about nothing, I think the Turkish government wants to show the country they´re fighting for their god´s respect and fail to see they do him more harm than good

 

The ultimate question is ... what are they trying to achieve with this act? What is it good for? What are the consequences?

I guess they didn´t really think this through.

And yes, everybody uses Youtube. You don´t even need proxy servers, there is a little application for it, and computer geeks can solve this with a simple setting.

So basically, this fuss is all for nothing.

109.       stumpy
638 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:30 pm

The solution is simple....

Trademark any and all images and documents of Ataturk

Then when something is posted, infringment rights violation can be invoked and all video, image or stream that uses Ataturk´s image can be stopped

Sony Music does it for their sound tracks, how many videos were posted on youtube and were blocked by youtube because the soundtrack had infringments violations

110.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:33 pm

Stumpy - that´s actually what the germany-based Turkish company did when they asked Youtube to remove videos with Ataturk. But you can´t copyright a person, can you? Esopecially a public figure - anybody can draw or type his name and then express their opinion about him on Youtube

Elisabeth liked this message
111.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:38 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 Especially a public figure - anybody can draw or type his name and then express their opinion about him on Youtube

 

 Or maybe he will be like Voldemort in the Harry Potter stories and we will start calling him, "He who can´t be mentioned."{#emotions_dlg.lol}

Daydreamer liked this message
112.       stumpy
638 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:38 pm

Quote:daydreamer

Stumpy - that´s actually what the germany-based Turkish company did when they asked Youtube to remove videos with Ataturk. But you can´t copyright a person, can you? Esopecially a public figure - anybody can draw or type his name and then express their opinion about him on Youtube

Yes you can daydreamer, Elvis Presley is trademarked, no one can reproduce his image without the consent of Presley estate

As a result Elvis Presley is a trademark and anyone selling Presley related memorabilia in the U.S. must pay EPE an advance fee plus a royalty on every item

113.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:41 pm

 

Quoting stumpy

Yes you can daydreamer, Elvis Presley is trademarked, no one can reproduce his image without the consent of Presley estate

As a result Elvis Presley is a trademark and anyone selling Presley related memorabilia in the U.S. must pay EPE an advance fee plus a royalty on every item

 

 I think this is in regards to "selling" anything with his image.  I think you can still draw him, mention his name, dress up like him and even make fun of him without breaking the law.

114.       stumpy
638 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 06:51 pm

Quote:Elisabeth

I think you can still draw him, mention his name, dress up like him and even make fun of him without breaking the law.

True also, but if the estate deems that a certain representation is derogatory or insulting it will be most likely removed from circulation.  Why do some vidoes on youtube have no sound, copyright laws, youtube has no choice but to remove the audio.  Some videos have been removed also because of infringment rights.  Just need to trademark. 

Here´s an example, I have photos of relatives, I have the negatives.  I man published the photos of my relatives without asking my permission.  He had no choice but to retract his publications because he did not ask my permission and I do not have my relatives trademarked

115.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 07:02 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

What if there´s no god? lol no hope for objective sentence either way

Alpha - you´re free to criticise Churchil. How about starting with giving Poland to Stalin? lol

I am too polite to critisize a deceased man, in derogatory terms.

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

 

116.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 07:02 pm


Quoting Daydreamer



What if there´s no god? lol no hope for objective sentence either way

Alpha - you´re free to criticise Churchil. How about starting with giving Poland to Stalin? lol

I am too polite to critisize a deceased man, in derogatory terms.

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}


117.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Nov 2010 Wed 08:16 pm

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

I am too polite to critisize a deceased man, in derogatory terms.

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

 

 

I gather that´s why people shouldn´t criticise Hitler or Che Sorry I don´t buy the fact that somebody´s death makes them untouchable. Everyone´s entitled to an opinion

 

barba_mama, lemon and Elisabeth liked this message
118.       alameda
3499 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 10:17 pm

 I think you are confused regarding copyright, trademark and patents. They are quite different, and you can not trademark a person. Look it up The photos of your relatives were copyright, not trademarked.

Quoting stumpy

True also, but if the estate deems that a certain representation is derogatory or insulting it will be most likely removed from circulation.  Why do some vidoes on youtube have no sound, copyright laws, youtube has no choice but to remove the audio.  Some videos have been removed also because of infringment rights.  Just need to trademark.

Here´s an example, I have photos of relatives, I have the negatives.  I man published the photos of my relatives without asking my permission.  He had no choice but to retract his publications because he did not ask my permission and I do not have my relatives trademarked

 

 



Edited (11/4/2010) by alameda [add]

119.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 10:19 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

I gather that´s why people shouldn´t criticise Hitler or Che Sorry I don´t buy the fact that somebody´s death makes them untouchable. Everyone´s entitled to an opinion

 

My opinion is that though you can be considered a part of the "Everyone" set, you are hardly qualified to express opinions about anyone.

How about that?

 

120.       stumpy
638 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 10:37 pm

Quote:alameda

 I think you are confused regarding copyright, trademark and patents.

For Elvis I am not confusing trademark and copyright, Elvis is a trademarked brand and the EPE, Elvis Presley Estate is the owner of the trademark and the even if there is no official copyrights on my relatives photos, if you are the legal detainee of the negative and original photo it is automaticly covered by the copyright act and is covered for 50 years after your death and I have yet to invent something that needs to be covered by a patent {#emotions_dlg.bigsmile}

 

121.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 10:49 pm

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

My opinion is that though you can be considered a part of the "Everyone" set, you are hardly qualified to express opinions about anyone.

How about that?

 

 

I can agree I´m not qualified to express opinion about anyone, and still I reserve the right to do so. We always judge people against our values, principles and ethics. Why shouldn´t I voice my personal opinion?

 

Elisabeth liked this message
122.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 10:58 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

I can agree I´m not qualified to express opinion about anyone, and still I reserve the right to do so. We always judge people against our values, principles and ethics. Why shouldn´t I voice my personal opinion?

 

 

What in the world makes someone qualified to have and opinion?  As far as I know DD is not claiming to be an expert but only expressing her personal opinion.   

Daydreamer liked this message
123.       oeince
582 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 11:16 pm

And now lastfm is gone!

This is madness!

Somebody stop the judges!

 

124.       oeince
582 posts
 04 Nov 2010 Thu 11:26 pm

One more ridiculous conflict!

Brutuss´ war in the opposition party!

Biggest opposition party is devided! I sometimes feel like i live in Mozambique!

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=crisis-continues-in-chp-2010-11-04

125.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 03:04 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

I can agree I´m not qualified to express opinion about anyone, and still I reserve the right to do so. We always judge people against our values, principles and ethics. Why shouldn´t I voice my personal opinion?

 

One´s right to express his/her opinions does not mean a freedom to utter everything that happens to pop into her/his mind.

That freedom is the freedom to chose in his/her own mind, among everything she/he can say, only those that have some pragmatic value for the good of the society in general.

 

126.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 09:18 am

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

One´s right to express his/her opinions does not mean a freedom to utter everything that happens to pop into her/his mind.

That freedom is the freedom to chose in his/her own mind, among everything she/he can say, only those that have some pragmatic value for the good of the society in general.

 

 

Of course! I never claimed otherwise! What I argued against was making some people "undiscussable."  I don´t agree with freedom to insult anybody, living or dead. I believe we have the right to pass our judgement basing on facts and no government should be guilty of hiding inconvenient materials

I gave the example of Ataturk as it´s Turkish class. His revolution formed Turkey as it is. Now you´re happy he way the way he was. Back in the day, the people that he ordered to murder because they had a different idea of what a country should look like, were in all probability not that happy. Notice, I don´t argue that what he did was wrong or that he shouldn´t have done it. I´m just ssaying that the transformation caused a lot of blodshed and he was guilty of it. The old saying that "history does not judge the winners" proves right again

127.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:19 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

Of course! I never claimed otherwise! What I argued against was making some people "undiscussable."  I don´t agree with freedom to insult anybody, living or dead. I believe we have the right to pass our judgement basing on facts and no government should be guilty of hiding inconvenient materials

I gave the example of Ataturk as it´s Turkish class. His revolution formed Turkey as it is. Now you´re happy he way the way he was. Back in the day, the people that he ordered to murder because they had a different idea of what a country should look like, were in all probability not that happy. Notice, I don´t argue that what he did was wrong or that he shouldn´t have done it. I´m just ssaying that the transformation caused a lot of blodshed and he was guilty of it. The old saying that "history does not judge the winners" proves right again

That, my friend, is the life of a revolutionist. He was way ahead of his companions, who believed they had different or better opinions.

Even a 100 years after him, I look back now and can not find anyone else that Turks could have alternatively followed and done better, under those circumstances.

If you have sufficient command of history, discuss better options that you think Turks had at the time. Judgements are free, its the insults I object.

What inconvenient material do you think Turkish Government is hiding?

 



Edited (11/5/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (11/5/2010) by AlphaF

128.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 03:16 pm

Oh, I am in a way glad Ataturk did what he did. That´s at least one country saved from the Islamic rule However, I am not going to pretend it makes him a saviour of Turkey. He´s responsible for many deaths and the guilt of the people he murdered was that they had a different idea of a country. He´s actually quite similar to Peter The Great of Russia - he modernised Russia the same way Ataturk modernised Turkey but a long time before him.   Ataturk´s no different form other tyrants like Hitler - the difference is that Ataturk´s influence was territorially smaller and that Hitler lost. If he hadn´t I imagine Germany would have a similar attitude to him like Turkey does to Ataturk. Ataturk´s job was easier because of the location of Turkey.

What documents do I mean, the ones concerning his prvate life. I´ve already wrote about his wife´s diaries and letters.

129.       armegon
1872 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 04:43 pm

Who did you ask or force you to pretend to accept him as saviour of TR?  But do not worry millions of Turkish people see him as saviour and respect what he did for the people of TR, I guess no one forced them. And these people do know their history better than a Pole who consider Atatürk equal to Hitler{#emotions_dlg.lol} . Maybe they have heard or learned from their ancestors. Now a simple gift for you about history to enhance your knowledge about the difference between Atatürk and Hitler dear Smile.  As far as I know like millions of other Turks, Atatürk was fighting against tyrants who occupied his country, killing his countrymen, raping their wives and daughters, he was defencing, was not attacking to other countries to exploit. Were we decieved for a century? Were we lied for years? What a pity, just learned them from Pole 100 years later...

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

130.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 06:14 pm

What documents do I mean, the ones concerning his private life. I´ve already wrote about his wife´s diaries and letters.

Daydreamer

 

Turkish government could hardly have been hiding those documents successfully, if even you had a chance to get a peek at them, no? 

 

PS:   I do not think the lady he chose to marry was suitable for him, as a wife. Yet, I have no doubt that she was a full Lady in all other aspects. She outlived Ataturk by many years; she has not uttered nor written a single word against her former husband till the end of her life.



Edited (11/6/2010) by AlphaF

131.       scalpel
1472 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 06:15 pm

 

Quoting armegon

 And these people do know their history better than a Pole who consider Atatürk equal to Hitler{#emotions_dlg.lol} . 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

 

No, no you are wrong, they know your history - even your shoes´s number - better than you do  {#emotions_dlg.lol} 

 

 

 

132.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 07:23 pm

 

Quoting armegon

Who did you ask or force you to pretend to accept him as saviour of TR?  But do not worry millions of Turkish people see him as saviour and respect what he did for the people of TR, I guess no one forced them. And these people do know their history better than a Pole who consider Atatürk equal to Hitler{#emotions_dlg.lol} . Maybe they have heard or learned from their ancestors. Now a simple gift for you about history to enhance your knowledge about the difference between Atatürk and Hitler dear Smile.  As far as I know like millions of other Turks, Atatürk was fighting against tyrants who occupied his country, killing his countrymen, raping their wives and daughters, he was defencing, was not attacking to other countries to exploit. Were we decieved for a century? Were we lied for years? What a pity, just learned them from Pole 100 years later...

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

 

I think your anger at a Pole trying to discuss Ataturk objectively prevents you from seeing my point Are you trying to say Ataturk is not responsible for thousands of deaths? That his reform was peaceful and joyful? That people changed their lifestyle just because he said it´s a good idea? You´d have to be very naive to think so I wonder how you cannot see the parallel between ALL people who transformed the system in their countries (and both Ataturk and Hitler were ones). The changes have never been a display of love and human rights

And what you´re saying about him being considered saviour by millions of Turks only proves my point - you´re brainwashed from the early age to consider him the ultimate hero. It is impossible to criticise him because you grow defensive. What if he was an alcoholic? What if, despite giving women voting rights, he was a tyrant at home? Would that change his being one of the most important people in Turkey´s history? I don´t think so...

You may argue that since I am not Turkish I cannot know anything about him, but it works both waysl; if your governments want to make you believe he was perfect, then maybe you need a foreigner´s eyes to see things from a perspective.

During communism some people actually believed in the system, in Stalin, just like during the 3rd reich millions of people believed in Hitler. They would not admit being brainwashed, just like Turks can´t admit it either.

See, even in an online exchange of thoughts, you cannot bear to acknowledge somebody might be indifferent to whom you concern a great leader, you accuse me of obsessing of being an outsider etc when I only share my point of view. And, to be honest, i think it´s more objective than yours - I understand some islamists would be against Ataturk, Turks would be ready to die for the image created for him, and I am quite indifferent. He´s just a human being exactly the same like all other revolutionaries, an accidental person with his good and bad sides, who was in a given place in a given time. If it hadn´t been him, you might be worshipping a different Mustafa now. If he had failed, you would be cursing his name and praising a religious leader...that´s history and facts that always occur this way or another. Well, I can only guess you wouldn´t have access to youtube anyway lol

i remember when I was on a guided tour of Turkey, the guide had a lot of spot-on comments about Turks. The longer I know Turks, the more right I see he was You need icons, gods, religion´s importance was reduced by bloodshed so you needed a new god. And you have been taught to love him, which you never fail to do You are taught not to question Ataturk´s way, as it´s been made the only right way. The love for him is being incited by threats: you´re afraid of increased religious influence, and afraid there are evil Brits & co who want to undo your beloved hero´s efforts and take over your wonderful country. You still have no problem with Kurds or Armenians or Christians...neither did Ataturk, right?

Look, I just want to make something clear, what I am interested in is the propaganda mechanism and the brainwashing, the social consequences of the persona cult, not history. Glorifying Ataturk, you´re teaching your children it´s ok to kill people who disagree with you, it´s ok to be a tyrant just to get the idea you want. Turkish history is full of examples of their love for being controlled by the army, which, instead of serving people, defends ideas from the last century. As if it were not the living people in a modern world  who count but a dead leader in a marble tomb.

Oh, and I have a question. In school, where the cult of Ataturk is blossoming, can you say you don´t find him heroic? That you disagree with what he did to Turkey? Can you do that and not have to face any consequences?

 

ayse-eski liked this message
133.       turkishcobra
607 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 08:34 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

 

I think your anger at a Pole trying to discuss Ataturk objectively prevents you from seeing my point Are you trying to say Ataturk is not responsible for thousands of deaths? That his reform was peaceful and joyful? That people changed their lifestyle just because he said it´s a good idea? You´d have to be very naive to think so I wonder how you cannot see the parallel between ALL people who transformed the system in their countries (and both Ataturk and Hitler were ones). The changes have never been a display of love and human rights

And what you´re saying about him being considered saviour by millions of Turks only proves my point - you´re brainwashed from the early age to consider him the ultimate hero. It is impossible to criticise him because you grow defensive. What if he was an alcoholic? What if, despite giving women voting rights, he was a tyrant at home? Would that change his being one of the most important people in Turkey´s history? I don´t think so...

You may argue that since I am not Turkish I cannot know anything about him, but it works both waysl; if your governments want to make you believe he was perfect, then maybe you need a foreigner´s eyes to see things from a perspective.

During communism some people actually believed in the system, in Stalin, just like during the 3rd reich millions of people believed in Hitler. They would not admit being brainwashed, just like Turks can´t admit it either.

See, even in an online exchange of thoughts, you cannot bear to acknowledge somebody might be indifferent to whom you concern a great leader, you accuse me of obsessing of being an outsider etc when I only share my point of view. And, to be honest, i think it´s more objective than yours - I understand some islamists would be against Ataturk, Turks would be ready to die for the image created for him, and I am quite indifferent. He´s just a human being exactly the same like all other revolutionaries, an accidental person with his good and bad sides, who was in a given place in a given time. If it hadn´t been him, you might be worshipping a different Mustafa now. If he had failed, you would be cursing his name and praising a religious leader...that´s history and facts that always occur this way or another. Well, I can only guess you wouldn´t have access to youtube anyway lol

i remember when I was on a guided tour of Turkey, the guide had a lot of spot-on comments about Turks. The longer I know Turks, the more right I see he was You need icons, gods, religion´s importance was reduced by bloodshed so you needed a new god. And you have been taught to love him, which you never fail to do You are taught not to question Ataturk´s way, as it´s been made the only right way. The love for him is being incited by threats: you´re afraid of increased religious influence, and afraid there are evil Brits & co who want to undo your beloved hero´s efforts and take over your wonderful country. You still have no problem with Kurds or Armenians or Christians...neither did Ataturk, right?

Look, I just want to make something clear, what I am interested in is the propaganda mechanism and the brainwashing, the social consequences of the persona cult, not history. Glorifying Ataturk, you´re teaching your children it´s ok to kill people who disagree with you, it´s ok to be a tyrant just to get the idea you want. Turkish history is full of examples of their love for being controlled by the army, which, instead of serving people, defends ideas from the last century. As if it were not the living people in a modern world  who count but a dead leader in a marble tomb.

Oh, and I have a question. In school, where the cult of Ataturk is blossoming, can you say you don´t find him heroic? That you disagree with what he did to Turkey? Can you do that and not have to face any consequences?

 

 

If you don´t know anything about Ataturk, so how can we apply your perspective? Hide your deformed ideas in yourself about the people who you know NOTHING about!

 

 

134.       stumpy
638 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 08:42 pm

carefull DD looks like you are 2 seconds of becoming like youtube in Turkey

135.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 08:59 pm

I was in Turkey last week, so I saw a lot of parades and such for the national holiday. I also saw very young kids standing on the school yard, reciting poems about Turkey, but also reciting stories about battles that Turkey had won in the past. Hours and hours of repeating how great Turkey is, and how wonderful Ataturk was. Even if you think Ataturk was the best man ever to walk the earth, you could disagree with this type of brainwashing. Why not let children discover for themselves if they "dig" Ataturk or not, instead of imprinting it in their brains?

136.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 09:39 pm

 

Quoting turkishcobra

 

 

If you don´t know anything about Ataturk, so how can we apply your perspective? Hide your deformed ideas in yourself about the people who you know NOTHING about!

 

 

 

 I think anyone who has visited Turkey or is familiar with Turkish society has been introduced into the cult of Ataturk.  DD has lived in Turkey if I am not mistaken, so I think she is more than qualified to speak of him and the phenomenon of his god-like status.  You and some other members just don´t agree with her ideas so you are trying to belittle her and shut her up.  This is exactly the point she is trying to make.  Anyone who does not agree with the current doctrine is obviously a stupid sod and should just simply shut up.  After reading DD´s posts, I don´t see where she belittled or disrespected Ataturk in any way, I do see where she critized his mere mortal followers...



Edited (11/5/2010) by Elisabeth

stumpy liked this message
137.       armegon
1872 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 10:28 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

I think your anger at a Pole trying to discuss Ataturk objectively prevents you from seeing my point

Why am I need to angry with you? I was just laughing your comment considering him equal to Stalin or Hitler.

Are you trying to say Ataturk is not responsible for thousands of deaths?

Yes I am saying that. With your thinking there had not been an Atatürk if lands of Turks was not occupied.

That his reform was peaceful and joyful?

I can say it was the most peaceful one comparing to previous ones.

That people changed their lifestyle just because he said it´s a good idea?

That people even did not know the lifestyle of their Sultan and how they were easily sold out and suffered for years. Have you ever checked the lifestyle of family of Sultans? Be sure none of the women was covered, seen quite modern, living in a wealth. But they chose Atatürk because he is from inside of them and offered them free country and people followed him. Is it clear? 

And what you´re saying about him being considered saviour by millions of Turks only proves my point - you´re brainwashed from the early age to consider him the ultimate hero. It is impossible to criticise him because you grow defensive. What if he was an alcoholic? What if, despite giving women voting rights, he was a tyrant at home? Would that change his being one of the most important people in Turkey´s history? I don´t think so...

You are claiming I am brainwashed, how funny, nothing prevents me to say that me not but you are brainwashed that Atatürk was a tyrant.

You may argue that since I am not Turkish I cannot know anything about him, but it works both waysl; if your governments want to make you believe he was perfect, then maybe you need a foreigner´s eyes to see things from a perspective.

No one made people to believe he is perfect. If you can percieve, let me repeat again, this dead guy is the founder of Turkish Republic, a leader that Turks followed him and trusted in him, and they saved their future from occupiers together, and we are the descedants of them. And this is our history. So a foreigner eye does not make sense in this situation. Moreover I do not know many historians who consider Atatürk equal to Hitler unfortunately.

During communism some people actually believed in the system, in Stalin, just like during the 3rd reich millions of people believed in Hitler. They would not admit being brainwashed, just like Turks can´t admit it either.

Irrelevant! I think you could not understand the situation of Turkey after WW1, sure it is because you said Atatürk´s job was easy.{#emotions_dlg.lol} After WW1 as you may know the whole Anatolia was parted between imperialists, Turkish people became united around Atatürk to kick these tyrants off from their lands. And they together established a new state called Turkish Republic. Sorry it does not look like any of scenarios you mentioned. Regarding the reforms, as i said before I can say it was the less bloody one according to previous one, I always thinked what if it was much more bloody. Have you ever seen a new state established without reforms? According to you the all revolutionists and founders of states are tyrant and killed innocent people. Did Hitler and Stalin established a new state?

And, to be honest, i think it´s more objective than yours - I understand some islamists would be against Ataturk, Turks would be ready to die for the image created for him, and I am quite indifferent. He´s just a human being exactly the same like all other revolutionaries, an accidental person with his good and bad sides, who was in a given place in a given time. If it hadn´t been him, you might be worshipping a different Mustafa now. If he had failed, you would be cursing his name and praising a religious leader...that´s history and facts that always occur this way or another. Well, I can only guess you wouldn´t have access to youtube anyway lol

Be sure no Turk would die for Atatürk but many of them can die for their country just like in the war of independence, of course you cannot understand this since you are brainwashed with the ideas of individualism by imperialists, like your absurd question "Do Turks worship God or Atatürk?" , go and make a poll maybe you find interesting answers . Such a simple thinking you have like " if it had not been him, if he had failed bla bla", some Turks answered your question in a simple way like you do "If he had failed, now you were not able to know your father." Who knows? {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

i remember when I was on a guided tour of Turkey, the guide had a lot of spot-on comments about Turks. The longer I know Turks, the more right I see he was You need icons, gods, religion´s importance was reduced by bloodshed so you needed a new god. And you have been taught to love him, which you never fail to do You are taught not to question Ataturk´s way, as it´s been made the only right way. The love for him is being incited by threats: you´re afraid of increased religious influence, and afraid there are evil Brits & co who want to undo your beloved hero´s efforts and take over your wonderful country. You still have no problem with Kurds or Armenians or Christians...neither did Ataturk, right?

Good observation. I know Turks worshipping Atatürk in mosques and churches and sinagogs etc. And that is how we like it, maybe it will change in future, that is the personal choice, is it not? You may argue again they are brainwashed . Why is an hardcore atheist being disturbed idolworshipper Turks? Turks accepted and will accept all the decisions of Turkish people even if it leads them to Islamic regime rather than idolworshipping democracy, so no need to afraid of anything as far as all the decision makers are Turkish people, if not Turks should criticize the decision makers that we usually fail to do, but in the end through the history Turks always found a way to get rid of after they had suffered a lot, who knows maybe we need to find a new Mustafa Mustafa in near future to worship...

Look, I just want to make something clear, what I am interested in is the propaganda mechanism and the brainwashing, the social consequences of the persona cult, not history. Glorifying Ataturk, you´re teaching your children it´s ok to kill people who disagree with you, it´s ok to be a tyrant just to get the idea you want. Turkish history is full of examples of their love for being controlled by the army, which, instead of serving people, defends ideas from the last century. As if it were not the living people in a modern world  who count but a dead leader in a marble tomb.

I am also interested in the mechanism how you brainwashed with the ideas like Turks teaching their children to kill people who disagree with them. It corresponds to a slander in our lexicon of course it can be different in the lexicons of imperialists. You read that one, we read ours.

Oh, and I have a question. In school, where the cult of Ataturk is blossoming, can you say you don´t find him heroic? That you disagree with what he did to Turkey? Can you do that and not have to face any consequences?

In school period children learn their history, and who founded their country under which circumstances like many other countries, Australians visit Gelibolu to learn their history, Japanese visit the places that atomic bombed to learn their history and not to forget etc. As for your question why do honourable and right minded Turks need to say he had not done something heroic when they grow up in the first place? 

 

 

 

138.       armegon
1872 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 10:32 pm

 

Quoting Elisabeth

After reading DD´s posts, I don´t see where she belittled or disrespected Ataturk in any way, I do see where she critized his mere mortal followers...

Hmmm, If calling him tyrant is not belittling, then describe belittling bitte...

 

alameda liked this message
139.       oeince
582 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:09 pm

I think DD is right in many points. As Elisabeth says, she rather criticizes the blind supporters of Ataturk.

The person who we love don´t have to be perfect. Noone is perfect. Ataturk was not perfect also. He had his own goods and foults. But, Ataturk was the leader of our indipendence war and taht´s why we love him with all his goods and foults. Thats all!

If we can´t be brave enogh to accept that our leaders are not perfect, we have to get ready to be dissapointed. Actually, I don´t see a difference between the ones who blindly believes that Ataturk was perfect with all his aspects and the ones who blindly believe that the Imam of their community is perfect.

BTW, let me remind you that there are a lot of foreign Turkologs who knows our history better than us. Although DD is not a Turkolog, she has lots of experiences with Turkey and her ideas are as valuable as ours. Even if she had poor information about Turkey, she still would have her opinions and those would be as valuable as ours.

My Turkish friends, let me remind you that we are being accused of a so called genocide that we have never done in order we didn´t value the ideas of world communuty who has poor knowledge about Turkey.

We must stop to live in our paradise with just Turkish oriented beliefs. We are just a part of the 6 billions world.

 

 

barba_mama and Daydreamer liked this message
140.       alameda
3499 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:09 pm

 

Quoting armegon

 

Hmmm, If calling him tyrant is not belittling, then describe belittling bitte...

 

 

 OK....I am not a Turk, however I have been watching and involved with Turks for many years. At first I had no understanding of this love of Attaturk by Turks. Now after actually studying what happened during and after WWI I have come to understand why they love and respect him so much. If there were no Attaturk, there would be NO Turkish Republic....

Look at what the fate of Turkey was...in 1920 with the treaty of Sevres:

Can´t get the map to resize right...so look at it here... and you will see how everyone had a piece of Turkey.

 I think there is another matter of "Western" and "Eastern" ettiquette. "Westerners" are of the let it all hang out school, very blunt and head on. Turks are more delicate and pointing out anyone´s faults is not socially acceptable. It has always amazed me how even if they don´t like someone, they will still be polite, where as a "Westerner" seems to delight in being bold and showing exactly how they feel.



Edited (11/5/2010) by alameda [resize map]
Edited (11/5/2010) by alameda
Edited (11/5/2010) by alameda [got rid of map....look it up yourself..]
Edited (11/5/2010) by alameda [add ettiquette talk]

141.       armegon
1872 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:26 pm

 

Quoting oeince

I think DD is right in many points. As Elisabeth says, she rather criticizes the blind supporters of Ataturk.

So oeince, there is no difference between tyrant Atatürk, Stalin and Hitler according to you?? 

The person who we love don´t have to be perfect. Noone is perfect. Ataturk was not perfect also. He had his own goods and foults. But, Ataturk was the leader of our indipendence war and taht´s why we love him with all his goods and foults. Thats all!

If we can´t be brave enogh to accept that our leaders are not perfect, we have to get ready to be dissapointed. Actually, I don´t see a difference between the ones who blindly believes that Ataturk was perfect with all his aspects and the ones who blindly believe that the Imam of their community is perfect.

Here who said the otherwise?

My Turkish friends, let me remind you that we are being accused of a so called genocide that we have never done in order we didn´t value the ideas of world communuty who has poor knowledge about Turkey.

Do not divert the subject to Armenian rubbish please, discussed millions of times, noone could agree...

We must stop to live in our paradise with just Turkish oriented beliefs. We are just a part of the 6 billions world.

Yeah Global world, where the emperors are companies and slaves are genuinely exploited

 

 

 

 

142.       oeince
582 posts
 05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:51 pm

I think any one who has brains can mix Ataturk and Hitler! And actually, i think anyone who has brains can not even imagine that i ment that!

I just say, noone is perfect. We can love people with their foults. They don´t have to be right in everything. To love someone although you know s/he has mistakes in some issues is called true love!

If you want me to scream that I love Ataturk, I won´t. First of all, I don´t have to prove anything to anyone and secondly, I don´t want to say it to you because i feel an oppressive tone in your writings.



Edited (11/5/2010) by oeince

143.       armegon
1872 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 12:12 am

, that is right because I do not like your "çevir kazı yanmasın" post.Wink

Quoting oeince

  because i feel an oppressive tone in your writings.

 

 

144.       oeince
582 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 12:17 am

I think you are one of the people whom I call "blind"

You are unable to understand me!

Why should i need to çevir kazı yanmasın?

You didn´t even understand why i touched on so called genocide. It was a reply to DD´s that claim "You still have no problem with Kurds or Armenians or Christians...neither did Ataturk, right?"



Edited (11/6/2010) by oeince

145.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 12:40 am

Armegon, I´ve just a few points to add and/or explain as you still cannot understand me: 

"In school period children learn their history, and who founded their country under which circumstances like many other countries, Australians visit Gelibolu to learn their history, Japanese visit the places that atomic bombed to learn their history and not to forget etc. As for your question why do honourable and right minded Turks need to say he had not done something heroic when they grow up in the first place? "

Not all schools, apart from maybe Korea or Cuba, have a leader-glorifying attitude. I mean, everywhere peiople learn about history and people who made it. Don´t Turkish textbooks usually start with a picture of Ataturk and a poem praising him or a fragment from his speech? There´s a difference, you´re failing to observe, between talking about history and national heroes and worship. If you don´t consider bombarding children from a very young age with slogans, pictures and ideas of how great a person was and, at the same time prevent access to information that may spoil the perfect image, what is it if not propaganda and brainwashing? Apparently our dictionaries differ here...how does brainwashing work according to you?

2 "Why is an hardcore atheist being disturbed idolworshipper Turks? Turks accepted and will accept all the decisions of Turkish people even if it leads them to Islamic regime rather than idolworshipping democracy, so no need to afraid of anything as far as all the decision makers are Turkish people, if not Turks should criticize the decision makers that we usually fail to do, but in the end through the history Turks always found a way to get rid of after they had suffered a lot, who knows maybe we need to find a new Mustafa Mustafa in near future to worship.... "

Again, I am not disturbed just interested, as I come from a country that has been exposed to propaganda for decades, and still it didn´t work on us I mean, it did work on some people, others followed for fear of their life but in the end, those that didn´t buy the crap won...it might be a difference in character, we seem less likely to accept ideas without questioning them. I´m not saying which way is better, just pointing out the difference

Irrelevant! I think you could not understand the situation of Turkey after WW1, sure it is because you said Atatürk´s job was easy.{#emotions_dlg.lol} After WW1 as you may know the whole Anatolia was parted between imperialists, Turkish people became united around Atatürk to kick these tyrants off from their lands. And they together established a new state called Turkish Republic. Sorry it does not look like any of scenarios you mentioned. Regarding the reforms, as i said before I can say it was the less bloody one according to previous one, I always thinked what if it was much more bloody. Have you ever seen a new state established without reforms? According to you the all revolutionists and founders of states are tyrant and killed innocent people. Did Hitler and Stalin established a new state?

In a way they did. Not in the form of war of independence, but they changed the economy, internal and foreign policy and had the same way of dealing with people who disobeyed them. And yes, all founders of new states are murderers, especially those who work by means of revolution. I mentioned tzar Peter the Great before, in order to modernise his country he´d cut off the beards of members of Duma (kind of a Russian national assembly), the members of Duma who didn´t want to cooperate lost their beards together with their heads. Isn´t it more or less what Ataturk did? he wanted to modernise Turkey, turn it into what you call an "imperialist" country. Don´t make me laugh that people who spent their whole lives in a fez gave it up without fight. People do not change easily. Ataturk´s revolution had blood on its hands, because all revolutions do. You´re justifying it saying that the previous regime was more bloody. Maybe. But, if my neighbour is a thief, it doesn´t mean I am free to steal from him, does it? Ie, the fact that others commit crimes is no excuse to commit them. Sure, history is written with blood. And it goes for all countries, not just Turkey! What´s the point of hiding it or justifying it? Murder is murder. And tyrant is a tyrant - I see you consider it to be an insulting word. How else would you call a person who makes his own rules and makes everybody either follow his way or kills them? According to my imperialist dictionary it´s a tyrant...

You are claiming I am brainwashed, how funny, nothing prevents me to say that me not but you are brainwashed that Atatürk was a tyrant.

Tyrant is a tyrant - I see you consider it to be an insulting word. How else would you call a person who makes his own rules and makes everybody either follow his way or kills them? According to my imperialist dictionary it´s a tyrant...To be brainwashed, I´d have to be told that for years. And I haven´t. As far as I can remember my schoolbooks, I don´t think Turkish history took more than one page, if any. We did learn about the Ossman Empire and probably had a short text about independence movements across Europe at the beginning of 20th century - it must have included Turkey. but, to be honest, I don´t remember the name Ataturk from school. The first time I came across it was when I went to Turkey for the first time. So, sorry - no brainwashing here. Just an observation. Sorry to disappoint you but children in the imperialist Europe do not start their day with learning about how terrible Ataturk was and how they should hate him lol

 

Oh, and I see my comaprison of Ataturk to Stalin and Hitler seems hard to digest for some people. Well, they were all leaders in autocratic regimes, they all wanted what was best for their countries at the time, regardless of cost in life, they all had their cults, poem written about and children being taught at school about how wonderful they were. They all had charisma to inspire crowds and all are responsible for numerous deaths. That´s for similarities, but surely there are differences: Ataturk´s scope was more limited, Hitler and Stalin had bigger territories to deal with, Hitler and Stalin were opponents in the war, one´s loss was the other´s victory. They both fought for dominance in Europe, Ataturk was not as expansive. Finally, both Hitler´s and Stalin´s regimes fell (fortunately!) - Hitler lost because he was too weak to conquer the whole Europe, Stalin well..ok..his regime didn´t fall until years later, but it was judged only after it had! Ataturk´s regime still holds, most probably because it wasn´t as expansive as Hitler´s or as rigid as Stalin´s. But, most importantly, it was better for those who followed him than what had been before him.

Still, what he did for Turkey does not explain why Turks obsess with him, why a film that shows his human side is called a lie the moment it shows Ataturk smoking, drinking and well..other things Why a nosy yabanci like myself cannot say she finds it ridiculous that government of a democratic country bans an international website because of a video.

 


 

 

146.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 12:46 am

 

Quoting Elisabeth

 

 

 I think anyone who has visited Turkey or is familiar with Turkish society has been introduced into the cult of Ataturk.  DD has lived in Turkey if I am not mistaken, so I think she is more than qualified to speak of him and the phenomenon of his god-like status.  You and some other members just don´t agree with her ideas so you are trying to belittle her and shut her up.  This is exactly the point she is trying to make.  Anyone who does not agree with the current doctrine is obviously a stupid sod and should just simply shut up.  After reading DD´s posts, I don´t see where she belittled or disrespected Ataturk in any way, I do see where she critized his mere mortal followers...

Actually the British have started it, and us Turks are victims of their brainwashing.

Have you ever heard a single British joke on Poles, where the Pole is smarter than a little J-bird?

Its not fair, is it?

{#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

 

147.       oeince
582 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 01:38 am

If we could criticise Ataturk democraticly in Turkey, DD wouldn´t claim some of her ridiculous comments like comparing imparialist killers and the leader of an indipendent war!

148.       MrsBee
190 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 01:39 am

Instead of passionately arguing about the past (which is always fun  ),

I would choose to think about the present and the future of Turkey.

But it´s just me.

http://www.google.com.tr/search?as_q=turkey+democracy&hl=tr&biw=1003&bih=404&num=10&btnG=Google%27da+Ara&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images



Edited (11/6/2010) by MrsBee

149.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:37 am

Oeince, are you suggesting Hitler and Stalin killed people for fun and Ataturk because he had to? All wars take victims, no matter if you fight as defender of aggressor. Likewise, all revolutions take blood - am i wrong? Now, a question of ethics is does the goal justify the means...

Anyway, the point of my posts was not to judge Ataturk as i don´t think any historical figure can be perceived as totally good or totally bad (I wrote about the world not being black and white before so I´m not going to repeat myself), it was to point out how funny to an outsider the Ataturk´s cult is.

150.       armegon
1872 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:42 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Not all schools, apart from maybe Korea or Cuba, have a leader-glorifying attitude. I mean, everywhere peiople learn about history and people who made it. Don´t Turkish textbooks usually start with a picture of Ataturk and a poem praising him or a fragment from his speech? There´s a difference, you´re failing to observe, between talking about history and national heroes and worship. If you don´t consider bombarding children from a very young age with slogans, pictures and ideas of how great a person was and, at the same time prevent access to information that may spoil the perfect image, what is it if not propaganda and brainwashing? Apparently our dictionaries differ here...how does brainwashing work according to you?

You fail to understand that this is the history of these people and their sons. If you want young-aged children to learn how he was drinking and smoking, how he was a casanova or something like that, it does not fit our system of morality unfortunately if you mean information like this which may spoil the perfect image. In fact Atatürk himself preferred his ideas to be discussed instead of his private life. If you call it brainwashing, so be it.  Do Americans teaching their young-aged children how they extincted the Native Americans? Anyway after Atatürk short sighted leaders were failed to follow his path, they just made a ggod show by praising him, this is not the fault of Atatürk of course, actaully his revolutions remained uncompleted till now.

Again, I am not disturbed just interested, as I come from a country that has been exposed to propaganda for decades, and still it didn´t work on us I mean, it did work on some people, others followed for fear of their life but in the end, those that didn´t buy the crap won...it might be a difference in character, we seem less likely to accept ideas without questioning them. I´m not saying which way is better, just pointing out the difference

Yeah Turkish people showed their character in the war of independence, but unfortunately they lost it a lot now, I think they questioned a lot and held same path with imperialists as you said instead of following the path that Atatürk. 

In a way they did. Not in the form of war of independence, but they changed the economy, internal and foreign policy and had the same way of dealing with people who disobeyed them. And yes, all founders of new states are murderers, especially those who work by means of revolution. I mentioned tzar Peter the Great before, in order to modernise his country he´d cut off the beards of members of Duma (kind of a Russian national assembly), the members of Duma who didn´t want to cooperate lost their beards together with their heads. Isn´t it more or less what Ataturk did? he wanted to modernise Turkey, turn it into what you call an "imperialist" country. Don´t make me laugh that people who spent their whole lives in a fez gave it up without fight. People do not change easily. Ataturk´s revolution had blood on its hands, because all revolutions do. You´re justifying it saying that the previous regime was more bloody. Maybe. But, if my neighbour is a thief, it doesn´t mean I am free to steal from him, does it? Ie, the fact that others commit crimes is no excuse to commit them. Sure, history is written with blood. And it goes for all countries, not just Turkey! What´s the point of hiding it or justifying it? Murder is murder. And tyrant is a tyrant - I see you consider it to be an insulting word. How else would you call a person who makes his own rules and makes everybody either follow his way or kills them? According to my imperialist dictionary it´s a tyrant...

Too much of a word salad to justify the word "tyrant" . Is the word "tyrant" not insulting? So which words you use to insult or belittle leaders in your imperialistic dictionary? According to this point of view, one cannot able to find a world leader or a politician who is not a tyrant. Too bad people are always choosing tyrants. Then they are tyrant as well, all of us tyrant.{#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}


To be brainwashed, I´d have to be told that for years. And I haven´t. As far as I can remember my schoolbooks, I don´t think Turkish history took more than one page, if any. We did learn about the Ossman Empire and probably had a short text about independence movements across Europe at the beginning of 20th century - it must have included Turkey. but, to be honest, I don´t remember the name Ataturk from school. The first time I came across it was when I went to Turkey for the first time. So, sorry - no brainwashing here. Just an observation. Sorry to disappoint you but children in the imperialist Europe do not start their day with learning about how terrible Ataturk was and how they should hate him lol

Same in TR children firstly learn their history rather than world history. Mostly they learn world history by themselves. Of course they are not taught how evil imperialist westerners are to brainwash in schools ..

Oh, and I see my comaprison of Ataturk to Stalin and Hitler seems hard to digest for some people. Well, they were all leaders in autocratic regimes, they all wanted what was best for their countries at the time, regardless of cost in life, they all had their cults, poem written about and children being taught at school about how wonderful they were. They all had charisma to inspire crowds and all are responsible for numerous deaths. That´s for similarities, but surely there are differences: Ataturk´s scope was more limited, Hitler and Stalin had bigger territories to deal with, Hitler and Stalin were opponents in the war, one´s loss was the other´s victory. They both fought for dominance in Europe, Ataturk was not as expansive. Finally, both Hitler´s and Stalin´s regimes fell (fortunately!) - Hitler lost because he was too weak to conquer the whole Europe, Stalin well..ok..his regime didn´t fall until years later, but it was judged only after it had! Ataturk´s regime still holds, most probably because it wasn´t as expansive as Hitler´s or as rigid as Stalin´s. But, most importantly, it was better for those who followed him than what had been before him.

Your comparison is ridiciolus, that is futile you write to many words to explain because meaningless in the first place when the roles of leaders are different, as i explained Atatürk was defending his people against tyrants who occupied the lands of Turks. And yes Hitler and Stalin lost because they were attacking other countries, in the end other tyrants won... {#emotions_dlg.lol}

 


 

 

 

 

151.       oeince
582 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:46 am

Quote: Daydreamer

Anyway, the point of my posts was not to judge Ataturk as i don´t think any historical figure can be perceived as totally good or totally bad

 

That is the point I am exactly for you! Thats why i defend your point passionatly.

But Hitler Stalin and Ataturk is not even comperable although some people have been killed during the revolution.

 

Daydreamer liked this message
152.       armegon
1872 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:51 am

 

Quoting oeince

I think you are one of the people whom I call "blind"

You are unable to understand me!

You are the one whom I call "yanar döner". And in fact i understood your paradox very well

Why should i need to çevir kazı yanmasın?

DD´s claim is that Atatürk was a tyrant, no different than Hitler and Turks worshipping him like God, and you said you agreed with her mostly in your post. That is why I asked that question and I got my answer, thanks...

You didn´t even understand why i touched on so called genocide. It was a reply to DD´s that claim "You still have no problem with Kurds or Armenians or Christians...neither did Ataturk, right?"

Atatürk´s ideas about these issues was clear, so I passed it in order not to devaite the subject. 

 

 

153.       oeince
582 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 03:00 am

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

154.       armegon
1872 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 03:27 am

 

Quoting oeince

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Atatürk´s ideas was started to be discussed and criticized when he was still alive by his close friends, followers and of course people.  It is not the fault of Atatürk but the fault of  following leaders.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

People like you, let us know when you reach the truth so that people like me can check if it is compatible with the truth of people like me. Wink

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

Once again who said the opposite?

 

 



Edited (11/6/2010) by armegon

155.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 03:40 am

Armegon - somehow you managed not to refer to any of the points I made. can you please explain the difference between brainwashing and learning? Or tyrant vs democratic leader?

Don´t you really see the difference between teaching children that Ataturk smoked and telling them they have to love him? Do you think it´s either love madly or hate? Why not go for a balanced non-worshipping but rather objective education? Children in Turkey are taught to love Ataturk before they know who it is - that´s not brainwashing, right? But a foreigner, who has never been told a singe thing about Ataturk in her school, is brainwashed when she suggest a ridiculous claim he was a human being with all flaws and virtues lol Really?

Why does Turkish government see it as threat that some people see things differently? With today´s access to information across borders it´s pointless to try to make Ataturk´s private life a taboo subject. It´s a losing game. If writers in turkey cannot write about his life, directors are treated like traitors because of their films and poor girls are ostracised when they say they don´t love Ataturk then maybe the worship has gone a bit too far?

Why not teach children about Ataturk´s achievements and his role in the formation of Turkey and let them decide whether to love him or not? Would that be too risky? What would happen if they decided to stay indifferent? Could that threaten Turkish nationalism? Maybe army would not play such a big role in Turkish "democracy"? maybe then inconvenient questions would have to be answered using reasons and not the "because Ataturk wanted this way" slogan?

You´re saying he was not a tyrant. Let´s see...the decision to turn Turkey into a modern, non-Islamic state was the result of a national vote? And majority of people voted yes? Well, that would surely explain why there was no bloodshed {#emotions_dlg.rolleyes} Oh, and army was not a method of imposing his will on the nation. happy days, I say. Even chosing his surname and forbiding others to take it shows he was less of a servant to the nation, and more like a ruler.

You´re asking about tyrants in the west, well..all kings surely were so and so were (and are) all totalitarian leaders.

Anyway, it´s late and I´m bored so let´s call it a day

156.       scalpel
1472 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 03:53 am

 

Quoting oeince

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

 

I don´t know which planet you are living on, but here on the earth, at least half of the Turks, especially religious side, feel free to cruelly criticize Atatürk. Some of them go so far as to call him as deccal ("end time" leader similar to antichrist in Christian belief) since they think Atatürk revolutions go against their religion. What amazes me is that so called democratic westerners walk arm in arm with the radical islamists when it comes to the enmity towards Atatürk and his revolutions. No revolution is bloodless. To make a new country out of an old one is not a child´s play. "A revolution is not a dinner party". But when , for example, compared to  the French Revolution, ours can be deemed as bloodless. Uğur Mumcu´s following article will help the ignorants, of all kinds:insider or outsider, to know what is what  (Cumhuriyet, 11.11.1992)

 http://www.istiklalmahkemesi.com/content/view/211/230/   

 

As for DD´s comparing Atatürk to Hitler...I have nothing to say but to remind this saying: "bu kadar cehalet ancak tahsille mümkündür" (this much ignorance is only possible by education)

 

armegon liked this message
157.       armegon
1872 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 05:53 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Armegon - somehow you managed not to refer to any of the points I made. can you please explain the difference between brainwashing and learning? Or tyrant vs democratic leader?

Don´t you really see the difference between teaching children that Ataturk smoked and telling them they have to love him? Do you think it´s either love madly or hate? Why not go for a balanced non-worshipping but rather objective education? Children in Turkey are taught to love Ataturk before they know who it is - that´s not brainwashing, right? But a foreigner, who has never been told a singe thing about Ataturk in her school, is brainwashed when she suggest a ridiculous claim he was a human being with all flaws and virtues lol Really?

Daydreamer, our thinking system and perception very much differs. Yours based on individuality, mine based on the benefit of the society I live, I am in the second plan. Turkish people at first taught to love the country and its people in school or by their parents instead of ownselves, I think this is one of the lesson experienced through the history of Turks, if it fails, state also collapses. In our time it is very much deformed by politicians. Anyway then children are taught how their country was founded and under which circumstances and there they are introduced to Atatürk. As far as I know all regimes follow similar education to ensure the unity of the country or some try to make their nation stand by money.

Children in TR are taught to love Atatürk by their parents or in school of course he is the one who established the country they live in, just like how they introduced the religions of their parents or others people with a little knowledge. In future when they learned more, they choose their path. And as for you ridicuolous claim that Atatürk was a human being, sorry who claimed the opposite? I maybe asking this for the the third time I guess, no one answered. Buda was a human bein too, Muhammad, İsa as well...

Why does Turkish government see it as threat that some people see things differently? With today´s access to information across borders it´s pointless to try to make Ataturk´s private life a taboo subject. It´s a losing game. If writers in turkey cannot write about his life, directors are treated like traitors because of their films and poor girls are ostracised when they say they don´t love Ataturk then maybe the worship has gone a bit too far?

Why are you so concerned with his private life? His private life should not be the issue but his thoughts. If you slander and insult him out your a** and say it was a criticism of his private life, of course wome people will reply to your claims. And regarding the videos on net criticizing or insulting him whatever it is the law that the government invented, in my opinion it is just nonsense..

Why not teach children about Ataturk´s achievements and his role in the formation of Turkey and let them decide whether to love him or not? Would that be too risky? What would happen if they decided to stay indifferent? Could that threaten Turkish nationalism? Maybe army would not play such a big role in Turkish "democracy"? maybe then inconvenient questions would have to be answered using reasons and not the "because Ataturk wanted this way" slogan?

Are they not deciding whether they love the formation of TR that Atatürk created? Of course they are, it seems they do not like it, if so TR would not be like that.

You´re saying he was not a tyrant. Let´s see...the decision to turn Turkey into a modern, non-Islamic state was the result of a national vote? And majority of people voted yes? Well, that would surely explain why there was no bloodshed {#emotions_dlg.rolleyes} Oh, and army was not a method of imposing his will on the nation. happy days, I say. Even chosing his surname and forbiding others to take it shows he was less of a servant to the nation, and more like a ruler.

It is the decision of Turkish people, perhaps Atatürk brainwashed them not to be a slave. What could he done without the support of people? Nothing. People believed in him and followed him if not revolution would not take place. Who do you think army consists of other than Turkish people? Not fit the definition of a tyrant?? 

You´re asking about tyrants in the west, well..all kings surely were so and so were (and are) all totalitarian leaders.

I was just ridiculing your word salad description of "tyrant", not asking you about the tyrants...

Anyway, it´s late and I´m bored so let´s call it a day

 

 



Edited (11/6/2010) by armegon

158.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 11:31 am

There´s no point continuing this subject as we´ll never see eye to eye. Like you said, the difference lies in individualism vs nationalistic. For me being instructed to love someone is brainwashing, to you it´s normal. To me criticising somebody is natural, I don´t believe in "holy cows" to you there are people who should be talked to in superlatives only because of their input in the society. You consider him unique, I find him just like any other revolutionary. Finally, you agree with limiting people´s access to international websites because they publish material unfavourable to your national hero, to me it´s ridiculous. To you the claim that Ataturk was a human being may seem ridiculously obvious, to me the way his memory functions in the society is not that of a human being, but a god.

 

159.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:37 pm

 

Quoting oeince

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

 

So the truth you found at last is,

1) Ataturk is not the God,

2) Ataturk was not even an angel,

3) Ataturk was the leader of the Independence war.

Is that all? Maasallah, bu yasta bu zeka herkesi sasirtmali     {#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

160.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:48 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

There´s no point continuing this subject as we´ll never see eye to eye. Like you said, the difference lies in individualism vs nationalistic. For me being instructed to love someone is brainwashing, to you it´s normal. To me criticising somebody is natural, I don´t believe in "holy cows" to you there are people who should be talked to in superlatives only because of their input in the society. You consider him unique, I find him just like any other revolutionary. Finally, you agree with limiting people´s access to international websites because they publish material unfavourable to your national hero, to me it´s ridiculous. To you the claim that Ataturk was a human being may seem ridiculously obvious, to me the way his memory functions in the society is not that of a human being, but a god.

 

+1000

Of course it is brainwashing!!

And of course it is not "normal". But what sort of reaction would you expect from brainwashed people?

The reactions you are getting is just perfectly fitting the description of brains washed people´s reaction..

Ataturk was just a human being. Although his semi-god status started  when he was alive, but with each military intervention (1960/70/8, he was elevated to god like status by the soldiers in order to keep the statusquo in which ´the elite´ runs the country on behalf of the people..

Anyway..I saw up the posts, people accused you for being ignorant about Ataturk.. lol

Now I am asking them :

what do you know about Ataturk? Every human being has ups and downs, faults, many points to critisise etc..

Can you write an A4 page critisising Ataturk for example?

 

Apart from anything, You may not be aware but Turkey is changing. We are not like North Korea any more.. People know that many info/documentation about him/what he was like/what he thought  etc have been hidden from public to keep his semi-god status.. Now, I can see many people people critisising Ataturk in Turkey. (They would do in the past but not in public..)

So get used to the idea!! If you want to defend him, make sure you have some knowledge about him ( i mean more than what you learnt during brainwshing process).

 

Daydreamer liked this message
161.       oeince
582 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 03:02 pm

I am not talking about extreme groups. They are also as blind as the others.

In Turkey, if one says that Ataturk was wrong in some points, the society begins to blame him/her and don´t hesitate to declare him/her as traitor! S/he can not take place in the adminstration level. Because, blind followers of Ataturk uses him as a shield to their policies. Ataturk is the magic word for politicians who just seeks heir own benefits. And I think thats as ugly as using religion for political purposes.

Those people are obsessed and using Ataturk as a figure for their own sakes. And those people expect the whole society to be as obsessed as them. Those people occupy very important seats in Turkey. And they are able to turn someones lives to hell. And they do. Its disgusting that they use Ataturk for their own profits.

Thats why, pointing out that Ataturk was not an angel but he was our leader of indipendence war includes deeper meanings for acumen ones.

I am both against to deify Ataturk or to introduce him as a devil.

Daydreamer liked this message
162.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 04:24 pm

Oeince - that´s exactly what I said earlier. From what I read here it looks like there were only 2 ways - either 100% Ataturk or 100% radical Islam. And it´s not true! there are plenty of options in between. If somebody criticises SOME actions of Ataturk or refuses to glorify him, he´s treated like he´s totaly pro radical Islam or totally anti Turkish republic. And it´s stupid! You can be neither - you may appreciate Ataturk without the need to worship him. And criticising him does not mean you´re Islamic or want to sell the republic

163.       oeince
582 posts
 06 Nov 2010 Sat 11:41 pm

Almost all people in Turkey have been tightly coupled to each other during the indipendence war. Because the matter was survival of a nation and all the rest was details. Ataturk was the leader of our indipendence war. And the indipendence war is a heroic story. We owe our existence to our brave ancestors.

After the indipendence war is over, Ataturk have been a politician. And during his era, Kazım Karabekir, Rauf Orbay, Refet Bele, Bekir Sami Bey and others who were the closest compenion in arms of Ataturk, have been judged with capital punishment. Do you think these people loved Turkey less than Ataturk? Absolutely no! So what is the reason of that humiliating action? They were against Ataturk´s political decisions!

Kazım Karabekir was the first person who joined Ataturk during the indipendence war. Rauf Orbay couldn´t turn back to Turkey for eight years. After he has been excused, he refused to come back because he didn´t accept to be excused like a criminal. A hero of the indipendence war was twisted in the wind.

It is possible to add more examples, but to sum up, i think Ataturk was not a democratic person as we have been thought. He was so focused on his ideals, and anybody was important to him but his ideals.

In my opinion we must argue those bravely. Although, the results of those debates would be against our beliefs, we must seek the truth. It´s not logical to accept a human being as reference point with no mistakes. Check your own lifes. Even we have goods and foults in our small lifes. How can Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey can be foultless?

This leader centralism still goes on in Turkey and in the world. Such half of Turkey believes that the existing PM is angel and the other half believes that he is devil. But, indeed, the lifes of these differently thinking individuals lifestyles are not so different. So, what makes people addicted to leaders? What makes people to label everybody and describe him/herself with a fraction? Because, being a part of a group is easy. Not risky at all! No need to think, just support thats enough. Just close your eyes to the mistakes of your leader. Thats enogh. How bad!

If you look for a leader, just refer your own hearts! I myself, just trust conscientious individuals hearts and the power of the society comes from these people. If we can do that, we are able to turn the world to heaven.

We don´t need deified leaders, we just need a well organised system!



Edited (11/6/2010) by oeince
Edited (11/6/2010) by oeince
Edited (11/6/2010) by oeince
Edited (11/6/2010) by oeince

164.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 12:59 am

We don´t need deified leaders, we just need a well organised system!

(by somebody)

 

That is one of the most idiotic cliches in life. You show me a well organized system, I will show you the leader who organized it !

 

Whether you deify that leader or not, is up to you. NO LEADER, NO SYSTEM.

 

 

165.       oeince
582 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 01:57 am

Alpha, it would be better if you didnt describe my ideas as idiotic. I hope you revise that word.

I didn´t say we don´t need leaders, I said we don´t need deified leaders.

Well organized systems infrastructure can be established from down to top. Not from up to down. Because, the ones who will survive that system is the society after the leaders limited life. Thats why the society must take the responsibility of creating a well organized system.

A phrase I believe says "you will be governed as you deserve" That means, the societies qualities creates its own leader.

Its better to change ourselves positively rather than expecting that a leader will come and change our destiny positively.

 

166.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 01:58 am

Oeince - you´re absolutely right

Quoting AlphaF

 

Whether you deify that leader or not, is up to you. NO LEADER, NO SYSTEM.

 

 

 

Alpha - but we´re talking here about the case where system glorifies the leader, while I and a few other people argue you should be free to decide whether to glorify him or not

167.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 03:57 am

Well organized systems infrastructure can be established from down to top. Not from up to down. Because, the ones who will survive that system is the society after the leaders limited life. Thats why the society must take the responsibility of creating a well organized system.

(by nobody)

 

Here is another totally false cliche. This one is not (even) idiotic.  {#emotions_dlg.alcoholics}

 

Senin kafana bu sacmaliklari sokanlar, eger kendileri bu lafa inansalardi, sirketlerindeki kapicilara, caycilara ve guvenlik gorevlilerine sirket Yonetim Kurullarinda yer verirlerdi. Nedense, oyle yapmiyorlar !

 



Edited (11/7/2010) by AlphaF

168.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 01:49 pm

 

Quoting oeince

Alpha, it would be better if you didnt describe my ideas as idiotic. I hope you revise that word.

I didn´t say we don´t need leaders, I said we don´t need deified leaders.

Well organized systems infrastructure can be established from down to top. Not from up to down. Because, the ones who will survive that system is the society after the leaders limited life. Thats why the society must take the responsibility of creating a well organized system.

A phrase I believe says "you will be governed as you deserve" That means, the societies qualities creates its own leader.

Its better to change ourselves positively rather than expecting that a leader will come and change our destiny positively.

 

+1000

I agree with what you are saying above..

It is quite disappointing to see people STILL think societies need strong leaders.. I don´t think you can find this type of ´we need a strong leader´ arguments in developed societies.. It is almost masochistic.. It is same as the story I mentioned in one of my posts: Our leader is our everything and we are all ´zeros´ comparing to him.. (Hasan Ali Yucel-Ataturk story).

I think this type of ´desire to have a strong leader´ is coming from Ottoman times.. There was the sultan and the sultan´s subjects. Everybody was his subjects and the sultan was worshipped.  Of course, suddenly, some people thought that ´we need some one so that these people can keep worshipping´. And the ´worshipping Ataturk´ came into action...

I am not entirely sure Ataturk himself wanted it, in the first place!! 

But anyway.. It was nearly 100 years ago..The times are different.. People who think worshipping Ataturk is normal and accusing others  for being traitor, should realise they are portraying themselves a tad bit backwards. They should stop using the name of Ataturk for their political achievement  and leave him in peace in his grave..

In the end, a strong democracy can only flourish in a strong civil society..

That is what we need.

 

 



Edited (11/7/2010) by thehandsom

169.       vineyards
1954 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 03:06 pm

We certainly need good leaders. The power that a good leader has stems from the adeptness he has in organizing matters. If you are a strong leader in business, people knock on your door and pay you all they can, just to be able to use your services.  For the Catholics, the Pope is the man; their daily lives, moral qualities, do´s and don´ts are all affected  by him. If  it weren´t for Gorbachov and his glastnost and perestroika perhaps there would still be a wall accross Berlin. One man´s vision changes many things in either good or bad direction.

For me Atatürk is one such leader who represents a turning point in our country´s history. He came with a plan at a time of utter destruction and managed to reverse the bad fate of the country. Anywhere in the world, people who did  half of what Ataturk did are given a hero status. He is my hero and source of inspiration. When I remember what he achieved in such an inconceivably difficult period, it fills me with hope and confidence about the things we can achieve if we act with the kind of dexterity he had.



Edited (11/7/2010) by vineyards
Edited (11/7/2010) by vineyards

alameda and bydand liked this message
170.       alameda
3499 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 05:10 pm

Of course no human should be worshiped, but it´s obvious some have very special talents that have greater impact than others. These are people who are in tune with the time, have special talents and are inspired.

There are authors who changed literature, painters who changed painting (Rembrandt), dancers who changed dance (Isadora Duncan)....and political leaders who changed politics.....these people had vision and strength of character to implement their vision.

Many of us in the US are looking for a new FDR or Lincoln, we had hopes Obama would be more like them. Of course countries need strong leaders. Who wants a wimpy leader...? Can you deny the impact of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr?

Remember, even in Democratic societies, leaders are needed and are elected....and nobody wants a weak leader.

Worship, no, but respect certainly is in order.

Quoting thehandsom

 +1000

I agree with what you are saying above..

It is quite disappointing to see people STILL think societies need strong leaders.. I don´t think you can find this type of ´we need a strong leader´ arguments in developed societies.. It is almost masochistic.. It is same as the story I mentioned in one of my posts: Our leader is our everything and we are all ´zeros´ comparing to him.. (Hasan Ali Yucel-Ataturk story).

 

slavica, turkishcobra, mltm and bydand liked this message
171.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 08:17 pm

 

Quoting alameda

Worship, no, but respect certainly is in order.

 

And that´s the whole point

172.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 11:33 pm

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

+1000

I agree with what you are saying above..

It is quite disappointing to see people STILL think societies need strong leaders.. I don´t think you can find this type of ´we need a strong leader´ arguments in developed societies.. It is almost masochistic.. It is same as the story I mentioned in one of my posts: Our leader is our everything and we are all ´zeros´ comparing to him.. (Hasan Ali Yucel-Ataturk story).

I think this type of ´desire to have a strong leader´ is coming from Ottoman times.. There was the sultan and the sultan´s subjects. Everybody was his subjects and the sultan was worshipped.  Of course, suddenly, some people thought that ´we need some one so that these people can keep worshipping´. And the ´worshipping Ataturk´ came into action...

I am not entirely sure Ataturk himself wanted it, in the first place!! 

But anyway.. It was nearly 100 years ago..The times are different.. People who think worshipping Ataturk is normal and accusing others  for being traitor, should realise they are portraying themselves a tad bit backwards. They should stop using the name of Ataturk for their political achievement  and leave him in peace in his grave..

In the end, a strong democracy can only flourish in a strong civil society..

That is what we need.

 

 

 

This is total trash and extremely ill meant, as usual.

Sultans were never worshipped; you could say, they were respected as the Caliphs.

Even Prophet Muhammad himself was never worshipped among moslems.

173.       vineyards
1954 posts
 07 Nov 2010 Sun 11:53 pm

This reminds me of that old phrase:

Pek de mağrur olma Padişahım, senden büyük Allah var.

Don´t be so prudent my Sultan, God is bigger than you.

174.       oeince
582 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 02:27 am

Why do Turkish ordinary people charge higher tax burden than rich Turks but the English people pay relatively fair taxes?

In order England had better leaders or the society took the responsibility of their lifes and made the King to sign Magna Carta?

Many people choose the side of a leader! What if the leader is wrong? Isn´t it more rational to support his rights and criticise the wrongs? Why do we have to create reference points? Why do people get angry when a person criticises his/her leader? Do we actually try to feel like we are a part of his power?

We need people who says my power comes from my values and who are brave enogh to criticise his leader if he acts against these values.

175.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 03:04 am

I am assuming that we are not talking about Ataturk himself but  talking about worshipping Ataturk or his semi god status. Of course he had a brilliant personality, he was a perfect soldier, an immaculate strategist, a staunch westernizer, a great politician at his time etc..

We are talking about how wrong to elevate a human being to a semi god status and teaching/brainwashing people with this idea of ´Ataturk is everything, the greatest´ etc  I hope (btw..I can go and dig up many speaches or many poems written for him regarding how he was regarded by some people in Turkey to prove how he was worshipped).  What we are talking about is nothing to do with the respect towards Ataturk himself.


The problem here is his so called followers who think they must protect him with laws and with actions like banning you tube and brainwashing people as if he is a semi god..etc and their actions ie banning web sites, jailing people etc..


That is wrong.

That is seriously wrong..

Insisting that "no it is normal because we need to protect him/his memories by banning web sites and putting people in jail with laws" is wrong too and it shows not ´only level of brainwashing´ but how blind and twisted we can get..
In the end, the idea of trying to protect a person´s respect with things such as laws or with bans  is not a good idea.
You will not succeed and more over, you will damage the subject, you are trying to protect, more.
According to my opinion, Ataturk has achieved many things, he has done many great things for us.  He does not need protection with laws or bans..

176.       vineyards
1954 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 07:57 am

With a little bit knowledge of Turkey´s near history, you could point out to the train of thought that resulted in the formation of laws preventing people from insulting Atatürk.

The government established by Atatürk was a result of the organized efforts of a patriotic group with roots in the Ottoman Empire. This group was essentially formed in the Balkans therefore represented more or less a Balkan type of patriotism which was in conflict with the Imperial policies which were more Islamic than being Turkish.

These policies were also more modern in the period they occured, since the bond of religion for the Muslims was getting weaker following centuries of neglect, lack of proper organization and more essentially a common target. Nations and communities were seeking ways to liberate themselves. This is a process which still continues even today.

The new political formation attempted to take advantage of the remnants of the religious bond and produced a new target that appealed to everyone. Misak-ı Milli Sınırları (Borders of the National Pact) pointed out to a map including the areas where Turks had formed the majority (except the Kurdish areas who were then in the same camp).

There were other options defended by other people. They did everything to stop the realization of this plan. They attempted to assasinate Ataturk several times. They collaborated with the occupying enemy forces. They did all of this in the name of God. Even today, we witness acts of vandalism against statues or monuments depicting Atatürk.

As it is seen, there has been a very painful transformation marked with conflicts and intolerance. Atatürk changed so many things in this country and he crushed the resistance shown against his attempts in a rather stern way. He was essentially a Jacobean leader who would do anything for the love of his country. It is quite evident that the new nation was very dear to him and he probably felt himself as the father of his people who were formed of mostly ignorant, neglected and deprived people and needed his guidance.

He put a number of rights and values on table. They were predominantly humane principles which we largely take for granted today. Those included suffrage for women, a democratic republic that allowed people to elect and to be elected; eradication of religious institutions called "tarikats". He pushed these rights and measures as we may call them in a recessionist climate. Recessionists attempts therefore were considered the main enemy of the new regime and laws were passed to prevent them.

 

 

177.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 11:20 am

I think I mentioned it once or twice about the lack of historical knowledge of my country´s people. 

Apart from the wide spread ignorance about what happened and twittering the same things like parrots  as if trying to prove ´yes, we are all products of the same brainwashing´, people who are trying to defend these ridiculous laws and bans for the name of Ataturk are embarrassing our country Ataturk build and people of this country.   

Some people say that ´If Ataturk was alive, he would slap these people who call themselves Ataturk supporters, on the face!!´. 

Ataturk does not need these laws.

What he has done is enough for his name to be remembered and respected forever. 

178.       vineyards
1954 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 01:07 pm

Deleted my message. 

 



Edited (11/8/2010) by vineyards

179.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 03:35 pm

 

Quoting vineyards

I don´t know what Ataturk would do to his so called supporters were he alive today but I might want to beat you to a pulp because of this irritating style you have. I am sure those parrots and brain washed souls would not hesitate to do the same and that has little bearing on what period you live in. 

There is a paradox in your case, you think you are standing against something and advocating a good  cause (somehow yours is always the best one) but all you are getting in the end is negative reaction. Why don´t you open up your eyes and realize this counter-productive style of yours.

 

 

 

I think you need a shrink!!

You should stop posting these personal remarks..

They are getting boring!!!

 

180.       Elisabeth
5732 posts
 08 Nov 2010 Mon 04:17 pm

I am locking this thread because of personal insults and attacks. 

libralady liked this message
(180 Messages in 18 pages - View all)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...  >>
Thread locked by a moderator or admin.




Turkish Dictionary
Turkish Chat
Open mini chat
New in Forums
Why yer gördüm but yeri geziyorum
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, makes perfect sense!
Etmeyi vs etmek
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much!
Görülmez vs görünmiyor
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, very well explained!
Içeri and içeriye
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much for the detailed ...
Present continous tense
HaydiDeer: Got it, thank you!
Hic vs herhangi, degil vs yok
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much!
Rize Artvin Airport Transfer - Rize Tours
rizetours: Dear Guest; In order to make your Black Sea trip more enjoyable, our c...
What does \"kabul ettiğini\" mean?
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much for the detailed ...
Kimse vs biri (anyone)
HaydiDeer: Thank you!
Random Pictures of Turkey
Most commented