Turkish is an agglutinative language and this is a mind-boggling point for many learners. You have to get used to forming your sentences with suffixes instead of words and prepositions. Even after years of learning, foreigners tend to make mistakes. I think both because it is a bit difficult to master and because the listener usually figures what the speaker means or wants to say anyway.

A typical native speaker doesn´t know the difference between -na and -ya but he/she can always pick the right one. Perhaps learning by exposure is a better method than trying to master the morphological rules.  Nonetheless, as a hint

I would say, if the attributive noun in a compound noun is genitive it needs -na, -ne etc in its accusative form. If not -ye, ya etc are used. Some proper nouns are obtained from such compound nouns and they follow the same underlying morphological rules:

For example:

Example 1: Demir kapıya 

Example 2: Kuşadası´na. (Kuş adası is based on a noun compliment)

I admit Turks can bit agressive at times. As a matter of fact, they go to the extremes in both directions:enemity and friendliness. 

Thehandsom you are not aware of what you are saying most of the time. Calling your countrysmen racists is not a way of initiating a friendly discussion. You are a flavour in this soup. No you are not the Turk or the mastermind who would judge others. 

People should ask themselves how good they are as say a chess player. The wise words they inadvertantly say would have the effect of a critical move in a chess game. Is it the right move or will it be a faux pas. You had better think twice before making those provocative claims.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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)

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?