This is one of the most idiotic articles I have ever read. Anyone calling himself a journalist must first of all know about the basic facts about his/her country. What can the audience of this piece of junk article be: primary school students? Comparing Turkey with Saudi Arabia a welfare society almost singularly dependent on oil, with a country featuring economic depth and diversity essentially based on the hard work of its people. This guy doesn´t even know income per capita doesn´t denote economic power. I am sure he hails Kuwait and Luxembourg as economic giants too.

Turkey has a much larger economy than even the richest Arab League country (about twice as large as Saudi Arabia) and its GDP per capita is better than most Arab countries save a few oil-rich ones.

Let´s set the record straight, most Turkish people don´t like Arabs and vice-versa. It is only through the efforts of our Arab loving government that we are getting popular in the region. Our TV shows also help with our publicity. It is not that I endorse this lack of affection but it is unfortunately true.

Unfortunately, most of our journalists are utterly shallow creatures. Many of them are bigots to start with, some are sexist and some are machos. There are female columnists writing about their g-strings and some advocating hijab claiming that would liberate them. It is getting more and more difficult to find a piece of news free from bias, partiality and bigotry.

Though this is not specific to Turkey, my answer would be the tax system.

No matter how hard you work, how creative you get, what risks you may take, the tax man is always there to claim his big share. He is your natural partner who only reaps the benefits and stays away from all the risks.

Once the money is in his system. You have no control over it and he has no need to ever tell you. Your money probably travels from your pocket into that of some fat and ugly big shot favoured by the powers that be.

In your previous story, we observe the spontaneity of interactions among individuals. We could draw some general conclusions but that might not apply equally well to all women following the hijab code etc.

Nevertheless, we can claim religious orientation does have a strong inflıuence in the ethical aspects of behaviour. Religion being lived as a cultural asset rather than a strictly followed set of rules, we could consider it as both a catalyst of the resulting cultural outlook and a product of that culture itself.

Morever, presence or absence of consent to a mainstream religious way of life could be a deceptive indicator of one´s cultural identity. Communities produce all sorts of members from a religious point of view. Nevertheless, just like the bulk of icebergs immersed in water, the essential aspects of an individual is immersed in the cultural pool of his/her society. A much safer way to criticize behaviour in such societies would be to disregard the caps and turbans and the stuff. We could get better results if we used psychology and sociology as our guides.

Since human is human everywhere, we could understand him better if we look at him/her from a universal perspective. Religious and cultural aspects will only be instrumental in further understanding their traits etc.

I wish I could flee abroad during this blood bath.

You seem to be partly endorsing what I had written earlier. Nonetheless, it seems you think that we open up the doors to our private lives willingly or we must be ready to accept the consequences if people decide to peek into our lives. You must however realize that people are rarely consenting to disclose their private information to anyone wishing. In most cases, they trust an organization and consider their promise to keep what is trusted as confidential information as confidential just as they are meant to be. Some of these organizations however are said to be threatened by the US government agencies and the confidential information trusted to them is leaked to them. Once they lay hold of this, they can access further information easily since they now know all the vital information like passwords, answers to secret questions, private communication of not only the person who is being tracked but also every other person associating with him. In other words, the intelligence guys have easy access to an area that may be considered as a cache of thoughts and opinions. If you know somebody´s political inclination and the contact he/she has, you can predict what he/she is capable of and when he/she is likely to take action if she ever will. Now this "if she ever will" part is a bit important. because one of the essential tenets of justice is the assumption that one is not guilty unless he commits crime. You may think of killing me but you are not a murderer unless you actually do that. The police are not in pursuit of potentialities, it is a world of crime and evidence.

It goes like this, you go online, open a Facebook account and don´t add me as a friend on account that you have a jealous boyfriend; but what if I am in association with Facebook and that I have access to all your secret information including a chance to remotely leaking into your PC?  What makes this possible, your consent or a malicious network violating your privacy?

Where else would they look when information is presented to them on a golden plate and on a voluntary basis?

This world is like a masquarade, no matter how democratic you may think your nation has become, the authority always finds a way to infiltrate into your private life. All this happens in the undercover of a candy box design. You find your sweethearts on the social media platform in exchange of a security check into your thoughts and political inclinations.

If this trend goes on like this, there will effectively be no private life in the future.

Could it be that we are travelling on a seemingly benign road of technological advancement that will eventually lead us to Mr. Orwell´s world of Olligarchical Collectivism as laid out in his 1984.

As long as our leaders have interests other than those strictly national and deep rooted fears of becoming a loser in the power equilibrium, things will go on like this forever.

We used to be the sick man of Europe. I think it is such a disparaging statement.

In my opinion, the sickness is not limited to Greece, in fact the entire Europe is sick. They just don´t realize that at this point. This is in fact, the collapse of the welfare model which has already been in constant erosion since Thatcher. A non-producing Europe will perpetually suffer from a lack of dynamism. It will run on easy money coming from investments and usury. When countries like China and India begin to stand on their own feet, the game will be over for Europe.

Can Europe find a way to avoid this looming end by substantially changing its socio-economic structure before it is too late?

This is not a game of my backyard vs your backyard. We are talking about democracy and freedom(s).

This is probably the most (looking for a softer statement here, help me TC members) answer I have ever received from anyone.

Logically, you should not even bother protesting me amid all our woes and fears related with terror, eartquakes and the stuff.

As a matter of fact, we must all mind our own business who cares about Khaddafi, I can´t even spell his name. With the world being full of jerks and nuts I must put a limit on my expectations. Why move a finger? Why worry? Just let it go...

A curious question; which Western newspapers or TV channels featured the private pictures of Khaddafi´s daughter? What was the purpose of this violation of one of the basic human rights.

Pillagers raid in your house and capture your private (some of which are glamour-like shots) pictures and you see them in press next day. Who is patting on the shoulders of these savages? What kind of a relationship is there between them?