Turkey |
Thread locked by a moderator or admin. |
|
|
Absurd news from Turkie
|
140. |
05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:09 pm |
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. |
05 Nov 2010 Fri 11:26 pm |
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. |
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. |
06 Nov 2010 Sat 12:12 am |
, that is right because I do not like your "çevir kazı yanmasın" post.
because i feel an oppressive tone in your writings.
|
|
144. |
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. |
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. 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 
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. |
06 Nov 2010 Sat 12:46 am |
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?

|
|
147. |
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!
|
|
149. |
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. |
06 Nov 2010 Sat 02:42 am |
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.
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 
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... 
|
|
|