Around 100 thousand İzmir dwellers who have gathered up in Gündoüdu Meydanı in İzmir upon the call of the Platform of the Communion Force for the Republic, altogether, sang "Our Oath" which has been forbidden from being sang in schools.

İzmir ´de Cumhuriyet İçin Güçbirliği Platformu´nun yaptığı çağrı üzerine Gündoğdu Meydanı´nda toplanan yaklaşık 100 bin İzmirli, hep birlikte, okullardan kaldırılan ´Andımız´ı okudu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ddc2Pitx3g

http://www.gercekgundem.com/video/guncel/96/100-bin-izmirli-andimizi-okudu

Yes the oath WAS a racist oath from 1930s, inspired by fascist  dictators of Europe like Musollini and Hitler.

One of the many articles -in Turkish-

http://www.dunyabulteni.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=154599

shame shame shame all those hundreds thousands of racist fascists defending your country and your freedoms

so what its inspired from whomever. our national anthem was inspired by the french one, the slavers and imperialists of their time. shall we ban it too? o wait our clothings are inspired from the world war 1 allies, our enemies who killed us by millions. lets ban them too? nationalism was inspired from greek colonists cities who enslaved 3 million people from the antic civilizations. lets ban it all! lets ban the flag, lets ban the turk, lets ban everything. afterall internet wasnt inspired from the ww2 german intelligence technology! definitely that means internet is a fascist anti semitic tool! stop using it!

Peh!!

Do you really beleive those hundreds of thousands were chanting our racist oat because they are defending my country and my freedom? defending from who? what freedom are you talking about? Are you sure they were just NOT reactionists?

dont you think it was a great shame to force young kids to chant something coming from 1930´s racist Europe? Hitler had millions behind him.. Did those millions make his racist ideas right?  if there was a few million instead of a few hundred thousands chating our oath in Izmir, will it make it less racist?

I think you should really check your ground, read more about your subject and then  decide where you stand.

There have been many many columns, articles, debates about this issue here and there . Why dont you read one of those :http://www.taraf.com.tr/haber/andimiz-bir-ayrimcilik-yaratma-urunuydu.htm 

What a bunch of idiots write about an oath I took, makes no difference.

Agop, sen yeminden ve sadakatten ne anlarsın ?

If your pledge or your oat is the oat for your racism, that has to go mate..

No place for racism in a secular, modern, humane society!!

its not racist. its nationalist. because turkey is a nation, not an ethnic race. there are around 200 different turkish ethnicities in the world, 75 of them present in modern turkey.

this is the anthem of germany:

German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song
Shall retain in the world
Their old beautiful chime
And inspire us to noble deeds
During all of our life.
 |: German women, German loyalty,
  German wine and German song! :|

there are 16 million non-germans living in germany.

anthem of france:

What does this horde of slaves,
Of traitors and conjured kings want?
For whom are these vile chains,
These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage
What fury it must arouse!
It is us they dare plan
To return to the old slavery!

of england:

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

i guess none of these countries you count as humane since theyre all racist pigs.

so stop with your "racism has to go from humane societies" bullshit. all you want is to degrade turkish people.

See below

1930´s was a Jacobean period for Turkey led by a Jacobean leader who has been hailed all around the world as a great leader and a hero in his own country.

Even his enemies gave him full credit for his achievements. Some of his enemies for example, Churchill was not a lesser racist than some of the fallen heroes of the day. He is famously known as not regarding Turks proper human beings. Even Churchill sang praises of Ataturk upon witnessing the transformation he achieved in his country.

Criticizing Atatürk for his patriotism is like expecting Socrates to write his comments on a football match played yesterday. A shallow perspective leads you to this anachronism. The general public remembers Victor Hugo as a humanist but he is also responsible for what we call today post-colonial racism. Every knows the true merit of Hugo, we can´t understand Hugo without remembering the time frame.

By the way, I am not a fan of these oaths and the stuff. I believe they belong to a people who emerged victorious from an all-consuming independence war. They were left alone with depleted resources and an untellable kind of poverty and destitude and laid the foundation of modern Turkey. 

We are where we are today thanks to their selfless and relentless efforts to defend their motherland. They are our forefathers. They were the unlucky ones who fought a series of bloody wars that were inflicted on them due to an unskilfull management that left the country to the mercy of greedy foreign invaders.

True these oaths smell passion, determination and maybe there is something bad about them but... one must understand the time-frame, the feelings of those who wrote them.

When I hear them today, I remember that determination which has persisted over time and came down through generations to remind us of our bloody and miserable past. Straightforward reasoning doesn´t work here. Here is a good example, everybody hails the Renaissance as the period of enlightening but no one remembers how much blood was shed to make it possible. Straightforward reasoning declares Renaissance like a feast of salvation from barbarism, the truth is it was just a new chapter in the history of mankind marked with brutality and oppression that gradually reached such a high level that it caused a series of immense social breakdowns giving way to the destruction of a number of established institutes which resulted in a shift in the way governments and society perceive themselves.

Future is not safe unless we remember the calamities of the past.Yet, it may be unnecessary to teach those oaths to small children who can´t understand their true context. They learn about sexuality elsewhere. Israeli government instills military awareness into the minds of young generation. Those oaths are not a big blow to democracy as democracy is still a fancy name elsewhere in our world.

It is racist.

Its racism is coming from 1930s Europe.  

Half way civilized countries abandoned  these racist oats and pledges long time ago.

Insisting on a racist oat is embarrassing for Turkish people. 

Racism has to go!!!!

Ağlatmayın Agop´u....Bizim and ırkçı deyin de kessin zırıltıyı  !    

if you find these racist then you should talk about them as well. when you open 549834593453 turkish-racist threads that do nothing but to degrade turkism and turkey, you automatically flag yourself as a one-sided subjective popularist hater

I do find our oat racist.

As long as you come and defend these racist crap, I will say that it is racist.

It is as racist as the oats german pupils chanted theirs to Hitler, as racist as oats chanted in Italy for Musollini.

This is 2013..not 1930s..

Racism has to go!! 

Excuse me, but could you clarify just what you are talking about? I am thinking it is this: 

"Türküm, doğruyum, çalışkanım. Yasam, küçüklerimi korumak, büyüklerimi saymak, yurdumu, budunumu özümden çok sevmektir. Ülküm, yükselmek, ileri gitmektir. Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun.

English:

I am Turkish, honest and hardworking. My principle is to protect the younger to respect the elder, to love my homeland and my nation more than myself. My ideal is to rise, to progress. My existence shall be dedicated to the Turkish existence."

As a citizen of a country, IOW not stateless, you have an obligation to defend it. This is a basic requirment of citizenship of any country. 

simple: pkk doesnt want people to say "im turkish". and our friend thehandsome is defending them under the guise of anti-racism. either he doesnt know what racism is or he thinks we are too stupid to know what it is.

there are two major psychological resistances you will meet with when invading a country: their religion and their nationalism. you cant for example occupy a Christian country with a Muslim government for too long, or vice versa, as we have seen in the example from the ottoman empire. or you cant occupy another nations country as an imperial nation yourself, as winston churchil has voiced 100 years ago. but it will be very easy to invade (even if youre not going to occupy it) a country that is divided into 500 religions and 500 countries, like austria-hungary empire, or like yugoslavia. this is why any psychological preliminary war against a country starts with eliminating these two ideologies. the countrys religion and their nationalism. as long as these two things are intact, there will be an unending resistance from the people of that nation.

we follow a history which has its milestone from ww1 with the paris peace conferance. just as the conferance had nothing to do with peace or with the rights of anyone and was all about ruining their enemies under the guise of "peace and democracy", today the "human rights and democracy" thats being forced onto the middle eastern countries have nothing to do with what its being disguised as.

for some reason none of the people who criticize and want to take "action" against turkeys whatever perspective about whatever minority fail to move a finger in removing racism or anything anti-democratic from their own countries. for some reason their idea about implementing human standarts into foreign countries go trough killing them by millions or subjecting them to heavy poverty trough embargos.

countries foreign policies dont change unless their governence style changes. turkeys foreign polcy changed when it became a republic from an empire. russias foreign policy changed when it stopped being a tzardom. chinas foreign policy changed when it became a communal republic. but the regimes in western countries havent changed. the old imperials are still kingdoms, presidencies are still presidencies and constitutional republics are still so.

england and americas unified foreign policy against syria never changed. they have been planning to ignite the minor factions in syria against a potential "dictator"-labeled ruler 50 years ago. their dream comes true now. a petrol flow without the need for a full scale war from arabia has been the dream of western countries for 150 years. they have achieved that dream 40 years ago. britian had planned to disassamble the iraqian collective government when they formed that collective government themselves. they have done that (very crudely and violently though) now. the imperialists were telling each other "if we promise a kingdom for each arabian king, they will fight amongst themselves and will be unable to give up the stable western aid" 100 years ago. that policy never changed.

we have seen in iraqthat the vietnam policy has never changed.

so the old imperialist games will never change as well. theyre still the same. theyre still whining about turkeys minorities and religious whatevers. this policy has nothing to do with humanity itself. its all about weakening turkey. its not a turkey special too, they do this everywhere. in pakistan, in tunisia, in turkmenistan etc. afhanistan, iraq, syria etc are the succesful projects. its not a western imperialist speciality also. russian and chinese foreign policies are similar as well.

so igniting a kurdish rebllion is only the continuation of the şeyh said rebellion in ww1. igniting a religious-freedom debate (if you havent forgotten the topic from 15 years ago) is the contuniation of the Christian seperationism from the ottoman empire from ww1 as well. divide and conquer, if not conquer just make them weak. this is the policy. so take my advice, dont fall for the democracy and humanity trap and take care of your own nation. remember that nobody asked iraqian children if they were Muslim or atheist when they killed them, or if they were shii or sunni when they raped the iraqian women. in vietnam the villages that were both occupied by the communists and the neutrals were burned down.

so the 100 year-old policy about slicing the ottoman empire into hundreds of small countries and thousands of political fractions that are gutting each other hasnt changed.

racism has to go yes. west has to stop igniting racism in foreign countries.

Source: changeschanging / Flickr

A B36 bus driver picking up passengers on Sheepshead Bay Road is in the cross-hairs for refusing to let a 10-year-old child board his bus and declaring him a “terrorist.” The New York Daily News is reporting that the family of the boy has brought a lawsuit against the city over the incident, which happened a year ago.

The Daily News relayed the details of the story as told by the boy’s lawyer:

The unidentified plaintiff was searching for his MetroCard as the B36 Bus pulled up on Sheepshead Bay Road last October, according to the suit, filed Friday in Brooklyn Federal Court.

He began reciting a Muslim prayer: “I stand in the name of God the most merciful, the most beneficent,” the suit states. The driver became alarmed, called the boy a “terrorist” and slammed the door shut, the boy’s lawyer, Hyder Naqvi, told the Daily News.

“The driver said ‘Get off!’ and used the T-word,” Naqvi said, referring to the word “terrorist.”

The lawyer said the boy was so hurt afterwards that he was didn’t want to use public transportation, but later he became angry and is resolved to right the wrong.

“He was two days shy of turning 11 when this happened, but he’s old enough to know what it feels like to be discriminated against,” Naqvi said.

According to the report, the parents had complained to the MTA but never received an answer. The boy, now 12, claims he can still identify the driver if asked.

One of my friends told me, he said the very first sentence of the oath, "I am Turkish, honest and hardworking." part to an american while working and waited to see what would his response be! The response was only one word: bullshit!

Anyway!

I am turkish and i am happy with that. But why should i dedicate my existence to turkish existence? Turkishness is an identity, why should anyone dedicate their own existence to an identity, i have never understand that. Do you die for your ID? Remember, what we were used to say: "My existence shall be dedicated to the Turkish existence."

and imagine that you are going to school out of turkey. every morning at the school you are saying:

"My existence shall be dedicated to the German existence."

or

"My existence shall be dedicated to the French existence."

while you are in germany or france. and you are neither german, nor french.

the right question is not "why did we remove the oath?", the right question is "why were we that late, the year is 2013"

Toprak eğer uğrunda ölen varsa vatandır...

I think your translation is a watered down translation

It starts with ´I am a Turk´. There are people in Turkey and they dont call themselves Turks.

That is as simple as that. (think of German kids starting their school days with "I am a german", or English kids, "I am an English"(

The oat as it was itself a DIVIDING element in Turkey.

It was dividing people.

The basic requirement of a citizenship is being a good citizen not a racist citizen.

This oat was part of an engineering project of the people: Making them Turk and Sunni.

In Turkey there is an idiom ´deli gomlegi giymek/giydirmek´ which can be translated as ´putting on a straight jacket´. A straight jacket was put on people in Turkey  in 1920s/1930s. And it was forced not to take it off for many years. 

Although it is late but we are beginning to wake up.

I think you guys calling it racist should just chill out! It´s a NATIONAL ANTHEM, what do you expect. Our anthem starts out with "O Canada we stand on guard for thee", so what, I´ve never been a soldier. And lately people have been saying it should be re-written to not be sexist. Please take these anthems with a grain of salt, people.

Racism is about hating another race or believing another race is not as good as others. So many should be offended by referring to the oath as racist.

I also think people should have the right to not sing it if they don´t want to. So fine don´t sing it everyday but don´t call it racist either.

Racism is about hating another race or believing another race is not as good as others. So many should be offended by referring to the oath as racist.

No, not really !....In some countries that is called freedom of thought. Both are legal, unless you start shooting people of that other race.

you made a mistake the issue had nothing to do with we stand on guard for thee which never represented us as being offical soldiers ( which by the way, we do allow females to soldiers and even get deployed ) it means we stand for our country and protect our fellow citizens. Meaning - human rights and basic human needs are given to all canadians, that each person is important no matter what their ancestral background or religion is.This also includes mental status, health status those who are in jail.

what the issue was with the lyrics is that the song was developed in french and when translated to english is was incorrectly translated. There was gender issue in a particular line:

In 1990 it was noted that the English lyrics (thus not the true version of the song) were a tad… sexist.  Most of us scoff at the idea of “all thy sons command” as sexist, since we know it is meant to refer to all of us Canadians.  “Sons” meaning all Canadians, not the command of the male gender.  Right? Well, given that nowhere in the usually gender-specific French language is there any mention of ‘sons’, why did we chose to include it?

This is the reason why the request to change it...........the anthum is not the same in french and english!

I am sure our debate will continue since, as Canadians, we are wonderful for feeling passion on a subject, then touting the status quo (just like the GST and the penny which is coming back again).  I personally like the flow of “sons command”,  Were this a discussion of “Amen” (another translation that does not mean male-orientated), I would hammer point for point the absurdities of such a debate. But this is an issue that some feel excludes the amazing contributions that one half of the population had and has in the ongoing existence of our country.  I am not calling for a lyrics change.  I am saying that it’s hard to protest the change in a song that, when they alternate between the English and the proper French lyrics, we all mumble like Charlie Brown cartoon adults in the hope no one knows that we don’t truly know our own anthem.

Oh.  Canada.  Regardless of your lyrics, I still do stand on guard for thee.

We are not talking about our national anthem (though there are racist parts in there too). We have been talking about an oat, started in 1930s with the inspiration from fascists of Europe like Hitler and Musollini.

They got rid of their society from these type open racism long time ago. 

We had much resistance and managed to stop it in 2013..

I think I understand what your issue is with this, however just about every country has similar issues. Poland was comprised of many different tribes, the Poles were just one of them, but now the country is named Poland. There is a similar situation in England. However names are chosen rather than call the countries #1 $2 #3...even then there would be an argument as to who was #1...

FWIW, I am under the impression a Turk is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey, and they are composed of many blends. Humans have inhabited the area for millenia, Hittites, Lycians...and on and on....

There is nothing wrong with the anthem, nor is there anything wrong with the oaths. I would say this is some sort of blindness or a lapse of reason. It is like refusing to walk on a Belgian pavement since it reminds you of the WWI.

This form of light hearted social democratic demeanour is rather typical for those fighting with their own shadows. As Shakespeare put it: "Much Ado About Nothing."

These people -after having read so many books- still fail to perceive real life. They are pointing out at a theorotical world where people are like beads on an abacus. Black is black, white is white; left is left and right is right. Here is a Turkish word you might need in this connection: basmakalip. (cliche or formulaic) and this is how they are. 

So, if you don´t want to offend them, don´t recite those oaths and don´t defend them or you will be labeled.

In fact, it is so easy to manipulate them: just bring out a couple of newspapers with a fake intellectual outlook. Attack a few symbols they hate. Voila, you have an army of comrades who will gladly help destroy your system until it becomes completely defenseless. German social democrats did this favour to the Nazis, why wouldn´t ours?

If you are in my house, enjoying the fruits and comforts, I damn well expect you to help me defend it against those who want to destroy it.

Then there are those who are like the ones delivering the Trojan Horse. 

BTW I do know some Jewish people who to today will not purchase any German products. 

You are mixing apples and pears.

Defending the country we live in and belong to is one of our main duites. You may or may not be turkish, it does not matter. In dardanelles, many kurds and arabs and even armenians died to defend this country, the majority was turkish of course. And they did not died for turkish identity, they died for defending their country. Nationality, race is totaly different than the country defence. They tried to save the country, not the turkish ID.

I love my flag, even if its called as turkish flag, actually it is turkey´s flag. BTW, no problem calling it as turkish flag. If you feel you belong to turkey, you should love and respect the flag, no matter what your racial origin is.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.. The bottom line is that :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i smell an anti-militarist aproach here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you refering to the fact that it says Turk? What would you have it say?

Nationalistic ideas have always problems. These kind of ideas were widespread after french revolution and supported in order to destroy multinational empires. after WW2, europe understood its fault and quitted nationalistic propagandas. but we copied it from france in late ottoman times and went parallel with hitler´s style. after 40000+ people died in (nationalistic) turkish-(nationalistic) kurdish conflict in last 30 years, at last, happily we started to question our policies. removing our problematic oath was our latest policy change and that is good for us.

"I dedicate my exisance to Turkish existence" (Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun) means there is a turkish existence and i am always ready to protect this existence even if i die for it.

As i said before, we are defending the country, not the turkish existence. What if i live in turkey but i am not turkish, to whom shall i dedicate my self existence? if turkey were %100 turkish, we still dont need to dedicate our existence to the turkish existence. Our education system was problematic; as a natural result of this our generations are problematic, too.

I had earlier asked:

What do you understand of "I dedicate my exisance to Turkish existence" (Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun)? Doesn´t it include dieing for it for example? If not what it (Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun) means to you that you would refrain yourself from doing it?

You said above:

"I dedicate my exisance to Turkish existence" (Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun) means there is a turkish existence and i am always ready to protect this existence even if i die for it. Well so we understand the same thing more or less...

As i said before, we are defending the country, not the turkish existence. So you don´t care about Turkish existence (it´s my conclusion) so you don´t care about living under Turkish flag (again it´s my conclusion) What if i live in turkey but i am not turkish OK maybe you are not, then you are excused but if you are... I won´t say anything further... the context speaks for itself..., to whom shall i dedicate my self existence? if turkey were %100 turkish, we still dont need to dedicate our existence to the turkish existence. Our education system was problematic; as a natural result of this our generations are problematic, too.

I guess we both love our nation and country, but our approach on how to protect it is a little bit different.

I put the country ("vatan") in the center, when you protect it, automatically the turkish existence in it will be saved besides all other minority nations.

But when we claim we are fighting for the turkish existence (or any nation´s existence) it is problematic. We should defend the country for anyone living inside it, not just for turks.

Also forcing other people to declare them as turkish, banning their native language etc. is not right, we suffered these wrong policies a lot until now.

                                        Amerikada ekmeğin iki yüzü de yağlıdır.....

Farklı vatan sevgileri...

I support AlphaF´s approach. 

The West has trasitionally supported what they call as moderate Islam and it ferociously attacks any nationalist movement. Saddam, Qaddafi, Essad all thought about the national interests of their countries and were/have been being eradicated by the same nonpatriotic power.

Don´t buy arguments by looking at how they are packed. Patriotism can sometimes be a social defense mechanism a cement holding the entire structure to give it a chance to evolve into more advanced stages.

Remember Rome was not built in one day.

Add Makarios and Necmettin Erbakan to your list too.

I find it amazing that these two guys, fundamentalists at two different religions, had one important thing in common; they were both nationalists.

Makarios was killed, Erbakan was toppled by the West.

Sometimes the problem is not that we do the wrong things but that we continue too long doing the things that once may have been right.

Yes, but as mentioned in my message there is still an ongoing fight. Moderate Islam is still being exported and patriotic elements are still being targeted. Who is doing this and for what? We have a name for the misdeed on one end: nationalism or patriotism. What about the other end? A nation gives reaction in great numbers and in great vigour and this only happens when it is jeopardized.

I think moderate islam´s antidote has never been racism and it never will be.

Or the fight in Turkey was never been about islam vs nationalism-racism.

It was just about returning back to normal!!  We have been forced to wear a straight jacket for so long. Europen countries got rid of these things long time ago.

Many things we lived with were never been "normal". Most of them were added into our lives in the era when there was a single party or at the times during the coups..

Many things are changing..

The army has been removed from the politics? what happened? did we all die? NO.

They removed andimiz.. did Turkey collapse because of this? NO

First women entered the parliment with their head scarves a few days ago.. is Turkey ruled with Sheria now? NO

So less racism is always better..

Andimiz was removed in this context and it is a good thing for all of us..

I don´t think Prophet Muhammad ever said anything like this.

I searched for it, if it is genuine or fake. Here is the results:

---

Love for one´s country is part of faith
Question
There is a hadîth that declares that loving one´s country is part of faith. Is it authentic?
Answered by
the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
There is a hadîth that reads: “The love for one’s country is part of faith”.

It is discussed by al-`Ajlûnî in his book Kashf al-Khafâ’ [1102]. Al-`Ajlûnî writes: “Imam al-San`anî said this hadîth is false, and al-Sakhâwî said in his book al-Maqâsid al-Hasanah [386]: ´I never came across this hadîth´.”

Al-Albânî lists this hadîth in his book Silsilah al-Ahâdîth al-Da`îfah (A Series of the Weak and False Hadîth) as hadîth no. 36.

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1179

---

Rivâyetin anlam çerçevesine gelince: Eğer dense ki, vatan sevgisi imana aykırı değildir, yerinde bir tesbit yapılmış olur. Çünkü vatan sevgisi kişinin kendisini sevmesi gibi birşeydir. Kişinin kendisini sevmesi imandan değildir ama imana aykırı da değildir.

http://sehidim.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/vatan-sevgisi-imandandir-hadis-midir-serdar-demirel/

---

Did he or did he not?  (Agop can translate the article ,link below, for you) 

http://www.sorularlaislamiyet.com/qna/12552/vatan-sevgisi-imandandir-sozu-hadis-midir.html

PS

Do you think F. Gülen could have made the other comment ?

LOVING ONE´S FATHERLAND

It is discussed by al-`Ajlûnî in his book Kashf al-Khafâ’ [1102]. Al-`Ajlûnî writes: “Imam al-San`anî said this hadîth is false, and al-Sakhâwî said in his book al-Maqâsid al-Hasanah [386]: ´I never came across this hadîth´.”

öbürcihan

In fact, great current thinker and philosopher Mr. Zihni Sinir has recently commented "Loving one´s country is a cardinal sin and must be avoided under all conditions" 

I think moderate islam´s antidote has never been racism and it never will be.

Agop.

There is no such thing as "moderate islam", in islam´s own terminology. This concept is an orientalist figment of Western  Christian imagination. serving their basic intention to create fractions within islam.

When there is an opportunity for racism you never fail to show up

I think, it is like a little monster in you, trying to come out like in the movie, the alien..

Colour?

You can customise it here ==>

http://www.shirtcity.co.uk/racist-brain-v-neck-t-shirt-66206?gclid=CMOkz63Zz7oCFVMbtAodYBMAmQ

i just realized that very few people can differate between racism and nationalism

Nationalism, patriotism and racism are all perceived differently depending on one´s point of view. For example if you are a lefty you can take the freedom of grouping these concepts and using them to make your word salad appear richer. How can you lose an argument if anyone who disagrees is automatically a racist?

If you are a conservative and if you are adressing to a group of so called leftists, you will group red, communist, socialist, anarchist and infidel together. You don´t have to bother about the differences among those.

Today the biggest patriotic nation in the world is the USA followed by England, France and Germany. They are against all this word salad and they have no interest in wasting their time with name calling. Instead they safeguard their national interests brutally.

Really, this is silly. I asked you what the problem is and why you call the oath racist, you didn´t answer. I asked you if it was the name Turkey you find unacceptable, no answer. 

Most countries have settled on a name for their country. Many of the names actually are derived from some tribe or another, but we don´t hear the people getting upset and calling the names racist. Here, take a look:

Endonyms and most exonyms for Poles and Poland derive from the name of the West Slavic tribe of the Polans 

The name "England" is derived from the Old English name Englaland, which means "land of the Angles". The Angles were one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages. 

The name "France" comes from the Latin Francia, which means "country of the Franks". There are various theories as to the origin of the name Franks: one is that it is derived from the Proto-Germanic word frankon which translates as javelin or lance as the throwing axe of the Franks was known as a francisca.[20] Another proposed etymology is that in an ancient Germanic language, Frank means free as opposed to slave.

Hungary, Atilla the Hun

In the 7th century, Bulgar tribes (likely of central Asian Turkic origin), migrated to the lower courses of the rivers Danube, Dniester and Dniepr under the leadership of Asparukh. After 670 he moved into the Balkan Peninsula with a horde of 50,000 Bulgars across the Danube and in 680 severed Scythia Minor from the Byzantine Empire. A peace treaty with Byzantium in 681 and the establishment of a permanent capital at Pliska south of the Danube marked the beginning of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars gradually mixed up with the local population, adopting a common language on the basis of Slavonic."

Nothing is silly here.

I explained zillion times why our oath was racist. You had your answers zillion times.

We are not going back and repeat them again!!

Th conclusion is as cyristal : ´our oath was racist and it has gone for good´.

That is the bottom line.

My comments above were directed to an individual(s) and not a generic comment at all anyway. 

And for the nationalism vs racism: No racist call themselves racist. They all call themselves patriots or nationalists.. Important things is to find the line between. 

"Türküm, doğruyum, çalışkanım. Yasam, küçüklerimi korumak, büyüklerimi saymak, yurdumu, budunumu özümden çok sevmektir. Ülküm, yükselmek, ileri gitmektir. Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun.

I guess it´s because of the "Türk" word in it. So saying "I am a Turk" is racist by his rationale.

Funny thing is he´s the one who says "I am a Türk" unsolicitedly zillion times in his posts in this site. Speaking of myself, I have never said "I am a Türk" unsolicitedly here.

I think it should also be noted the old oath was pointless and childish too.. Forcing young students  scream  that ´I am honest´ for 10s of years every morning  did not help anything..

Turkey is still one of the worst countries in Europe as far as corruption and bribery are concerned!!

IT WAS WRITTEN FOR CHİLDREN, AGOP !

ANLAYABİLDİN Mİ ?

Nothing wrong to say that "i am a turk". Saying it every morning by a crowded chorus is extreme and not necessary. Forcing non-turks to say it is unlawful.

Yes..

Implemented  by a racist person to make childeren as racist as himself in the times when racism was quite common...

But however, it is not a surprising thing that it is defended as if there is no tomorrow by a racist person like you. have you decided about the colour yet? Select one for  the other one too.. 

I am glad you managed to understand it was written for children Agop....You are improving! 

Have you selected your colour? Since you seem to be enjoying being called a racist after commiting hate crimes, I would go for a cheerful colour.

How about green?

geyik muhabetti .........................

yeah exactly. this is one of the reasons why i get so angry in these subjects. because strong nations are immune to these word salads. because people who are trigger-happy with this name callings towards smaller countries are afraid to do the same to usa england france etc. its frustrating.

pretty much. what we know as germany now is actually the land of like 200 gaul tribes. germans, alamanni, teutons, they all called those lands home. if we were to reduce every country to their ethnic demographic borders there wouldnt be any government left in this world. is racism only applicaple to militaristically and economically weak countries? why shoudld racism or any other blame be directed towards a country as a whole? more importanty, why academic arguments that are about demographics become political and result in people getting murdered? one should think on these.

Dont get frustrated..

I can assure you that no kids get in line and screan their heads of ´I am English, I am hard working blah blah.´ in the UK.

They would not do that type open racism under the sunlight and wrap it up as  ´nationalism´.

Actually, you didn´t. What you did do is evade the actual answer and claim you answered. That´s the tactic of The Big Lie...and
"There´s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." - William James The father of modern Psychology 

Your credit here is running low Agop !  

i already pasted the english "racist" anthems and marches to you. obviously you skip posts. if you want more you can google racistm in england. im done doing your google searches for you.

Avrupa değerleri Avrupa çerçevesi bu tür problemlere çözüm bulmak için kullanılır. Türkiye’de azınlıklar da var her yerde olduğu gibi. Bunlar sorunlara neden olabiliyor. Birkaç yıl önce her şey çok daha zordu. Bugün Türkiye’de insanlar ikinci kimliğini de söyleyebiliyor. Bu tür insanlar sadece Türkiye’de değil Balkanlar’da da böyle insanlar var. Müslüman azınlıklar var. Her azınlık grubunun etrafına bir sınır çizerek onları ayrıştırırsak, etnik olarak arındırılmış devletler kurmaya çalışırsak, Avrupa düşüncesine aykırı olur. Biz ortak değerlere inandığımızı söylersek, o zaman bu sınırları değiştirmeyiz. O zaman sınırlara saygı gösteririz. İnsan haklarına, azınlık haklarına, inanç özgürlüğüne saygı gösteririz.

George Papandreou

Actually, I did.. Not once but many many times. And you KNOW IT.

Our oath was a racist one. I know it, you know it, EVERYBODY knows it.

It was a great embarrassment  for all of us.

It has gone for the good.

That is the bottom line.

Um....well you must excuse me, but I sure didn´t see it. Can you direct me to where you explained what you meant by the term "racist" in regards to the oath?  I asked it it was the word Turk....but you didn´t answer that...(maybe I missed it?) Is it that you are against oaths in general, do you have a better one you would like to share?

Alameda, I wonder where you were when we were discussing about ´Turk´ is being the name of a race and apart from a few sentence, it has been used for the race. Obviously, it has been bothering many people.  Because they are not Turkish!! Would you be happy to see your children forced to scream their heads of every morning if you lived in Turkey as an American citizen?

And it really naive to think the entire thing  was not racist.

Can you defend the racist italian or german oaths from 1930s? 

No..

You can not.

It is the same thing.

It was racist and it is gone for good.

This is from the column of Fatih Altaylı:

"Galatasaray´da okuduğum sırada din dersi zorunlu değildi.
Bazı arkadaşlarımız bu derse girmezdi.
Bazıları Ermeni´ydi, bazıları ise Yahudi.
Girmeyen Türk öğrenciler de vardı ama niye girmediklerini anlamazdık, çünkü o zamanlar ´Alevilik´ diye bir ayrışmanın olduğunun farkında değildik."
Bu satırlara itiraz geldi.
Sevgili Hayim Pinto şöyle dile getirmiş itirazını:
"Bu tanımlamalar doğru olmamış Müslüman olmayabiliriz ama biz de Türk´üz."
Pinto´nun bu satırlarını okuyunca gözlerim doldu.
Mutlu oldum.
Sevindim.
Türk olmayı, Atatürk´ün Cumhuriyet´e kazandırdığı Türklük tanımını bundan daha iyi hangi sözcükler ifade edebilirdi.
Üstelik de Hayim Pinto bu sözleri bundan 15 yıl önce söylese önemli değildi.
Bugün daha önemli.
Türk olmak "demode" olmuşken, hatta neredeyse "ayıp" olmuşken bunu söylemek gerçekten değer taşıyor.

Translation:

When I was in Galatasaray school, the class about the religion was not compulsary. Some of us wouldn´t take it because they were Armenians or Jewish. There were some Turks who didn´t take it as well and we didn´t understand then why they wouldn´t. We were not aware that there was a separation called alevism.

I received an objection from one of my readers about it. Hayim Pinto (my note: the name suggests that he is a Jewish) writes:

"OK we may not be a muslim but we are also Türk"

My comment was quite specific, and has nothing to do with the other countries you mentioned, in an attempt to divert the conversation. I asked specifically it it was Turk you objected to, you did not answer. If so, please give us a link to the post. 

Turk is not a race, it´s the name of a nationality, and the name of an ethnic group....similar naming conventions have been used in other countries..as I pointed out to you in an earlier post. I asked you what you would prefer, no answer. To me it seems you are hung up on the name Turk. Would you prefer Lasland, Kurdistan, Zazalaz? Trakitolia? What do you want, really, other than to sow discontent, that is?

Here it is again: 

Most countries have settled on a name for their country. Many of the names actually are derived from some tribe or another, but we don´t hear the people getting upset and calling the names racist. Here, take a look:

Endonyms and most exonyms for Poles and Poland derive from the name of the West Slavic tribe of the Polans 

The name "England" is derived from the Old English name Englaland, which means "land of the Angles". The Angles were one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages. 

The name "France" comes from the Latin Francia, which means "country of the Franks". There are various theories as to the origin of the name Franks: one is that it is derived from the Proto-Germanic word frankon which translates as javelin or lance as the throwing axe of the Franks was known as a francisca.[20] Another proposed etymology is that in an ancient Germanic language, Frank means free as opposed to slave.

Hungary, Atilla the Hun

In the 7th century, Bulgar tribes (likely of central Asian Turkic origin), migrated to the lower courses of the rivers Danube, Dniester and Dniepr under the leadership of Asparukh. After 670 he moved into the Balkan Peninsula with a horde of 50,000 Bulgars across the Danube and in 680 severed Scythia Minor from the Byzantine Empire. A peace treaty with Byzantium in 681 and the establishment of a permanent capital at Pliska south of the Danube marked the beginning of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars gradually mixed up with the local population, adopting a common language on the basis of Slavonic."

It is easy for some countries to mix terms like patriotism, racism, nationalism.. especially if they never had to share a border with Russia, or laid down accepted their patronage.

Australians did not learn racism from Turks during Gallipoli wars; what they learned were patriotism and nationalism. After the war, they realised that their own  independence was of prime importance and used patriotism and nationalism to get it.

That is why the two nations still respect each other sincerely, despite a fierce war in between, sparked by other well known non-racist (!) nations.

Alameda for the last time:

-The word "Turk" is a name for an ethnicity.  As a word, except a few sentences, it has been used as a name for a  race/ethinicity. What is my ethnicity? I am a Turk? what does a person who comes from the East of Turkey, say about his ethnicity? He/she is a Kurd. Why would you force a Kurd, an Armenian, a Greek child to force to say ´he/she is a Turk?´ can you give a logical answer? NO.

-I dont prefer any other name. Why do you need any name as if  there is no life without screaming an oath .You do NOT need to be NATIONALISTIC. That is not compulsary. Being a good citizen will be enough.

-Nobody objects the existing of the races or ethnicities.

-BUT GLORIFYING A RACE IS RACISM.

-The past oath was a racist oath.

Alameda,

Your discussion friend is very much like a parrot who keeps repeating the few lines he has memorized. The moment you force him out of his area of memorization he is lost and can only repeat himself once again.

Pls bear with him, or better do not waste your time with him at all.

why not? they force people to become dutch/german/french/british in europe. or in russia. you can say you are kalmyk but if you say you want to throw away your russian id and become independent, then they invade you (their own land actually) and nobody says anything. because russia is big, strong, nuclear etc. as i said before, the thing that infuriates me most with the petty anti-racists is that their anti-racism can only touch the politically weak countries. 1.5 million iraqis killed? oh sure! its america! they have to be right! but fuck turks and their racist oath! those pigs who sing their own national anthem! bla ba

and another thing that infuriates me is this new-age trendy anti-"racism" in turkey. when did this trend start? when akp came into govt. then they fucked all nationalist things and you guys real face came out. so your idea of anti-"racism" required nothing but a govt change. before that you guys were all nice and tidy turkish citizens who faked tears in bir başkadır benim memleketim songs. and now someone came and said "ok im the prime minister now i ban all turkish flags" you belly dancers all went along with it. so what will happen when he says "ok im selling this country to america"? you will also go along with it. your whole philosophy and ideology is about syncronising it to the philosophy of the governing party or whomever is in charge. just like the ottoman citizens who sided with the british and french when the ottoman empire has been invaded by british and french.

turkey. land of mosaics. on one hand you see a mother who has lost his son a matyr to the firefight and says "i sacrifice him to the country. i have another son. i would sacrifice him as well. as long as the land is intact" and on the other hand you have people who say "turkish flag? man im not turkish. turkish land? please dont be racist". its like mystic.

You have to get a grip on what is hapenning in the world!!

Nobody is forced in civilised world to become dutch/german etc.. That is the halucination and imaginary world you have been forced to live and lies you have been brain washed to believe.

And please.. Stop commenting before searching about your subject!!

I am not going to defend the PM. I dont care what he does or he does NOT.

But I have never seen anybody banning the Turkish flags!! (or selling Turkey to USA. Get a grip with the facts!! No one is banning the flags or no one is seeling the country to anybody!! lol )

But I know many behave like flag fetishists!!

They make flags so big that they can be seen from the space!!

I even remember an incident where 10-11 yo kids dyed a flag by cutting their hands and use their blood.. 

For those parents, yes, I would support banning to use of any flag because they belittle my country´s image!  

What else do you know about fetishists, Agop ?

do you need to repeat yourself with the same racism again and again as if to say I dont have any logical  thing to say any more ?

Well, I disagree with you. In the case of a Turkish citizen it´s not in reference to a race, it´s in reference to nationality.

So let me get this straight, you are against nation & flags, you can´t say what other term you would like to call citizens of Turkey, you are even against having a flag, so it seems in your post # 88 in this thread. "...I would support banning to use any flag..... "

I´m afraid you are not going to find any place that doesn´t have citizen requirments. Here is a guide to citizenships in a variety of different nations. I might suggest you go over what a nation is and what a nationality is. 

Like it or not, you will be rather lonely and quite vulnerable as a stateless person. 

Well let me tell you one thing Alameda:

As a turkish citizen, I am telling you "the word Turk refers to a race/ethinicity". And as I said many times, ´apart from a few sentences, it was used to describe a race/ethnicity´. 

I am a citizen of Turkey and I have always been proud of it.

What I am not or you have to get a grip of the fact that you can be a proud citizen of your country without a flag fetishism or without being a racist or even without being a nationalist!!

Racism/nationalism is not a  requirement of citizenship!!

ps.. Look. This nationalism does not stay there as innocent as you try to show. Check what sort of ideology is behind of killing 17.000 unlawfully during the fight with kurds in 1990s, check which ideology was behind the  pogrom of 1956 in Istanbul, check the idology supported all those coups in Turkey, check the ideological  back ground of 1915 Armenian deportation.. Do I need to give more examples? why do you need we are still struggling to live together? why do you think Turkey is one of a few countries  almost does not have any ethnic minorities?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integration_law_for_immigrants_to_the_Netherlands

http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Broschueren/Migration_und_Integration_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/immigration/index_en.htm

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=950

A citizen of China is called Chinese, a citizen of Canada is called Canadian....obvoously, a citizen of Turkey would be called a Turk.....need I go on? I asked what term you prefer? Of course renaming the country would be required, is that do you want?

People keep having problems because some people agitate problems. I´ve noticed in areas, with strategic territory or valuable resources, people seem to be turned against one another. It isns´t that difficult as at his most base nature, humans are tribal, like various animals, sheep, goats, oxen, or flocks of birds. 

I am not Turkish, thus don´t have a pony in this race, I am just a history buff who has found the Levant interesting historic area. That is why when you go on about racism, see the absurdity of that comment. Anatolia & Thrace are some of the oldest most traveled crossroads of the world. Humans have been blending there for many thousands of years. 

To try to separate a group, like claiming this area is the homeland of XXX or ZZZ is inaccurate. Study a little archology. 

“Naturally the common people don´t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering

As for the rest of your rant, I have studied those issues. You mention the Armenians....

I notice you never mention the Hunchacks, who were established in 1887....."and what was their strategy?

Taken from the Hunchak.org website. ...I´m not linking to it due to malware on the site. 

"III. The Hunchakian program advocated revolution as the only means of reaching the immediate objective. The arena of revolutionary activity was designed as Turkish Armenia. The Party believed that the existing social organisation in Turkish Armenia could be changed by violence against the Turkish government and described the following methods. Propaganda, Agitation, Terror, Organisation, and Peasant and Worker Activities.

Propaganda was to be directed to the people to educate them toward two goals: The basic reasons and the proper time for revolution against the government; The social order that was to be established after the successful revolution.

Agitation and Terror were needed to "elevate the spirit of the people". Demonstrations against the government, refusal to pay taxes, demands for reforms, and hatred of the aristocracy were part of the party´s agitation campaign. Terror was to be used as a method of protecting the people and winning their confidence in the Hunchak program."

The fact of the matter is there are always a variety of different ethnic groups in an area, all humans are related, we are cousins.

Fixed borders are a recent phenomenon, formerly people were more mobile and crossed, stayed here a while then went there. We are similar to the birds and other creatures. 

Do you seriously think all these integration policies meant ´FORCING PEOPLE TO BE DUTCH/GERMAN etc´?

Search more!!

We wont need to change the name of the country. We should just learn how to live together and that will be all..

Apart from anything else, say a Turk like me accepted  this racist oath: Closed my eyes, closed my ears etc. But what about the others. Specially the Kurds!! They dont want it naturally.. And that is their basic human rights. Why would a Kurdish kid should be forced to say that every morning? Just to please a few nationalists? Why are we NOT able to accept a Kurd as a Kurd?

That is where nationalism is coming into equation. The nationalism, which you are talking as if everybody has to have it, as you see here is  making people to see others enemy. They think anybody who does not want to say this oath is their enemy. This ideology could divide Turkey.

Well Mr. H....most all countries require some sort of oath, pledge or such of allegiance. It is up to the citizens of Turkey to decide what they want it to be. I wish you all well. It is as if we are all in a canoe and if one rocks it the water comes in on all of us....where ever we are. 

We have to constantly watch out for anything that instills hatred, & causes us to seek vengance. I know the Bulgarians don´t consider themselves any kind of a Turk, however the name of their country is derivative of a turkic people. Mexico takes it´s name from the Mixtec people, although there are many Zapotec, Mayan, Tzeltal, Nahua and Mestizo or various European derivitives other people. I haven´t seen them uprising to protest being called Mexican. 

BTW  In the Italy the term "Turk" was applied to anyone who was Muslim, and had nothing to do with any ethnicity. That term has died out some what, but I´ve heard many of the WWII generation still use it. It´s kind of like Moor could be used for black or Muslim in Spain. The patron saint of Spain is St. James Matamoros. There is a town in called Matamoros which means kill the Moors, meaning Muslims. 

We had a member named Daydreamer, there must be a reason why I remembered her name. 

The true nature of nations is not like the way you perceive them. Eve the most advanced nations in the world are pretty selfish when it comes to their own interests and they would not hesitate to resort to power if they want to make a point. They use mighty weapons and brutal methods to make sure who the boss is. They use your holy book as toilet paper. They know how to intimidate you or to fill your mind with utopic democracy games whereas the name of their game is xenophobia. Don´t tell me what is being staged today has something to do with the Kurds and their rights or with the terrorist acts that have claimed the lives of thousands of peopöe

sure. i lived in those places. dont tell me to search more. its you who has to research, being the ignorant one here.

if one doesnt want to be turkish, they should leave turkey. how simplier can this get?

"i want to sit on the galatasaray section of the stadium. none of you fenerbahçe fans curse galatasaray! it offends me!"

"hey this room is too warm for me. all of you get out!"

"i want to retrain my right to smoke in this part of the bus. you guys can breathe in your own air!"

"i didnt fart. you people smelled!"

it looks like this when someone says they want my land because they were not accepted. much worse if they have murdered people with the excuse of not having been accepted.

You are right. It can´t get very much simpler.

Really? where did you see they are forcing people to be´Dutch/German´?

Obviously integration policies are NOT about forcing for  immigrants to become Dutch German French etc.

So where is this forcing you believed exists?

Or just making it up?

Search more!!

What if they dont leave? What are you going to do?

What if that is their land too?

What are you going to do?

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Tell us and compare WHAT YOU want to do with what we have been doing to the Kurds so far.

You know people may love other people or they may hate them. There are no iron-clad rules. I have listened to many educated German citizens who wanted to send the Turks in their country back home despite all those years and acquired rights of citizenship. They thought a guest population (as they label them again despite tens of years) had to assimilate themselves and live like Germans in the land of Germans. This doesn´t happen because the German government is not officially asking the Turks to leave.

As you see, what matters here is how a government handles this. Everyone must have basic human rights. They are entitled to speaking their native languages and living in their mother land. Kurds are not an exception. The Turkish government is not asking anyone to leave the country either although there is enmity between the Turks and Kurds in general.

Today there is a bloody game being played by the powers that be. They use the Kurds in Iraq and Syria to eliminate the local Arabic governments. Considerable amounts of property and money are said to have been forcefully acquired by these people and it seems they are free to do this just because the US is backing them in line with their shared interests in the region.

Countries like Turkey, Iran are ancient ones. They are matured civilizations. They don´t need anyone to teach them anything. They will have to settle their own problems. One of these countries is playing the religion card to maintain its unity and power and to withstand the erosion caused by the West. Turkey has traditionally been a patriotic country and this is especially so for the last two centuries. A few Arabic countries played this card too but they were overcome by the US. One must be blind not to see that. The  US has a problem with patriotic countries and they are installing their Patriot missile system to protect non-patriotic (moderate Islam) countries.