Turkey [Archive] - Wired New York Forum

czsz

March 30th, 2006, 03:55 PM

As many Turks would be willing to die for "the Turkish nation" in its ethnocentric, secular sense as Americans would be willing to do to defend their "freedom" or "homeland". It's not conceived as "martyrdom," but it's quite palpable.

Contemporary Islam is no more evangelical today than Christianity. The rapidity with which non-mainline evangelical Protestant sects are spreading in Latin America, Africa, and East Asia is astounding. Moreover, you seem to confuse what is a very multifaceted, polyconceptual religion with an infinitude of variants with a few of its most dogmatic, militantly-interpreted, and headline-grabbing strains. Simply because these exist and have a rhetorical advantage in much of the world does not mean the Turks are automatically susceptible to them. Similarly, they do not catch on very effectively in Mali or Bangladesh. Why? For the most part it emerges from an embattled, defencive context. Hence in Pakistan one finds antipathy mixed with fears over India, in the Philippines a perceived struggle with the Christian minority, in Chechnya a "liberation struggle" against Russia, in Palestine the omnipresent threat of Israel, etc. This is compounded by powerful actors emerging from contexts which have always been bastions of this brand of faith, such as Saudi Arabia. The conflation of oil money and Wahabbism has produced a vast missionary capability which has reached from Indonesia to Bosnia.

Generally speaking, the Turks have far fewer grievances than any of these places, and are not indoctrinated in Wahabbism from birth, as Saudis are, and are hence less readily captivated by "fundamentalist" theology as Bosnians, Chechens, or Pakistanis. Moreover, unlike Iran in the 1970s, Turks are not ruled by an absolute monarch who employs a ruthless secret police to abduct and silence dissenters, nor is their government the product of a CIA-engineered coup. True, urban to rural migration and the return of religion to the urban public realm is similar to what took place in Iran, but dissent in Turkey not only has democratic outlets, its government is also seen as the product of indigenous political forces (or in this case, force: Ataturk), and is therefore respected far moreso than the puppet Shah ever was. Finally, the traditional experience of all states under the Ottoman Empire was of religion continually subordinated to the state apparatus, whether in the 19th century, when religion was made a tool of the state, or in the 20th, when it was subsumed by nationalist ideology. The Iranian Shi'a theologians (ulema) were never as constrained as Ottoman Sunnis (as the Shah's power up to the 1920s was perennially weak); they have historically felt that it was their prerogative to act independently. Hence, they helped foment the democratic revolution of 1908 and the later ne of 1979. While the Wahabbis have to some extent infiltrated Sunni ulema outside of Saudi Arabia, they haven't nearly converted the ulema in Arab states, and especially not in Turkey, to the idea of the need for an independent clergy, let alone a theocracy.

Indeed, fundamentalist Islam of all strains has had far more success in London, Birmingham and Leeds than it has anywhere in Turkey.

ZippyTheChimp

March 31st, 2006, 08:13 AM

I have little knowledge of the current political climate in Turkey, but it seems to me that Islamic fundamentalism did not emerge as a dominant force in Turkey because the country experienced little outside influence over the last several decades. There were US missiles in Turkey in the 1960s, regarded by the USSR as a threat, that were central to the Cuban missile crisis, but those weapons were to be removed anyway. Turkey remained an ally, but US involvement in the country was low-key.

Islamic fundamentalism rose up in countries whose failed governments were perceived to be controlled by the industrialized world or pawns in the Cold War.

United Arab Republic, heavily supported by the USSR.
Iran and the Shah
Iraq and (ironically) Hussein
Afghanistan, a stable monarchy before the Soviet invasion.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict became another source of Cold War tension.

Lebanon, a multi-ethnic country with its capital probably the most cosmopolitan city in the Middle East, degenerated into sectarian conflict after Syria and Israel (more Cold War politics) entered the country.

In the case of Turkey, I think denial of entry into the EU based on a concern that Islamic fundamentalism would take over the country would actually move its politics in that direction, while acceptance would demonstrate the viability of the secular government.

Human rights violations should be considered the same way they are in Cuba.

ablarc

March 31st, 2006, 09:00 AM

Human rights violations should be considered the same way they are in Cuba.
Now, there's a cryptic sentence. (I almost hope you don't explain it so I can go on puzzled at its meaning.)

ZippyTheChimp

March 31st, 2006, 12:23 PM

Cryptic?

I guess I don't see it because I wrote it. I chose Cuba because its human rights violations, real and imagined, are regarded as the result of an oppressive government, not religious fanaticism.

I would want the same standards to be applied to the Turkey.

As I typed this, it occurred to me that you might have inferred that I meant
human rights violations should never be considered as as result of religious fanaticism. I was speaking only of Turkey, where my admitted limited knowedge leads me to think that is not the case.

ablarc

April 1st, 2006, 11:26 AM

Human rights violations are onerous, whatever their source. They tend towards the egregious when their perpetrators are inspired by God.

Almost equally deplorable is the desire to produce heaven on earth. This goal unites Hitler, Stalin and Castro --if their official pronouncements are to be believed. Or you can see them as power-hungry bastards. Popper says utopia and violence are two sides of the same coin.

Turkey's human rights violations are inspired by the desire to prevent secession by folks who don't want to be part of Turkey. Earlier, Turkey committed state-sanctioned genocide against the Armenians --something they neither regret nor officially acknowledge. Can't welcome a society like that into the ranks of the civilized.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I'd favor EU admission for the U.S. at this point.

czsz

April 1st, 2006, 07:01 PM

There were some nasty draconian measures being taken by Britain in the 1970s in Northern Ireland, just as it was admitted into the EEC. France didn't have a very stellar record in its colonies during the 50s and 60s either. It's interesting how these membership criteria have evolved...

Anyway the thorniest political issue for the Turks has nothing to do with Kurdistan. It's Cyprus, which is home to a member state of the EU and a somewhat rennegade Turkish-sponsored pseudostate. It would be incredibly awkward to admit Turkey so long as it's unwilling to recognise the Greek-speaking Cypriot state.

ablarc

April 2nd, 2006, 12:10 PM

^ The question here is: Who is a part of Europe?

Turkey's historic role has been: The Anti-Europe.

The Near-by East.

Some parts of its history a country can leave behind; some less so.

Whatever its history, no-one disputes that France is a part of Europe. With Turkey it's a stretch beyond the breaking point.

* * *

Nobody would argue that Argentina or Australia are parts of Europe despite their obviously convergent viewpoints; geography disqualifies them from consideration. Turkey's geographic wedge to rhetorically pry into Europe is the fragment to the west of the Bosphorus. Though this may contain Constantinople, it's in the Middle East.

czsz

April 2nd, 2006, 04:09 PM

You wouldn't dispute that St. Petersburg is part of Europe, but including Russia means bringing in a variety of autonomous oblasts ruled by Islamist parties, as well as Vladivostok, practically on the North Korean border.

And think about this: Guadeloupe in the Caribbean, Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, and French Polynesia are all fully part of the EU insofar as they are fully incorporated parts of metropolitan France, with representation equal to that of Alpes-Maritimes.

Anyway, the idea that Turkey is the "anti-Europe" is rather charged. First of all, Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire. Its alphabet, language, dress, social orientation, government, ethnic composition, and geopolitical alignment were all entirely overturned by Ataturk. From 1922 on, the goal of Turkey has been to become successively "more European". To ascribe to it the character of "the Middle East" after 70+ years of such development is not only reductionist, but ignores a wide swath of history.

Moreover, the idea of "the Turk" coming to overrun "Christian Europe" is one which was palpable in Europe only for a period of perhaps two hundred out of the Ottoman Empire's nearly half-millennium history. At other points it barely registered a threat, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries as it was in relative decline vis-a-vis other European powers, and struggled to reform itself to keep pace, setting the stage for Ataturk's setting of this project into hyperdrive.

Third, while the nervous Hapsburgs might have thought the idea of "the Turk come to overrun Europe" politically advantageous, insofar as it allowed them to accrue credit for being "bulwarks against Islam," the mentality of anti-Europeanness did not exist among the Ottomans. When Constantinople was conquered in 1453, the Ottoman Sultan even took the title of the Byzantine emperor, proclaiming himself Qaysar-i-Rum, the Roman Caesar. It's interesting to read the conflict between the Ottoman state and the Hapsburg dominions as the continuing evolution of the east-west schism within the Roman empire, as both claimed the Roman title for themselves. (A third player in the perennial Eastern Question, the Russian Czar, also chose a title to reflect the proclamation that Muscovy was "the third Rome".)

Finally, lingering Ottoman influence in the Balkans makes it difficult to determine where "Europe" begins and ends there. Are Muslim-majority Bosnia and Albania European? What of the large Turkish minority in Bulgaria, preparing for EU membership in 2010? Cyprus is traditionally considered the Middle East as well; it's closer to Damascus than to Athens, but it was admitted to the Union in 2004- why wouldn't Greek Orthodox states like Georgia or Armenia be extended membership in that case- and then, really, why shouldn't Turkey, which lies between them and the Balkans?

Neither geography or history are as obvious or clear cut as they sometimes seem.

ablarc

April 2nd, 2006, 05:39 PM

^ No-one wants to include Russia in the EU; it's what Europe has periodically unified against. And that goes back to Tatar times, not just the postwar era. In some ways Russia's even more the anti-Europe than Turkey.

Can't be misled by perceptions both countries want to plant in the western mind (the links in this thread's opening post provide examples).

czsz

April 2nd, 2006, 05:55 PM

It's quite the feat of historical reconstructionism to state that "Europe has always been opposed to Russia" when at various times there has been no consciousness of either, whether opposed entities or not. It is even more specious to refer to "the western mind," which by default priveleges not only certain systems of thought, but the geographical and biological determinants of those systems, besides being indefinable, given "the West" has been such an amorphous concept.

But to put things more matter of factly (and to respond to the only argument of mine above you did choose to refute) Russia was very much considered a European power in the 18th and especially 19th centuries, evidenced by, above all, the close kinship connections between the Russian imperial family and others in Europe. The idea of Russia as "the East," and emphases of close historical links to Tartary were products of primarily German scholarship during the First and especially Second World Wars, when Russians were frequently referred to as "Asiatic barbarians". It was around the same time that this methodology was applied by the British and the French to Germany, which was consequently excluded from the ever-shifting "West" and labelled itself "barbarian" and "Hunnic". Even France has been excluded by the British from the "western" world; as the popular phrase goes, "the Wogs begin at Calais" (not to mention such French conceptions of Spain as "L'afrique, c'est commence aux Pyrenees").

Anyway, I would highly recommend Lewis & Wigen's "The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography," which seeks to elaborate on these deconstructions. You really oughtn't take so many of these formulations prima facie.

ablarc

April 2nd, 2006, 06:23 PM

It's quite the feat of historical reconstructionism to state that "Europe has always been opposed to Russia"
Can't find where I said this; it simply isn't true. I did say it was periodically unified against Russia, and that is true. I'll forgive you this straw man once.;)

...when at various times there has been no consciousness of either, whether opposed entities or not.
As you say, at various times there has not. I think we saw one such occasion a couple of years ago when Bush invaded Iraq.

It is even more specious to refer to "the western mind,"
No, it's not...anymore than it's specious to speak of the Eastern mind; you can make broad generalizations about either, and even a large number of exceptions don't disprove a rule.

...which by default priveleges not only certain systems of thought,
By whom and in whose mind? Not mine.

but the geographical and biological determinants of those systems, besides being indefinable, given "the West" has been such an amorphous concept.
That's obfuscation, and ought to be avoided even if it's currently fashionable. Everything, ultimately, can be obfuscated if you don't care that it leads nowhere.

But to put things more matter of factly (and to respond to the only argument of mine above you did choose to refute) Russia was very much considered a European power in the 18th and especially 19th centuries, evidenced by, above all, the close kinship connections between the Russian imperial family and others in Europe.
Yep, it was an aristocratic age, and the opinions that counted in foreign affairs were motivated by royal alliances directed at dynasty-building.

The idea of Russia as "the East," and emphases of close historical links to Tartary were products of primarily German scholarship during the First and especially Second World Wars, when Russians were frequently referred to as "Asiatic barbarians".
That's an attempt to smear an idea by pointing to some of its sleazy proponents. By that reasoning we should stop using plastic, interstate highways, Volkswagens and trade in our tires for some made of natural rubber.

And the rest is more of the same...

Anyway, I would highly recommend Lewis & Wigen's "The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography," which seeks to elaborate on these deconstructions. You really oughtn't take so many of these formulations prima facie.
If you de-construct enough you're left with nothing.

Academia presently revels in it, but this too deserves a grain of salt. :)

czsz

April 2nd, 2006, 06:35 PM

You're left with an extraordinary degree of complexity, which you deny by making use of syllogistic logic, or making obvious constructions "rules".

As hard as you try, you will never be able to prove that there is an East or a West, nor a specific border between them. The point of the German example, and all the others, wasn't to taint your ideas with the pall of Nazism, but to demonstrate how these ideas are 1) made up and 2) change frequently depending on circumstance.

I'm sorry if that's too deconstructed to wrap your mind around. I guess you're just going to have to look more deeply at the world than classifying it via false binaries.

ablarc

April 2nd, 2006, 06:46 PM

As hard as you try, you will never be able to prove that there is an East or a West, nor a specific border between them.
Of course, not to the satisfaction of someone determined to deny it. They couldn't "prove" O.J. Simpson's guilt with a wealth of DNA samples.

these ideas are 1) made up and 2) change frequently depending on circumstance.
That's true of all ideas, even the ones you're citing. "What is Truth?" said Pontius Pilate, an objective man.

Btw, I think we've exhausted the subject...Om

antinimby

April 3rd, 2006, 03:31 AM

Here I was thinking there would be a lot of pictures of Turkey and instead I run into this profound philosophical debate about Islam with a little Tartar history thrown in as well. Not what I expected, but interesting nonetheless.:D

MidtownGuy

April 6th, 2006, 08:57 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/world/europe/06turkey.html?ei=5088&en=8ccde2486043ffb7&ex=1301976000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

NEW YORK TIMES

April 6, 2006
Clashes Steer Kurds and Turkey Back on a Rocky Path

By IAN FISHER
DIYARBAKIR, Turkey, April 5 — Violent clashes between Kurds and security forces in Turkey over the past week have jolted memories here back to an old conflict that remains a dangerous barrier on the nation's path toward greater prosperity and democracy.

After a decade of calm, at least 15 people have been killed in protests in recent days, most in the guerrilla battleground of the Kurdish southeast, but some in cosmopolitan Istanbul. Among the dead were a 6-year-old boy and a 78-year-old man, Halit Sogut, whose relatives asked on Tuesday how such violence was still possible in a nation that considered its rightful place to be as a member of the European Union.

"In France, a million and seven hundred thousand people were in the streets," said a nephew, Devrim, 25, referring to the mass protests in France over employment contracts. "And no one got a nosebleed." He predicted that the protests here would continue until Turkey finally granted full rights to its Kurdish minority.

A guerrilla insurgency in southern Turkey over Kurdish rights killed more than 30,000 people during the 1980's. After years of relative peace, Kurds seem conflicted over whether they should return to the use of violence if continued pressure by the European Union over the prospect of Turkey's membership might bring change more peacefully.

The roots of the current protests are complicated, primed slowly by low-level incidents in the past two years after the Kurdistan Workers' Party called off a unilateral cease-fire that began in 1999. Then, last week, on Tuesday, funerals here for 14 members of the party killed in combat with Turkish soldiers the previous weekend swelled into large protests, and last Wednesday they turned violent.

"I neither want state terror, nor terror of any kind," said one of Mr. Sogut's relatives, who would not give his full name because he is a public employee, and talking politics could cause him trouble. "More than 30,000 people died. This is enough. There should be a solution."

His comments seemed to reflect a quiet questioning among many Kurds of the relevance and tactics of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, considered a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union. Some experts see the current protests as a way for the group to try to create a role for itself as political and economic changes continue in Turkey, including some concessions to Kurds.

In recent years, and largely under European pressure, the government lifted emergency rule in the southeast, began compensating Kurds for losses when Turkish troops razed villages and granted other cultural rights to the Kurds.

Many Kurds here complain, however, that this has not been enough, considering the low wages, high unemployment and lack of foreign investment in the southeast. The Kurds' frustration exploded in the protests that began here last week.

"So many promises were made and not fulfilled," said Cihan Sincar, the mayor of Kiziltepe, near the Syrian border, where two protesters were killed over the weekend.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has at least acknowledged the problems Kurds face, something that past prime ministers have been reluctant to do. In confronting the current crisis, his government's approach has been to offer hope to Kurds not eager for a resumption of the rebel group's violence.

"While they try to capitalize on hatred and enmity, we will build more roads, more hospitals, more schools and more workplaces" in Kurdish areas, Mr. Erdogan told the Parliament on Tuesday. "We will bring more freedoms, more democracy, more welfare, more rights and justice."

But a more immediate test seems to be whether the government will also engage in heavy-handed tactics against the Kurdistan Workers' Party that could endanger the nation's desire to join the European Union and return Turkey to the violence of a decade ago.

On Tuesday, the foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, talked about "a thin line" in the struggle against terrorism and the need to preserve democracy, even as he pledged to show no mercy for the rebel group.

At a minimum, there is a sense here that the gains made by Kurds in recent years may have been reversed in a few short days. "Since 1994, we haven't seen anything like this," said Tacettin Bahadiroglu, 32, the owner of a jewelry store in Kiziltepe, as tense, blue-bereted Turkish soldiers in armored personnel carriers set up in front of the regional governor's office on Monday. "It has pushed us 12 years behind."

As the protests turned violent, shopkeepers rolled down the shutters of their shops at the urging of a Kurdish satellite station, and gangs of youths began to clash with soldiers. Three people were killed, including Mr. Sogut, whose own family could not agree if he had been a bystander or had joined in the protests.

In the following days, the protests spread to the city of Batman to the southeast, where one person was killed, and to Kiziltepe, home to tens of thousand of Kurds displaced by the fighting a decade ago, where two others died. On Sunday, the protests ignited in Istanbul, where protesters hurled homemade firebombs at a bus, and three people were killed, apparently crushed by the bus.

By early this week, at least 9 people, and possibly 10, were dead in Diyarbakir. More than 500 people have been detained.

On Wednesday officials said five soldiers had been killed, two by a land mine while they were on patrol in the Kurdish region and three in an ambush, Agence France-Presse reported. The report said that a police officer was killed late Tuesday when rebels opened fire on a police station.

The violence has left a wake of anger and bafflement that Kurds said would not be quickly healed.

"What is going to be our future?" asked a 27-year-old man who would give only his first name, Tolga, because he took part in the protest. He was among the mourners in Kiziltepe for Mehmet Siddik Onder, who was shot during the demonstration.

"He was only 22 years old," Tolga said. "He was just back from his military service. Where are we going?"

The regional administrator, Fecri Fikret Celik, who represents the Turkish government in Kiziltepe, said the state had not done enough for Kurds but was genuinely trying, with new roads, four new schools under construction and better services at hospitals.

He blamed the rebel group, which he contended had organized the protests for its own reasons. "What could have been the reason to provoke people?" he said.

Sezgin Tanrikulu, a human rights lawyer in Diyarbakir, said he believed that only bold action by both sides could head off more violence, though he said such steps were unlikely soon. The rebels should give up their arms, he said, and the government should develop a more aggressive plan to improve Kurds' lives. "This is not a random or one-time event," he said. "If we fail to see the graveness of the problem, we will see worse times in the future."

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 13th, 2006, 05:26 AM

In some ways Russia's even more the anti-Europe than Turkey.

Really?

I don't agree myself. Have you never heard a Russian opera before? Did you know the russian royals were all related to the british royals.

The Russians are not the tatars - do you guys even know what tatar is?

TATAR = MONGOL.

Read some history - the tatars did migrate to the south of russia, but they are not russians.

I'm not talking about some of the southern republics, like Uzbek etc - they are not russian, they were just part of the soviet empire, and remain part of the CIS.

The russians are actually from the vikings and several barbarian tribes (like almost all of europe), they had a latin alphabet, and became orthodox and adopted cyrillic alphabet only because of greek missionaries in about the 10th? Century or so.

We have more in common than you think. So russians are not european, does that mean that Hungarians, Finns and Estonians (who all come from north western siberia where the present day Komi Republic is) are not? The Hungarians (Magyars) are more "Asian" than the Russians.

Should we expel them from Europe?

Turkey is a different storie to Russia.

ZippyTheChimp

February 16th, 2007, 06:20 PM

Associated Press

Trial of 9 in Istanbul Attacks Nears End

By BENJAMIN HARVEY 02.16.07, 10:53 AM ET

Nine suspected al-Qaida militants charged in the 2003 Istanbul suicide bombings that killed 58 people gave final statements in court Friday as their trial drew to a close, with one telling supporters: "Don't give up for any reason!" The attacks on Nov. 15 and Nov. 20, 2003, targeted two synagogues, the British consulate and a London-based bank.

Nine of the 73 suspects - including Syrian Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa, the alleged mastermind of the suicide bombings - appeared in court. In his statement, al-Saqa called on "holy warriors" to keep fighting.

"Hey, my hero brothers! Do not worry for me. Victory is very near!" al-Saqa said. "Beware, beware, don't give up for any reason!"

Seyit Ertul, who like many of the defendants had admitted to fighting in Afghanistan and Chechnya but has denied membership in al-Qaida, read from a 32-page statement.

"No one has brought forth the slightest document or proof that we were members of al-Qaida," Ertul said, asking for his acquittal.

A third defendant, Harun Ilhan, who has taken responsibility for the bombings, criticized Turkey's secular system and expressed hope for the establishment of an Islamic state.

"We know that one day this regime will crumble and an Islamic regime will be established," he said. Turkey's government has Islamic roots, but its leaders are moderate and the powerful military is viewed as a champion of secular rule.

"Before the day comes that you wish you were Muslims ... I invite you to become Muslims," Ilhan said, reflecting his belief that most Turks are not devout followers of Islam.

"I invite you to Allah's religion, Islam," he repeated over and over.

Prosecutors have demanded life imprisonment for al-Saqa, 32, who is accused of giving Turkish militants about $170,000 to carry out the attacks, and for four other defendants, including Ilhan, who are believed to be ringleaders.

Police say some suspected ringleaders fled Turkey after the attacks, and some reportedly died in Iraq while fighting U.S. forces.

Prosecutors said Osama bin Laden had personally ordered al-Saqa to organize the plot, even though some suspects have testified that al-Qaida was unhappy that the group abandoned an initial plan to attack a base used by the U.S. air force, and instead went after targets that involved killing Muslims.

Al-Saqa was arrested in the southern port city of Antalya in 2005, after explosives accidentally went off in a building he was using as a safe house, forcing him to flee. Turkish authorities say al-Saqa planned to blow up Israeli cruise ships in the Mediterranean.

The Syrian has said he led militants to fight Americans in Iraq, but never planned any attacks in Turkey.

Al-Saqa was sentenced in absentia by Jordan in 2002, along with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. air raid, for a failed plot to attack Americans and Israelis in Jordan with poison gas during millennium celebrations.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

ablarc

February 16th, 2007, 06:49 PM

"We know that one day this regime will crumble and an Islamic regime will be established,"
True.

In a nutshell, the reason to keep Turkey out of the European Union.

BenL

February 20th, 2007, 05:58 PM

Surely it's the reason to allow Turkey to enter the EU? Turkey's membership would be largely for political reasons - giving the Muslim world a voice in the EU and expanding the bloc's power across the world with an extra 80 million or so people. There would be economic benefits eventually but Turkey would enter the poorest country. Few newspapers in my country, other than the perennially racist Daily Mail, regret the admittance of the the EU25 countries: The immigrants have provided neccessary labour and a social boost to the UK, whilst the political and trading benefits of being part of the EU - with a GDP very close to that of the USA - have helped the Eastern European countries.

It is widely acknowledged that trade stops conflicts: If you're making money out of a country, you're going to want to stay on good terms with them. An important reason for the creation of the EU was set up to stop anything like the two world wars of the twentieth century ever happening again.

EU membership has forced the accession countries to liberalise fast - they needed to accept legislation such as the Human Rights Act - a far more progressive (perhaps due to the fact it was created 200 years later!) piece of legislation than the Bill of Rights. If we want political stability in Europe and the Middle East, to give Europe a voice in the Muslim world and a stable, liberal democratic country it seems there is a clear solution. We can achieve so much more with Turkish EU membershp than with B-52s and cruise missiles.

darren1171

February 21st, 2007, 12:37 PM

MidtownGuy

February 21st, 2007, 12:57 PM

BenL

February 21st, 2007, 01:07 PM

If Turkey joins the EU then i'm emmegrating to canada - We'll be flooded with migrants. There are nearly 2 million muslims in England, 6 million in france and millions more in Germany, Holland, Belgium etc. The area i live in (Ilford, east London) they make up the majority of the population. They always seem to create disharmony wherever they go - they expect others to respect their rights, but refuse to respect the rights of others. At my university the islamic group waged a hate campaign against the gay / lesbian group and the chrisitan group. They also openly supported the terrorist acts of 9/11. On Oxford street now they hand out extremest literature demanding (amongst other things) sharia law in england. When i confronted them i was spat on, this on a busy saturday afternoon in central london. Most of them seem unwilling or incapable of even trying to conform to a western way of life. Not only do they have no respect for us, many of them i suspect actually hate us.
With Turkey in the EU this situation will only get worse. I know most Europeans are against Turkey joining (certainly in france as my best friend is french - most of them are strongly opposed to this), but i suspect it will be pushed through regardless of public opinion. So much for democracy in Europe.It's difficult to take the views of an obvious bigot seriously but I'll try. You confuse the vast majority of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims with the tiny proportion of extremists: Do you really think that if we had two million potential sucicide bombers Britain would only have had one successful terrorist attack since 9/11?

I have not once seen radical Muslims handing out leaflets on Oxford Street - and I go there pretty regularly. I've always been more troubled by the ridiculous fire and brimsone Christian preacher there really. You speak of "democracy in Europe", but is it not one of the great hallmarks of a democratic society that we allow those to say things which we consider to be abhorent.

Intergration is not a one-way process. You cannot expect Muslims do intergrate into a hostile society with the likes of the Daily Mail painting followers of the faith to be the enemy within whilst people like you speak of "us" and "them". I'd be interested to know - in a borough which you say (wrongly) has a majority of Muslims - how many Muslim friends you have?

Your last paragraph is the product of a highly simplistic view on the world: Because your French friend doesn't like Turkey, you assume that the rest of the population in a country of 60 million people agrees with him. If you judge the world's second largest religion - which if you read the Qu'ran is no more violent than either of the two other Abrahamic religions and existed in relative peace with the Christian west throughout the 20th century - on the (exaggerated?) actions of a group of students, it's going to be very difficult for you to "try to respect" them or stop "hating" them.

MidtownGuy

February 21st, 2007, 01:31 PM

But what about the Turkish government, and it's history of human rights abuses? Those aren't just students. Turkish writers are punished, not even allowed free expression, and Turkey should be admitted into a union of countries that holds human rights more sacred than enywhere else? If they want to be admitted, then the Turkish government has to fundamentally change. They refuse.
Your assessment of all three Abrahamic religions is squarely in agreement with my own, however.

BenL

February 21st, 2007, 02:22 PM

I have to agree. The Islamist tendencies in Turkey are not compatible with Western ideas of human rights. Rather than change themselves one iota to fit into the West, radical elements will try instead to change the EU. Muslims in the Netherlands have the nerve to arrive in arguably the most progressive society on Earth, and proceed to demand changes to accommodate their backward beliefs.
Let me make a statement in the same breath so as not to be branded anti-Muslim. I am against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as they are presently practiced. These three desert religions can never facilitate peace on Earth in their presently practiced forms. Thank God European society is largely secular and they are fightig back against religious extremism.
The government of Turkey isn't serious about human rights. They prove it every single year. For centuries.

There are of course radical Muslims in the Netherlands calling for ridiculous things - as there are radical Christians in your country who burn Harry Potter books and dismiss Darwin. As I'm sure you'd agree Pat Robertson does not speak for ordinary Christians, just as Abu Hamza does not speak for ordinary Muslims. I would take issue with the way you say Muslims "arrive": Most Muslims in Britain are second or even third generation immigrants and have just as much right to be living here as I do.

Fifteen years ago, I doubt anyone would have thought that Poland and the former Czechoslovakia would be joining the EU as communist countries with far more serious human rights concerns than Turkey. Remember as recently as 1989 Romania was governed by a brutal dictator found guilty of genocide. The country joined the EU at the beginning of February.

Because of the enormous political and economic benefits of EU membership, these former Soviet bloc countries have been forced to adapt. Before EU membership had even been considered in Turkey, it was learning to liberalise. It has been a secular republic since 1923 - more than can be said for the vast majority of EU countries. It is not governed by any form of Sharia law and relations are reasonably good (and much better than in many of the Eastern European countries) between various religious groups. It has operated under a system of universal suffrage for men and women since 1933 and has been a member of NATO since the early 1950s and played an important part in post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan. Its main trading partner is the European Union and is a member of the European Economic Community. Even Greece, with its long-term dispute over Cyprus, supports Turkey's proposed EU membership.

I think we should ask ourselves whether this country would have been let in long ago with a record like that if it did not have a Muslim populace. Continental Europe and particuarly Eastern European countries are anything but secular. It is naive to think that a country will immediately adopt perfect human rights because it is so easy for a government not to - we should be prepared to offer Turkey the incentive of EU membership to act as a catalyst for liberalisation in the country and ultimately, the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries.

MidtownGuy

February 21st, 2007, 02:44 PM

I say continue to encourage Turkey to fix the obvious problems first BEFORE they are admitted.
They might begin with actually honoring freedom of speech, something I consider a cornerstone of a progressive country. Let them start with abolishing Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. Then we can move on from there.
You mention Greece and Cyprus. Actually Cyprus itself is vetoing the opening and closing of talks until Turkey opens its ports and airports to Cypriot vessels.
As far as my use of the word "arrive", It hasn't been demonstrated that the second and third generation Muslims in Britain are the ones calling for alarming changes or supporting terrorist attacks. I think it is most likely recent arrivals, so I stand by my use of the word until you can convince me otherwise.

From the Financial Times
EU warns Turkey on freedom of speech
By Daniel Dombey and Fidelius Schmid in Luxembourg
Published: October 16 2006 19:11 | Last updated: October 16 2006 19:11

Turkey was told on Monday by the European Union that it had to safeguard freedom of expression in the country as a “matter of urgency” amid diminishing expectations that Ankara’s stalled membership bid can be revived.

Olli Rehn, EU enlargement commissioner, told Turkey’s delegation at the last formal meeting between the two this year that it was not good enough to merely wait for Turkish judges to rule on the issue and that legislative action was needed.

On Monday’s meeting took place amid widespread expectations that Ankara’s membership talks would reach a crisis point later this year and could prove impossible to retrieve.

The European Commission’s hopes of convincing Turkey to carry out reforms have been greatly complicated by France. Last week the French National Assembly supported a bill that would make it a crime to deny that there was a genocide of Armenians during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey says no genocide occurred.

Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s foreign minister, on Mondayday said the National Assembly vote had hit France’s prestige as a country that allowed full freedom of expression, while adding that Turkey would not repeat France’s mistakes.

But he failed to give a clear signal that Turkey would revise or remove article 301 of its penal code, which forbids denigration of the Turkish state. Instead, he merely said that “we are following the implementation [of the article] closely and we will do what is necessary”.

Brussels believes that Turkey’s reform process has slowed dramatically and will issue a critical report next month. Its conclusions will form the starting point for a debate between EU member states on whether to declare a formal suspension of talks. This is likely to be decided by heads of state and government later in the year.

In effect the negotiations have already stopped, with Cyprus, which is an EU member state but has no diplomatic relations with Ankara, vetoing the opening and closing of any of the individual dossiers in the talks.

Cyprus makes clear it will not approve any such steps while Turkey fails to meet an EU deadline to open its own ports and airports to Cypriot vessels.

An attempt to break the deadlock by Finland, the current holder of the EU presidency, has shown little sign of being accepted.

The proposal would see the EU taking charge of a port in the Turkish Cypriot northern half of the island, to allow Turkish Cypriots to trade with the rest of the EU, and return a nearby town to the Greek Cypriot south.

Following is not from the FT, but is a well written opinion piece from a university newspaper:
Breeze Perspectives: Death of pro-Armenian journalist in Turkey spurs freedom of speech debate
Turkey has some civil liberties problems to work out before it can be taken seriously by the West or enter the European Union
By John Telfeyan, contributing writer
Posted on February 9, 2007

On Jan. 19, Hrant Dink, the editor of the Armenian language newspaper Agos and a Turkish citizen of Armenian heritage, was fatally shot outside of his office in Istanbul. The gunman, Ogün Samast, was a Turkish teenager under orders from a Muslim terrorist organizer. This event creates a major stumbling block for the secular Turkish governments bid to join the European Union.

In the following week, more than 1,000 protestors, who considered Dink and Agos to be the voice of the Armenian community in Istanbul, marched to the site of his murder to bring attention to and protest against the restrictions on freedom of speech that Dink had been fighting against when he was alive.

According to Aricle 301 of the Turkish law code, insulting “Turkishness” is punishable by a three-year jail sentence. Dink himself had been prosecuted under this law for — among other things — mentioning the Armenian genocide of 1915, where more than a million Armenians in Turkey were massacred. Turkey is one of the only nations with Western aspirations that does not acknowledge that the genocide took place, and speaking of the genocide is therefore criminal.

The Turkish government first prosecuted Dink after a speech he made in 2002 for comments he made about the Turkish national anthem. At the time he was murdered, Dink was again being threatened with a three-year jail sentence for other, equally “insulting” comments.

Though the Turkish prime minister has condemned the murders, the assassination has shed light on the greater issue of freedom of speech in Turkey. As speaker of the Armenian Parliament, Tigran Torosyan has stated that Turkey should not “even dream about joining the European Union” in light of the recent events; other officials who want to keep Turkey out the European Union have started using this incident as leverage.

Although Turkey is the most progressive Islamic country in the world, secular according to its constitution, 99 percent of its population is Muslim, predominantly Hanafist Sunni. The government is constantly torn between the secular influence of Europe — and its own constitution — and its devout people who are being led against their will to uncomfortable new heights of liberalism against their will in order for Turkey to join the European Union.

But extremists are still fighting against change, and those extremist actions have spoken louder than the politician’s words. Even the judicial system is corrupt, to the point that honest laymen do not receive fair trials and the majority of judges still carry a belief that they are elite and should not be touchable by common journalists.

To its credit, the Turkish government — a mere one hundred years old — has abolished torture, the death penalty and military interference in politics. It has also increased women’s and minority rights, but without freedom of speech there will be nothing to keep the government in check. As long as any criticism of the Turkish government is punishable under Article 301, no press institution will be able to act as a watchdog.

Dink fought for freedom of speech for four years, and he died for it. Other journalists are picking up where he left off; more than 60 journalists have been prosecuted using Article 301, many of them for recognizing the 1915 genocide. Dink, although adamant about recognizing the Armenian genocide, was more concerned with freedom of speech. Before his death changed his plans, he intended to travel to France, where politicians are debating the prohibition of genocide denial; Dink planned to deny the Armenian genocide out of principle in protest of such encroachments on freedom of speech.

The European Union will continue to look disfavorably on Turkey’s application for entrance while laws like Article 301 are still on the books. Some people in the European Union are already using Turkey’s civil liberty problems to try and keep them out. Hopefully the attention — small though it may have been in the West — paid to Dink’s untimely death in the last few weeks will bring more awareness about freedom of speech in Turkey before the European Union lets them in.

musicial

February 21st, 2007, 06:54 PM

Turkish penal Code, article 301 changes never, Let's forget that first. Article 301 penalize for insulting Turkishness. There are the same laws in France, Germany, Italy and England and also in other countries in Europe.

Greece and Cyprus issue: Turkey does not or cannot open its ports and airports to southern Cyprus as a present as a thank after the courageous attempt of ethnical clearance of the Turks on the island. It is my idea that southern Cyprus must pay for their attempt at first to the nordern side of the island. Turkey's ports and airports are already open for nordern Cyprus namely Nordern Turkish Republic of Cyprus. Southern Cyprus administration is illegal and does not reflect the whole island.

I do not have so much to say for Greece. A country which could not get a good relation with it's neighbour is a problematical country.

As far as I see, if one has a problem to convince himself about Muslims, he need to solve this problem sometimes by alone, nobody need to convince one here of something. -------------------------------------------------------------------

MidtownGuy

February 21st, 2007, 07:01 PM

Turkish penal Code, article 301 changes never, Let's forget that first.
It's how it's used. So then, EU admits Turkey never. Forget that.

You dare to insult Greece about relations with its neighbor? That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Greece is already a part of the EU. In this regard, it doesn't have anything to prove. Turkey does.

And as for Cyprus......get out of there! Turkey has NO right to be there as far as I'm concerned.

ZippyTheChimp

February 21st, 2007, 08:05 PM

Turkish penal Code, article 301 changes neverWhy not?

Ninjahedge

February 21st, 2007, 08:10 PM

Because if you do not make it illegal to speak bad of someone in that country, who knows, they may hear somethnig they do not like.

I never realized they were so sensitive!!!

But seriously, you guys are pretty much decendant from the same people, if you start tracing it back far enough.

I wish mankind would stop acting like dogs and just be nicer to other packs. Especially the ones they live next to.

musicial

February 22nd, 2007, 06:21 AM

Why not?

as far as I understand and I know article 301 protects the concept of turk, turkish, related adjectives, adverbs, concepts etc. etc. etc. everything that has a value for turkish nation in broad sense. if article 301 does not exist everybody around the world can for example say that Ataturk was actually drunkard (it is said that he was taking very much alcohol in his life). And nobody could punish such sayings. Or one can also for example say that Atatürk could not satisfy hif wife (as far as I know his marriage lasted 1 year) one can add that Atatürk was a man with erection problem. These ideas can be defended under the name of freedom of expression. One intents to an insult, realizes his intent and insults and then defends it from freedom of expression front. He can say that with his knowledge he reached to this personal decesion and he defined the situation, this is by no way an insult, he can say..... but in the meantime there appear lots of people angry over these ideas. Now whom to believe!!!! In one side there are people defending themselves with no intent to insult.... In the other side, there are people feeling being damaged.....

In short: article 301 is abused by some people. That is a serious article. but there are also some judge members in Turkey, using artical 301 intensively. These judge members abuses artical 301 too...... Artical 301 must stay there but applications must be shrinked definitely....

musicial

February 22nd, 2007, 06:35 AM

You dare to insult Greece about relations with its neighbor? That is the pot calling the kettle black.
.

you make terror here... I do not insult Greece. I criticise Greek way of thinking. They are still living in the past. they are still living with their own turkish horror. What is the reality is that Greece and Turkey are neighbours. if you want to drink an evening tea and if you do not have it one evening the first door is your neighbour's door of the next apartment. I love Greeks. I spent my Christmas night in a Greek pub(like a disco or night club). I saw the big similarities and culture between the two nations there one more time. Greek music & melodies are the same as Turks'. Döner is the same fastfood. Greek call Döner Gyros. Raki is the same drink. Greeks call it Uzo. Desserts are same. Eating habits are same. fast everything is same. Turks are singing turkish, Greeks are singing greekish to the same melodies. What a hate is this man!!!!!!!!!!!!!

musicial

February 22nd, 2007, 07:25 AM

click and see how midnight express is structured on simply LIES from the mouth of the man who has been storied in this film scnerio............. There are two parts in this interview... watch both parts please... This film has been used since decades to dark Turkey.... It is calculated in Turkey that with pumped bad images (SIMPLY LIES) of Turkey in this film Turkish tourism has been damaged since decades. calculated damage of this film to Turkey is supposed to be 50 billons of dollars since decades....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMsNPCVbNhw&mode=related&search=

musicial

February 22nd, 2007, 07:47 AM

Syrian Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa, is probably in Guantanoma base now.... I saw this man when he was arrested in Turkey on television. Then after some time I saw this man again on television. Something was different. it is hard to define but it seemed to me that he was replaced by someone else, trying to behave the same way but he was not successful enough... that was my perception. During this time a CIA suspected aeroplane had already landed to Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen airport. to me he flied with this aerplane to Guantanamo........

ZippyTheChimp

February 22nd, 2007, 08:31 AM

as far as I understand and I know article 301 protects the concept of turk, turkish, related adjectives, adverbs, concepts etc. etc. etc. everything that has a value for turkish nation in broad sense.If the United States had an Article 301 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_penal_code)), many of us on this forum would be in jail now.

lofter1

February 22nd, 2007, 10:11 AM

During our history the US has had versions of this type of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts), which punished supposed acts of SEDITION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition) .

Seemingly certain recently enacted post-9/11 legislation might indicate that anti-sedition laws have again raised their ugly (and anti-democratic) heads:
Laura Berg, a nurse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse) at a U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs) hospital in New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico) was investigated (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16438) in September 2005 for sedition after writing a letter [1] (http://www.alibi.com/index.php?story=14092)[2] (http://www.alibi.com/index.php?story=14352)to the editor of a local newspaper, criticizing the government. Ms. Berg is now being represented (http://aclu.org/freespeech/gen/24043prs20060131.html) by the ACLU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU).

musicial

February 22nd, 2007, 10:28 AM

If the United States had an Article 301 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_penal_code)), many of us on this forum would be in jail now.

:) that is what you say makes the United States unique. there is a United Sates in this world and there are others, those are the imitators.... imitators of the United States.... in general sense the best imitators are the European Countries, including Turkey (esp. with newly adopted laws for EU process) and some far East countries like Japan, South Korea etc..... the worst imitators are Russia, China etc. etc.

these imitators look at US and compare themselves with US and accuses one another of being not democratic... that is the story I find. Article 301 like code stays nearly in every European countries' penal code system. As an american you can criticise something in England for example.... People look at you like your fun... but if a russian or a turk criticizes the same topic with your word (as same as using your words) I do not want to comment on it how they meet these comments but I know people meet it differently there. I hope you got what I mean....

Ok. here is a United States forum... I am gonna give you an example of What I mean....I was in English prep. school before passing to the department. one of our teachers was from England. I do not know why but I criticized English kingdomship and compared UK and Turkey. I said there can't be a democracy in theoretical sense in England because there is a king and kingdomship, king comes automatically from the same family without an election, I said. I added in Turkey kingdomship had been terminated by Atatürk and he found a democratic system and people elect the president in Turkey. In theoretical sense there existed a democracy but missfunctioning at those times in Turkey but there existed no democracy in theretical sense in England but in practice there was a democracy and it was funtioning well. My teacher was on alert after hearing my critics of the Kingdomship in England.... She said "SSShhhhhhhhssssssshhhhhhh". I understood one more time that "everything is relative".

ZippyTheChimp

February 22nd, 2007, 11:31 AM

musicial

February 22nd, 2007, 12:10 PM

^
The United States is not unique in this regard. I'm not aware of any law in EU country that is similar in scope to Article 301. Don't just say they exist; give me a specific example.

In regard to your experience in British prep school, was it ever suggested that your criticism was in violation of any law?

Related to your first question I cannot give a specific example. Sometimes I fallow the discussions related to this issue in Turkey. Serious politicians, serious bureaucrats, penal code professors, reporters say and give lots of examples of it (Germany, France, Italy etc. etc. ) ---they say that the only difference is that these countries have this code in their penal code system but they do not use this code to penalize people but in Turkey this code is used to penalize people.---on turkish news channels during discussions and in contrary the opponents in these discussions can't reply to this attacks and say just yes but this change in article 301 would be for our own sake..... The opponents cannot convince the people who favor article 301 and cannot convince the majority of the public.

Related to your second question: I was in an ex-american school in Turkey. one of our class teacher was English in English prep school. she did not mean my criticism is in violation of any law. my perception was that she did not want to go into my criticism because she found my criticism hard and unwanted may be dangerous for an English. That was just my perception. She just said "shıııısh" and the expression on her face was angryness to my discussion....

MidtownGuy

February 22nd, 2007, 12:36 PM

you make terror here... I do not insult Greece. I criticise Greek way of thinking. They are still living in the past. they are still living with their own turkish horror. What is the reality is that Greece and Turkey are neighbours. if you want to drink an evening tea and if you do not have it one evening the first door is your neighbour's door of the next apartment. I love Greeks. I spent my Christmas night in a Greek pub(like a disco or night club). I saw the big similarities and culture between the two nations there one more time. Greek music & melodies are the same as Turks'. Döner is the same fastfood. Greek call Döner Gyros. Raki is the same drink. Greeks call it Uzo. Desserts are same. Eating habits are same. fast everything is same. Turks are singing turkish, Greeks are singing greekish to the same melodies. What a hate is this man!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Musical, please calm down. I am not making hate against you, but against some of the actions of the Turkish government. I do not become angry if you say something about the American government, because I understand
that you do not mean this against me personally. Of course you would be welcome in my home to drink tea or coffee. I have nothing against the Turkish people.

I find it hard to believe that Germany, the first country on your list, has any law such as you describe. Maybe there is something but probably not exactly like Article 301. I suspect that since you follow this discussion within Turkey, perhaps you should look from sources completely outside the country of Turkey to get more of the picture. Here in America, it is often hard for me to get the whole story unless I look for independent channels that do not have powerful interests controlling the discussion. There are some publications and shows here that are very good, I just have to look carefully for them and always make sure I check a diverse assortment. I am interested to know if it is true about these laws you describe in Western Europe, because I did not hear of this before.

Ninjahedge

February 22nd, 2007, 12:52 PM

Musical, please calm down. I am not making hate against you, but against some of the actions of the Turkish government. I do not become angry if you say something about the American government, because I understand
that you do not mean this against me personally. Of course you would be welcome in my home to drink tea or coffee. I have nothing against the Turkish people.

I find it hard to believe that Germany, the first country on your list, has any law such as you describe. Maybe there is something but probably not exactly like Article 301. I suspect that since you follow this discussion within Turkey, perhaps you should look from sources completely outside the country of Turkey to get more of the picture. Here in America, it is often hard for me to get the whole story unless I look for independent channels that do not have powerful interests controlling the discussion. There are some publications and shows here that are very good, I just have to look carefully for them and always make sure I check a diverse assortment. I am interested to know if it is true about these laws you describe in Western Europe, because I did not hear of this before.

I agree!*

*(eek)

MidtownGuy

February 22nd, 2007, 03:27 PM

Washington, D.C.- Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) expressed outrage at recent warnings by the Turkish government that it will take actions threatening the security of US troops in Iraq should Congress even consider the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

In a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA), Reps. Pallone and Knollenberg noted that, "it is our understanding that senior Turkish government officials have warned that, in response to Congress even considering this resolution, they will close supply pipelines for our forces serving in Iraq. This shameless threat to interfere in US military operations is absolutely unacceptable and deeply offensive." The Representatives went on to express dismay at the response of several Administration officials who, caving in to the Turkish government's threats, have urged Members of Congress to oppose even debate on this human rights measure.
"Sadly, the Turkish government is able to maintain its denial - against all evidence and the tide of international opinion - in large part due to the State Department's efforts to silence those who speak with moral clarity about the Armenian Genocide," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "It is a testament to the hypocrisy of the Administration's position that, on the one hand, its senior officials remained almost entirely silent on Article 301 prior to Hrant Dink's murder, while on the other hand loudly and repeatedly attacking even the consideration by the US Congress of the Armenian Genocide Resolution."

The letter to Chairman Lantos comes on the heels of a three-day Washington, visit by Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, who had announced that his government's opposition to the Armenian Genocide resolution was a top priority in discussions with senior US officials. "In this case, approval of this bill [Armenian Genocide resolution - H.Res.106] against Turkey would ruin everything.

"I told my counterpart that this step will have a great influence on our relations," said Gul during a press conference immediately following his meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Similar statements threatening a cut-off of economic ties following the French adoption of a law recognizing the Armenian Genocide in January, 2001, proved empty, with trade between France and Turkey growing by over 131 percent between 2001 to 2005. Meanwhile in the US, despite US Administration and Congressional leadership opposition to Armenian Genocide legislation from 2001-2006, Ankara still blocked a northern front into Iraq, a move that the Defense Department has said added significantly to the problems currently facing our forces in the region today.

Gul is reported to have met with Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Secretary Rice and several Members of Congress this week, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Chairman Lantos, Turkish Caucus Co-Chair Robert Wexler (D-FL), and former Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).

The visit of a high level delegation of Turkish parliament members scheduled for this week to lobby against Armenian Genocide legislation has reportedly been postponed indefinitely.

The Armenian Genocide resolution - H.Res.106 - was introduced on January 30 by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) along with Representatives George Radanovich (R-CA), Frank Pallone, Joe Knollenberg, Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and currently has 170 cosponsors. The resolution would urge the President to properly characterize the Armenian Genocide as 'genocide' and reaffirm the US historic record on the topic. ANCA regional and local chapters have been working with activists across the US in support of securing a speedy committee and full House approval of the measure. A similar resolution will be introduced in the Senate in the upcoming weeks.

Ninjahedge

February 22nd, 2007, 04:18 PM

Question.

Will this verbiage amount to anything more than calling a dog a dog?

Or will the classification of the act as "Genocide" prompt further action by the international community?

MidtownGuy

February 22nd, 2007, 04:58 PM

I can't be sure, but I think for many Armenians, it amounts to nothing more or less than historical acknowldgement for what they are alleging to have happened to their people. Since the word "genocide" has been applied over time to various historical events, it has come to represent almost a "benchmark" of suffering, garnering a certain amount of solemn respect or at least acknowledgement of an horrific transgression against humanity having occurred. In this case, perhaps it is the fervent, agressive denial by the Turkish government which compels many Armenians and their descendants to continue seeking some kind of official recognition.
Whatever the outcome, I don't think anyone seriously anticipates some kind of further international action. For victims of this kind of thing, sometimes just setting the record straight is what really matters.

Ninjahedge

February 22nd, 2007, 05:33 PM

I can understand that and feel for them, but the thing that makes me cringe is on both sides.

The Armenians insisting that it be called as such by the Turkish Government, and the Turkish Governments adamant denial.

The most irritating thing being if either got their way, it would STILL not be enough. Turkey would imprison any that said otherwise, and the Armenians would want to (naturally) go one step further and ask for reparation.

Not that they would not be entitled to as much, but humans are so anal sometimes. The fact that there is even an international debate about this is just pitiful.

MidtownGuy

February 22nd, 2007, 06:39 PM

This article describes Armenians wishing passage of a resolution that would

reaffirm the US historic record on the topic.

not insist on specific nomenclature from the Turkish goverment. When you say it would still not be enough if either got their way, I'm confused. The Turkish government is lobbying against this resolution not because it has teeth or binds them to anything, but because it is an embarrassment and directly refutes their official position. Turkey already criminalized "any that said otherwise".

Armenians would want to (naturally) go one step further and ask for reparation
Reparations, relating to this discussion, or to discussions of the Jewish Holocaust, or any other, is a big can of worms for you to open. I won't be dragged into that with you since it isn't mentioned anywhere except by you, just now.

The fact that there is even an international debate about this is just pitiful.
The existence of a debate isn't pitiful. What's pitiful is dismissive arrogance that would have debate stifled. History isn't meaningless. Some people think it's quite important. As I said before, for the victims(which obviously do not include you), sometimes just setting the record straight is what really matters. If you don't have similar values, fine. But don't act mystified by those that do. Using words like pitiful is a bit inflammatory considering the gravity of the topic of genocide. See, now you've gone and inspired an argument after we were getting along so swimmingly.:p

musicial

February 23rd, 2007, 08:07 AM

I am going to write what I know about this problem one more time: these are the things I have learned from turkish media, from discussions from foreing professors, turkish professors, russian state archieves, ottoman state archieves, the letters of russian generals as evidence, the letters of ottoman generals, from the people who are still living and who are above 100 years old and experienced and saw the actions of armenians rebellians at those times. Don't want from me to present a proof here. What I am gonna write here is a summary of What I have in my mind from all these....

there is nothing for today's government to recognize the so-called-armenian genocide, the government cannot even go one milimeter to this desired recognition. BECAUSE THERE HAPPENED NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BUT THE REVERSE IS TRUE IF WE CHANGE THIS SENTENCE LIKEWISE: THERE HAPPENED AN ATTEMPTED TURKISH GENOCIDE BY ARMENIAN REBELLIANS BUT THIS ATTEMPT HAD FAILED.

At ottoman times, this debate took in East Anatolia region place. historians and archeologists worked together and found a lot of mass graveyards there. These graveyards belong to turkish people who had been massacred by the armenian rebellians during the first world war. Armenian rebellians as Ottoman citizens rushed even to one Ottoman army from the backside, in war with Russians. At those times, armenian rebellians have been supported by French army and British Army and Russian Army. Ottoman Empire was the ally of Germany at those times. Ottomans were in war with Russia, England and France. Armenians had been abused by these three countries to defeat Ottomans. Because this internal conflict in Ottomans lands could Ottomans weaken. All the man and women in Ottoman Empire were in war, in 7 fronts. Armenian rebellians first massacred the ones who had no defense mechnanism, these were the kids, teenagers, the old people and the women who could not take a role in fronts. After the end of world war one, the ottoman armies turned back to their headquarters and saw the situation in East Anatolia. The leaders of armenian rebellians were arrested and punished to death penalty and the all rebellians expelled from east anatolia, where were the crime places, to Syria, Lebanan, Iraq etc. etc. These three lands were also inside the Ottoman Empire borders at those times. but there happened NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. the armenians made themselves a second immigration to Europe and to USA with time. Now these people want to take a political revenge from Turkey..... That is the story I know about this topic.

USA must not fall into this ugly game from the turkish public eye, I understand...... In today's turkey, people feel that they had been growed up by american movies, ideals, namely freedom, democracy, being at the good side etc. etc. etc. but this armenian ugly game still continuing worldwide is upsetting Turks any more......

Ninjahedge

February 23rd, 2007, 10:50 AM

This article describes Armenians wishing passage of a resolution that would...
not insist on specific nomenclature from the Turkish goverment. When you say it would still not be enough if either got their way, I'm confused. The Turkish government is lobbying against this resolution not because it has teeth or binds them to anything, but because it is an embarrassment and directly refutes their official position. Turkey already criminalized "any that said otherwise".

Um, yes. So why is everyone crying about "genocide".

And when did I say the resolution had any teeth? AAMOF, I was pointing out the ludicrous nature of the fight over it when all it does is SAY something happened.

Reparations, relating to this discussion, or to discussions of the Jewish Holocaust,

Straw man. Do not start bringing in topics that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand if only to be used as a way of NOT talking about it.

I won't be dragged into that with you since it isn't mentioned anywhere except by you, just now.

So me suggesting that the people, once they get what they want, will just be happy that Turkey admitted to killing hundreds of thousands and just let it go?

I don't think so. It is human nature.

My main point was not to say that they would be right or wrong in doing so, but that if they were to get history to CORRECT itself, this would be something I seriously doubt they would just forgive and forget.

Also, the fact that it has not been mentioned here is simple. Turkey would NEVER start talking about reparations for something that they are denying ever happened (or happened as is being described) and the Armenians know that they need to take the small steps before the large. If you can't even get the country to acnowledge what happened, what good would it be to ask for physical reparations?

The existence of a debate isn't pitiful. What's pitiful is dismissive arrogance that would have debate stifled. History isn't meaningless. Some people think it's quite important.

WHY is it important? Why is it so important for humans to have this? Againwe are fixating on something that will have little, if not ANY ramifications other than "see, I told you so!". Good or bad this is still Hubris.

If all the world knows what really happened and Turkey is the only one to not acnowledge it, why does this matter?

As I said before, for the victims(which obviously do not include you),

FOUL!!!! Trying to discredit any statement I make by implying that lack of direct connection invalidates the logical statements presented.

Do you have any connection MTG, or are you fighting yet another persons emotional battle as if it were your own?

You are turning something else into a fight that was never one to begin with. Why do YOU see the need to insult like this?

sometimes just setting the record straight is what really matters. If you don't have similar values, fine. But don't act mystified by those that do. Using words like pitiful is a bit inflammatory considering the gravity of the topic of genocide. See, now you've gone and inspired an argument after we were getting along so swimmingly.:p

I am not mystified. Again you insult. I am just discouraged that people will be yelling and fighting about what to CALL an event that 90% of the world acnowledges as a given. It happens on a lot of subjects.

And I do consider it pitiful. I consider a LOT of what human do as pitiful in this respect (and, BTW, I AM a human, just in case you wanetd to know). We argue more about what something should be CALLED (If not explicitly in the wording of the resolution, then definitely in the language used by its proponents and opponents).

...

After discussing it with some Turkish co-workers it is also apparent that while the burden of the transgression is still in the hands of the Turks themselves, the claims being made by the Armenians are exaggerated in regards to, at the very least, the number of casualties reported.

Although I was in disagreement with the denial of the appelation of the term "killed" when it was only "being forced out of the country with no sustainable supply line. They were not murdered, they just starved". Somehow, to me, sticking someone in a box w/o food and water and having him die is not far off from being shot.

In all fairness, the Turks were not stupid. If they were genuinely fighting resistance forces from what they classify as a "civil war", if they retreated into the mountains, they would not just let them live up there if they could. They would cut off supply so they would starve themselves out. No sense in having their fighters recover to cause trouble later (strictly militaristically speaking).

The fact that there were most likely FAMILIES involved would have been chalked up as an "unfortunate casualty of war". Right or wrong.

All that aside though. The one thing that got me thinking about this was, even though I consider these guys very rational and logical, their views on this and what was being asked for are totally different than what we are reading here. One of the first things one of them said wa that the Armenians were also asking for land (Mount something-or-other). So my assumption that this would be something that would be asked for after this was dealt with was not far off from what is, at the very least, believed to be the next step that the Armenians will take in the minds of the Turks.

But that still ignores the fact that we have a Turkish representitive that is threatening to do something that may cost lives all over the argument of what a military action 100 years ago should be classified and recorded as.

I understand FULLY what people are feeling when it comes to this, but it is still shocking to think that they would like to shed more blood over something that really will not change much of anything by itself.

In short, I do believe the Armenians have a right to voice this, that article 301 is insane, and that the Turks are acting very childishly. But I also think that it is just not worth fighting this much over.

Ninjahedge

February 23rd, 2007, 11:09 AM

PS, do not get me wrong. I do not think the Turkish mindset is very accurate when it comes to this.

Talking to an ex-co-worker (Old time native Cyprusian) about Turkey, the only words I could get out of him whenever the subject came up was "F the Turks!!!!"

WAY too much emotion and pride to get to the bottom of this, or find a WORKABLE solution.

MidtownGuy

February 23rd, 2007, 01:06 PM

Um, yes. So why is everyone crying about "genocide".

And when did I say the resolution had any teeth? AAMOF, I was pointing out the ludicrous nature of the fight over it when all it does is SAY something happened.

I addressed this twice. For some, truth is valuable in and of itself. You still didn't get it, maybe you don't value truth, even if it isn't connected to a monetary sum or more bloodshed. You were the one that said it was irritating because it "would STILL not be enough."

Straw man. Do not start bringing in topics that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand if only to be used as a way of NOT talking about it.

YOU brought up reparations first. Some nerve turning it around.

WHY is it important? Why is it so important for humans to have this? Againwe are fixating on something that will have little, if not ANY ramifications other than "see, I told you so!". Good or bad this is still Hubris.

If all the world knows what really happened and Turkey is the only one to not acnowledge it, why does this matter?

AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, this resolution is about having a statement in the US historic record. It isn't a difficult concept.
Still you say Turkey. Should we switch to another language besides English?

FOUL!!!! Trying to discredit any statement I make by implying that lack of direct connection invalidates the logical statements presented.

So why do you continue to attempt to discredit my opinion, or even that I should have one about an issue I am not related to? You do it again in the very next line, "Do you have any connection MTG, or are you fighting yet another persons emotional battle as if it were your own?"
Obviously, the purpose of my statement was to emphasize that since you were not affected by the Armenian genocide, that's why you don't give a damn, and that's why you don't hesitate to use words like pitiful when referring to the Armenians' quest for truth.

You are turning something else into a fight that was never one to begin with. Why do YOU see the need to insult like this?

Because you show no respect for the opinions of others, and marvel when you receive the same treatment in return. You create arguments where none existed before. If you don't wish to be insulted, you might try being a little less callous. You also don't need to pick apart every line of every post.
It just elicits the same behavior in return.

We argue more about what something should be CALLED

It matters to the victims. Again, since you are not one of them, and since you do not see any reason for empathy for those that are (indeed you've questioned why someone would even care if it was not them), that statement isn't a surprise. You're just not a very sensitive person. It's OK, but some people do care about the lives of others, regardless of whether there exists a connection direct enough to satisfy you.

I understand FULLY what people are feeling when it comes to this, but it is still shocking to think that they would like to shed more blood over something that really will not change much of anything by itself.

They would like more blood to be shed??? Is that your own thought that you find so shocking, or did someone else say that? Because I don't remember that desire being expressed by anyone.

In short, I do believe the Armenians have a right to voice this, that article 301 is insane, and that the Turks are acting very childishly. But I also think that it is just not worth fighting this much over.

You could have said this in the beginning, it might have saved a lot of agita. Puzzling though, that you don't think it's worth fighting over when you just spent so many words doing just that.

WAY too much emotion and pride to get to the bottom of this, or find a WORKABLE solution.

Especially when inflammatory and emotional comments such as your own doom any rational debate.

If you live up to your past record, I'm sure there will be yet another line by line dissection coming. I'm glad I work at home.

Ninjahedge

February 23rd, 2007, 03:04 PM

I addressed this twice. For some, truth is valuable in and of itself. You still didn't get it, maybe you don't value truth, even if it isn't connected to a monetary sum or more bloodshed. You were the one that said it was irritating because it "would STILL not be enough."

No, I said it would ALSO be irritating because of it.

Go talk to some Turks and Armenians. See if all they want is the name and get back to me. All I have talked with so far have suggested otherwise.

YOU brought up reparations first. Some nerve turning it around.

No. I did not bring up Hitler. I believe that is called something in the BBS world akin to "Jumping the Shark" meaning bringnig in the Nazi's into any discussion as an ultimate.

It is an exaggeration on th etopic designed to discredit the arguement by discrediting the straw man itself. That is the very definition and has little, if anything, to do with my mentioning reparations.

AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, this resolution is about having a statement in the US historic record. It isn't a difficult concept.
Still you say Turkey. Should we switch to another language besides English?

And your statement has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID. Why is it important to the Armenians and Turks to have this. WHEREVER IT MAY RESIDE? Will it change ANYTHING? And WHY does it have to be a national referendum? Last time I looked, History was not determined by our government. Somehow changing an official record of it will change things?

So why do you continue to attempt to discredit my opinion, or even that I should have one about an issue I am not related to? You do it again in the very next line, "Do you have any connection MTG, or are you fighting yet another persons emotional battle as if it were your own?"

Because you continue to call me an idiot. When that happens, I am forced to question your own motivations. You seem to be arguing as if YOU were armenian and casting me as someone who has no right to question anything because I am not.

By your own rules/assertations, you have no more right to argue FOR this than me to QUESTION it in the first place. You have still not answered if YOU were Armenian either, so we can only assume that you are not, and by your own inferrance, you should not be tallking about this/know any more about their feelings than the next guy.

Obviously, the purpose of my statement was to emphasize that since you were not affected by the Armenian genocide, that's why you don't give a damn, and that's why you don't hesitate to use words like pitiful when referring to the Armenians' quest for truth.

NO. WRONG, try again. "Give a damn" is again using an inflection to imply that my opinion is somehow trivial. That because I am not pissed off at the Turks, I somehow cannot be logical.

You know, mediators/arbitrators are usually chosen because of their isolation from the parties involved. How is my lack of rage making me unqualified to question the importance of this event?

It is all politics and the leaders are using the rage of the people to try to get them to support them in what they want to do.

Because you show no respect for the opinions of others,

Look in the mirror. I do respect the opinions of others, but when I do not find them to hold water, I am not going to just step back and say "you are right".

AAMOF, it is much like what is currently going on with the two parties in question. So are YOU questioning my right to challange things I see as untrue?

Do you not feel what I feel? If not, then you have no right to judge! ;)

and marvel when you receive the same treatment in return.

Marvel implies that I did not expect it. I am not surprised in the slightest bit that you have taken anoher inconsequential subject as the bit in your mouth and pulled it to where noone else is even riding anymore.

You create arguments where none existed before. If you don't wish to be insulted, you might try being a little less callous. You also don't need to pick apart every line of every post.

I did not start an argument. You challanged my entire SUGGESTION that further reparations might be suggested/requested by the armenians if something like this were to be universally accepted.

YOU took issue with me suggesting that the GLOBAL DEBATE over whether or not this should be amended in the HISTORY of a countries records was trivial at best and would not serve to do more than make a few people happy (and even more upset, right or wrong).

YOU started teh argument on a few possible contingencies I SUGGESTED. YOU wanted a fight, and you got one.

As for "picking apart" your posts. I am replying to them as if we were in conversation. If you do not like it, stop posting.

It just elicits the same behavior in return.

Is that a threat? "If you keep replying to me line by line, I will too".

I am used to that kind of thing already. Would you rather me take a quote from you, number your paragraphs, and then reference them in my response?

Don't answer that. It was retorical.

It matters to the victims. Again, since you are not one of them, and since you do not see any reason for empathy for those that are (indeed you've questioned why someone would even care if it was not them), that statement isn't a surprise. You're just not a very sensitive person. It's OK, but some people do care about the lives of others, regardless of whether there exists a connection direct enough to satisfy you.

On the contrary, you do not know me. I am a VERY sensitive person. You are just ragging on me now to the equivalent "It's OK if you are an ass, we won't hold that against you". Your argument has NO BASIS. You still do not address the question of the need for this to be done.

WHAT WILL IT DO?

WHAT WILL IT COST?

IS IT WORTH IT?

Let me answer for you.

What will it do? It will make some people happy that they have an accurate (in their minds) depiction of what went on. But it will also anger many that see it as a lie or a dishonor to their own families.

What will it cost? Possibly a supply line to Iraq which MAY cause some people to lose their lives as a result. Directly associatable? Nope, but hurting the troops in a zone of civil unrest can't help!

It will also cost us relations with one of the nations that we really need in our situation in the middle east. Whether this is something that should be bought at the cost that we have outlined id debatable, but it is a loss none the less.

Is it worth it? Only in the minds of those that feel it so. If the Turks were not as opposed to this, and the cost were less, I would see no problem with this, but the mere fact that there IS a problem means that there will probably be a price to pay for this that may not be worth it just for a historical edit.

They would like more blood to be shed??? Is that your own thought that you find so shocking, or did someone else say that? Because I don't remember that desire being expressed by anyone.

OH, so yuo are saying that the closing of the access routes into Iraq will not hurt us at all?

You are saying that no angry turkish people will start attacking Armenians they see in the street because of what was decided?

You are taking my words out of context and implying that I am saying that the Armenians want physical punishment to be enacted apon the Turks.

I am not. I am saying that for the sake of "the truth" that will do no more than change a historical record, some lives may be hurt or lost in the resulting political reactions.

You could have said this in the beginning, it might have saved a lot of agita. Puzzling though, that you don't think it's worth fighting over when you just spent so many words doing just that.

It is called IRONY.

I am not saying that this argument was worth the time and emotion spent. A lot of mine never are!!! ;) The thing that gets me is that I do not necessarily need the person to agree with what I am saying, but just to be able to see what I am getting at, from my point of view, and make their own decision rather than trying to make it as if their view of my statements are right or wrong.

Do you know what I am saying?

IOW, If I say "The dog is brown", I do not like hearing someone say back to me "The cat is brown" or "The dog is tan?".

I liek to hear someone say "Oh, the dog is brown. I think he looks more tan". That, at least, is an acnowledgement of what I am saying and more of a disagreement of the subject matter rather than the context.

In a case like this, even that would still raise some fur, but it would be better than you thinking of me as an inhuman automiton that does not see the peoples whishes for what they are.

Especially when inflammatory and emotional comments such as your own doom any rational debate.

Same with you. You know you do put some barb in your words, and some are more sensitive to it than others.

If you live up to your past record, I'm sure there will be yet another line by line dissection coming. I'm glad I work at home.

So? What does that have to do with anything? You were doing SO well at making me feel like we were coming to some sort of grudging reconciliation, then you post a sarcastic "I bet you will do the same thing all over again" in hopes that that alone will discourage me from posting again.

But, I should have known. Knowing you, you will probably post again commenting and criticising all I have said here. I am sure glad I can type fast.

:D

MidtownGuy

February 23rd, 2007, 03:45 PM

Rest assured, I didn't even bother to read it. Someone has to walk away here, and once again I'll be the bigger man, and say
sayonara.:D

ZippyTheChimp

February 23rd, 2007, 03:45 PM

^
Wow! A two-foot post.

No. I did not bring up Hitler. I believe that is called something in the BBS world akin to "Jumping the Shark" meaning bringnig in the Nazi's into any discussion as an ultimate.

Maybe noting Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) should have a distinct name, the Ninjahedge Corollary?

Ninjahedge

February 23rd, 2007, 03:57 PM

But, I should have known. Knowing you, you will probably post again commenting and criticising all I have said here.

Rest assured, I didn't even bother to read it. Someone has to walk away here, and once again I'll be the bigger man, and say
sayonara.:D

Ah, so you are saying I am wrong again? ;)

Ninjahedge

February 23rd, 2007, 03:58 PM

^
Wow! A two-foot post.

Maybe noting Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) should have a distinct name, the Ninjahedge Corollary?

Maybe, but I think they have it under the subtopic "Kicking a dead horse".

I would have sworn it was whinney-ing!!!! :p

musicial

February 23rd, 2007, 04:40 PM

midtownguy, you really seem to be offensive. and you seem to be irrationally speaking. As if you have proved something, you are using the concept of "Armenian Genocide". you are seeming to exploit the feelings of people and negative proboganda against Turkey. Don't you read the summary I wrote here. as concept There is NO "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE". They are loosers in an internal conflict in Ottoman Times because of their own mistake, according to the authorities of this topic this is such kind of issue. Today's Turkey does not or cannot or will not pay anything for this. Why does Turkey pay for anything which did not take place in the past? This is just an ugly game. you say that you are an american, but you are not an american in reality . In this sense, :) I am more american than you!!!!!!!!!!!! you are either an armenian or a hellenist greek. because both ethnics live in the past, live with their revenge feelings against turks and they cannot come today..... both nations are still producing lots of thesis to damage Turkey. In today's world, we need just peace....

Look at the american Congress. The people who present this draft about the-so-called-armenian-genocide-bill to Congress is of Armenian descent. It could simply be argued that these people could still not be American since a 100 years just like they could not be Ottomans since so many hundreden years....
May be they will be the ones who hit USA from the backside just like they did it to Ottomans...... I do not write about and reply to any more this topic, too

musicial

February 23rd, 2007, 05:08 PM

How should Turks react to this news... In turkey there are sometimes such shocking news that make turks question "Is USA really our ally?"

Missing US guns used in attacks in Turkey
Source:http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/400777.asp
14 of the missing US army guns donated to the Iraqi army have been found in Turkey.

ANKARA - Weapons provided by the US the Iraqi armed forces have been linked to a number of high profile attacks in Turkey.US made weapons were used in the murder of an Italian Catholic priest in the Black Sea city of Trabzon last year and an attack against the Council of State, one of Turkey’s highest courts, in 2006 that left one senior judge dead and four other s wounded.

Turkish security forces have discovered that eight Glocks, four Bumars and that two Walthers weapons had entered Turkey.

In police operations against the leftist terrorist group Dev-Sol and against the outlawed separatist group the PKK six of these missing weapons were found.

musicial

February 23rd, 2007, 05:42 PM

http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/400872.asp
DTP Diyarbakir provincial head Aydogdu detained
Two people, including the head of the DTP’s provincial party branch for Van were arrested after a recent raid showed alleged links to the terrorist group the PKK.
DIYARBAKIR - The head of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) Diyarbakir provincial party branch, Hilmi Aydogdu was detained by the police on Friday.
The Diyarbakir prosecution asked for the detention of Aydogdu due to a statement he made that appeared on the website of the Iraqi group the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

Aydogdu was quoted as saying that they would consider an attack made against the oil rich city of Kirkuk in Iraq, as an attack against Diyarbakir in south east Turkey.

When interviewed on NTV earlier to clarify his statement Aydogdu stressed the spiritual, emotional and brotherly ties between Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in Iraq.

He added that the attack would not be perceived as if it was only against Jelal Talabani or Massoud Barzani, the leaders of the two major Iraqi Kurdish factions but against Kurds.

Aydogdu then went on to say that an attack against Kirkuk would not literally mean an attack on Diyarbakir but would be perceived as such by Kurds in Diyarbakir.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am gonna picture this situation with an example. There are lots of people from Mexico in Colifornia. As a solution, as far as I know USA is building a wall to prevent Mexicans to immigrate to USA illegally to the Mexican and USA border. but there are still enough Mexicans in California. Think that the Mexicans in California want to separate from USA and combine with Mexico. what would USA do about it? San Fransisco is a USA city but think that the the majority mexicans there say otherwise. they say San Fransisco is a Mexican city.

Kurds make the same in Turkey. Diyarbakır in the south of Turkey is a turkish city but they say it is a kurdish city and nordern iraq pump these ideas. what would Turkey do? Turkish officials say common, come to yourself to the people there, they say there is no democracy here in Turkey we cannot say what we feel.... Automatically, there comes some elastic explanations from USA and EU front that Turkey must go further on the way of democracy in Turkey, international press brings article 301 to agenda etc. etc. etc. May be there is only me left not questioning these seriously as a Turk..... Guys, common, the situation in Turkey is really serious against USA, too...

we hear every year the same story from American Congress about the so called armenian genocide.....There is no armenian genocide.

MidtownGuy

February 23rd, 2007, 06:46 PM

midtownguy, you really seem to be offensive.

You accuse me of being offensive... to what ,"Turkishness" ? Thank God Article 301 can't get me, huh? I said nothing offensive against the Turkish people. I will say whatever I like about the corrupt,backwards, human-rights abusing, history denying Turkish government.
I reserved my criticism for the government, unlike you, who proceeded to say:

you are either an armenian or a hellenist greek. because both ethnics live in the past, live with their revenge feelings against turks and they cannot come today.....

You are the offensive zealot here, as evidenced by the despicable remark above. Your position is a predictable byproduct of years of brainwashing by your government without any search for balance.

I will say whatever I like about the denial of history and of human rights in Turkey, and if you find it offensive, perhaps that's indicative of a painful truth YOU cannot take.

Repression of the Kurds is another well-known and shameful fact of Turkish policy. You'll deny that too. It's hard to take your opinion seriously when it's the product of a life of state-sponsored propaganda.

musicial

February 24th, 2007, 07:04 PM

midtownguy, that is your turn to calm down now.... :). I find you a man speaking demogogically.

1) what I say is that normally you cannot use the concept of "Armenian Genocide" . because it is not something proved. but if you had said "the so called armenian genocide" or "the questioned genocide" then I would not have criticized you. Even in every court, somebody who is being accused of doing something bad, is not quilty till he or she has been found quilty. That is the situation I am talking about.

If you beleive in this Armenian diaspora's thesis, ask them for proving the situation, or offer them not to speak like a parrot, repeating the same words, genocide, genocide........ They refuse a sciencific research(I am gonna post here the latest news from media, by the way trust in turkish media, they are really crazy, for example if they could picture they even write how turkish president make sex with his wife on papers. I find them so much independent....anyway..). Armenians say that is a political issue(they find themselves they are very strong in international politics:p ). Turkey asks to Armenians "show us the crime places". they refuse again, they say there is no need to show something it is a reality, accept it:eek: .(because they can't, there do not exist such places, but the reverse is true, there are lots of turkish mass graveyards, turkish people were massacred by armenians in east anatolia at those times)..... What is that midtownguy?:confused:

2) Instead of speaking Turkish democracy or Kurds in Turkey you should speak about the situation in western trace, turkish minority in Greece, or Turkish majority in West Thrace in Greece .

What is falling as the average personal national income of Greece per annum?, what is that in West Thrace. About relegious independence of those people in West Thrace. A friend of mine from west Thrace from Greece said me that the turks in Greece during their military obligation can even not touch to a gun..... they are used in kitchens to recover peel of onions, patatos etc. they are used to clean toilets etc. etc....As far as I know there are at least 36 parlementerian of kurdish descent out of 550 in Turkish parlement... How many Parlementerian of turkish descent does Greece have in Greek parlament.... How many people of turkish descent in Greece have been expelled from Greek citizenship and Why? You should know the answers better than me... Man, I DID NOT TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU ARE FORCING ME... write what you know and all we learn the situation in Greece.... from media I always hear negative news about the turk's situations in Greece....

Anyway man... forget all these.... As far as I understand from media, Greece is apt to overcome it's own turk-horror, both states these days are trying to get good relations with each other, Turkey and Greece will or must be good neighbours at the end. Personally I love Greeks.

musicial

February 24th, 2007, 07:13 PM

http://english.sabah.com.tr/i/_spacer.gifhttp://english.sabah.com.tr/2007/02/24/im/911A639B71303745A1C03BF6b.jpg

Spite meeting to be held

Diaspora responded to the suggestion of the Armenian historian Sarafyan with a threat. Halaçoğlu stated that he will invite Sarafyan to Turkey.

The extreme nationalist Armenians reacted harshly to the suggestion of Sarafyan to conduct a collaborative research in Harput. Sarafyan stated that he received criticisms such as "you are not a real Armenian, Turks will foul you, you are making a mistake." Sarafyan stated that he will not quit in spite of the criticisms.

http://english.sabah.com.tr/i/yildizlar2.gif

Armenian historian comes in spite of Diaspora
The director of Gomidas institute, Ara Sarafyan said that he will meet with Professor Halaçoğlu although the extreme nationalist Armenians said: "you are not a real Armenian, Turks will foul you".

The extreme nationalist Armenians reacted harshly to the suggestion of Sarafyan to conduct a collaborative research with the chairman of the Turkish Historical Society, Professor Yusuf Halaçoğlu in Harput about the events regarding Armenians. Sarafyan stated that he received criticisms such as "you are not a real Armenian, Turks will foul you, and you are making a mistake." Sarafyan stated that he will not quit in spite of the criticisms.

source:http://english.sabah.com.tr/91D22E646F5C4102B4C1BDECDAD345A1.html

musicial

February 26th, 2007, 04:59 AM

turkish foreign minister Gül said to media that article 301 will be changing in the coming weeks or will have been changed in the coming weeks. for the time being no one knows to what degree or content this change occurs. As all know nearly all people will it to be changed or applications must be shrinked. article 301 with it's today's state (today as far as I understand it is an article very elastic and that is why could be dangerous, however I do not have a concrete idea about it, I know this article just in general sense, as an article against insulting Turkishness) is an open-ended article to be abused. I write here about the results of it.

musicial

February 26th, 2007, 07:01 AM

international Lahey Law Court did not find Serbia guilty that Serbia has made a GENOCIDE in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 1992-1995 in Srebrenitsa. This decesion led Bosnia-Herzegovina to a frustration according to NTV. However, This court acknowledged the GENOCIDE done in Srebrenitsa during 1992-1995 committed by Serbians but did not find Serbia as the responsible country. Instead the Court has found Serbia responsible for not preventing it's soldiers who are making a GENOCIDE in Bosnia Herzegovina. the action was that Serbian Soldiers massacred 8000 civilian male from Bosnia-Herzegovina as a war crime.

With this opportunity I want to stress one other point on the so-called Armenian Genocide. Acc. to my knowledge, Armenians want to comouflage their actions from humanity with their groundless accusation to Turkey that they invaded Azeri-Turks land, Nogorno-Karabagh and I have learned from an Azeri television (Azeri-Turks speak a turkish dialect with a slight difference from Turkey Turkish but I understand without an help from dictionary or something else) that Armenians made a new genocide in Hocali, Azarbaijan in 1995 or Azeri-Turks claim this. They have unbeliavable and horroble and discussting pictures and movies of their claim. I have seen some on Azad-Azarbaijan TV. CnnTurk will also these days broadcast about this situation worldwide.

ZippyTheChimp

February 26th, 2007, 10:30 AM

You lost all credibility with me after this...

Look at the american Congress. The people who present this draft about the-so-called-armenian-genocide-bill to Congress is of Armenian descent. It could simply be argued that these people could still not be American since a 100 years just like they could not be Ottomans since so many hundreden years....

Ninjahedge

February 26th, 2007, 11:50 AM

I think this pride in somantics is laudable and people should continue to fight for what they FEEL they deserve (or what they feel others do not).

Oops, forgot my tags... ;)

musicial

February 26th, 2007, 11:56 AM

You lost all credibility with me after this...

why?

I explain my point of view. I define you the concept of "Ottomans" in my mind: this concept do not define any ethnicity as I have learned till now, namely greeks, turks, bulgarians, arabs, etc. etc. etc in other words all ethnicities together inside Ottoman borders were named ottomans. as far as I know turks were the leading ethnic group make this concept live further but this concept was not a sole turks' concept. At the beginnings (between 1300s-1500s for example) it was but then the meaning of this concept has widened or it's meaning has shifted to an another broad meaning. It has been a common concept for the whole ethnicities inside the Ottoman Empire. And as far as I know all ethnicities were ruling this Empire together.And all ethnicities were keeping their own identity without any problem. Greeks were greeks, turks were turks, armenians were armenians, arabs were arabs etc. etc. etc. No ethnicity rushed at the other so aggressively like Armenians in Ottoman Empire. this let me think that all ethnicities thought they were Ottomans to some degree and they had a link, which is good or bad, with each other. I have to add these information, too.Ottoman is the name of the founder of the Empire in 1299, there did not or does not exist or such ottoman ethnicity in the world. And sometimes in today's turkey, researchers are discussing so much that the people call themselves as Turks but they are not, researchers claim that the people in turkey today are a mix of armenians, greeks, bulgarians, russians, turkmens, georgians, arabs etc. etc. but they are (we are) speaking Turkish but a new nation... this discussion is well beyond me...

the concept of American in my mind: lots of different people around the world have come together since app. 300 years have made a common culture, common future, common benefits, common favors etc. etc combine together and construct USA.

I see the ones who present their groundless claim to the american congress are of armenian descent. they are in the hope that they can abuse USA's super power politically and make Turkey recognize this groundless claim and get money or sometthing else for the people of armenian descent. This movement makes me think in this way: THEY ARE FAVORING THEIR SELF-INTEREST AS PARLEMENTERIANS. they are thinking their armenian identity more than their American identity. THEY SEE and USE THIS POSITION AS A TOOL TO GET REVENGE FROM TURKEY. In this sense they are behaving and feeling as Armenians rather than AMERICANS. Why do not they go to international court and prove the situation??????????

now it is your turn what is that that caused my credit to loose wholly in your eye?

musicial

February 26th, 2007, 12:58 PM

I think this pride in somantics is laudable and people should continue to fight for what they FEEL they deserve (or what they feel others do not).

Oops, forgot my tags... ;)

you are right. the problem I find is that some armenians want to win in this fight and convert it into cash or something else?. they start this game worldwide and finds worthy to continue.....

ZippyTheChimp

February 26th, 2007, 01:38 PM

why?

Because...

I see the ones who present their groundless claim to the american congress are of armenian descent. they are in the hope that they can abuse USA's super power politically and make Turkey recognize this groundless claim and get money or sometthing else for the people of armenian descent. This movement makes me think in this way: THEY ARE FAVORING THEIR SELF-INTEREST AS PARLEMENTERIANS. they are thinking their armenian identity more than their American identity. THEY SEE and USE THIS POSITION AS A TOOL TO GET REVENGE FROM TURKEY. In this sense they are behaving and feeling as Armenians rather than AMERICANS. Why do not they go to international court and prove the situation??????????You summarily dismiss the opinions of those who are Armenians, or have Armenian ancestry: the argument is groundless, it is presented by an Armenian, so it can't possibly have any validity. You even accused someone here who differed with you of being Armenian, or Cypriot, or Greek.

Behaving like Americans? Although we frequently don't live up to our ideals, we argue about them constantly. An Article 301, which closes the door on discussing unpleasant subjects, would never stand here. Freedom of speech is at the very foundation of democracy.

You know nothing of my country.

musicial

February 26th, 2007, 03:02 PM

Because...

You summarily dismiss the opinions of those who are Armenians, or have Armenian ancestry: the argument is groundless, it is presented by an Armenian, so it can't possibly have any validity. You even accused someone here who differed with you of being Armenian, or Cypriot, or Greek.

No, you are wrong. I do not dismiss anything. I say Armenians should prove the situation instead of accusing turkish nation of being murderers since decades. They did not (and do not) go to international justice court of Law at Lahey in Europe. United Nations defines what a genocide is in Code 45. Why are they always accusing Turkey but giving no proof. I can watch app. 2000 television channels worldwide. I speak turkish, german and english. I do not see any proof about armenian genocide in any news channel like CNN, Skynews, DeutscheWelle, BBC etc. etc. I always hear and see the reverse in turkish channels and I conclude the reverse is true. What should I say? I say what I see. Do you know how many turkish ambassador to other countries have been killed by ASALA terror (an Armenian terror organization) in Europe since 2-3 decades. it is 35. We are already discussing here. Why does not somebody write here where the massacred armenians are.....I want to hear this and challenge (I do not dismiss anything) the situation. think my situation. I am a turk but because of these armenian proboganda worldwide I have been (or been turned into) a ****ing murderer Turk in other's eye. What is this!?

Behaving like Americans? Although we frequently don't live up to our ideals, we argue about them constantly. An Article 301, which closes the door on discussing unpleasant subjects, would never stand here. Freedom of speech is at the very foundation of democracy.

I have to admit that I do not know much about article 301, in general sense it is about insulting turkishness. what does insult turkishness and what is turkishness etc. etc. depend on individuals. and I do not defend something I do not know much. from media I learned that is an elastic code and must be changed and foreign minister said to media that it will be changed in coming weeks and again from media I learned that terminating this code completely is imppossible because this code exists in fast nearly every country in Europe. at discussions I see professionals about this code challenge Europe in the sense that all the European countries should terminate 301like codes from their penal codes.

You know nothing of my country.

Actually I am bored with this topic. during my membership phase to this web side my aim was seeing how English is used in daily life in USA. nothing more nothing less.

Ninjahedge

February 26th, 2007, 03:28 PM

you are right. the problem I find is that some armenians want to win in this fight and convert it into cash or something else?. they start this game worldwide and finds worthy to continue.....

Careful musicial, I was also commenting on your vehement defense of NOT calling it what it very well may be. ;)

Ninjahedge

February 26th, 2007, 03:29 PM

Because...

You know nothing of my country.

Since when was it your country?

:D;)

lofter1

February 27th, 2007, 12:49 AM

My Country (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yViYDULqno&mode=related&search=)

dragonslayer

March 17th, 2007, 12:38 AM

As only 3% of Turkey is geographically part of Europe, how can it justify joining the EU?
Personally i am against it, (as are most Europeans if the media reports are to be believed) for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the EU would the border Iran, Iraq and Syria - a highly unstable area. Secondly does secular / christian (i myself am secular) europe really want an islamic country of 70 million in the EU? this would make it the second most populous country, and with religious tensions rising this could spell disaster, however 'moderate' turkey claims to be.
The far right in europe is rising, as is islamofacism - Turkey in the EU would simply exacerbate the situation.

musicial

March 27th, 2007, 08:14 AM

As only 3% of Turkey is geographically part of Europe, how can it justify joining the EU? Look at the map! Cyprus is situated where!?http://kcm.co.kr/bethany/c_maps/cyprus-1.gif
Personally i am against it, (as are most Europeans if the media reports are to be believed) for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the EU would the border Iran, Iraq and Syria - a highly unstable area(Actually I do not understand the idea here!!!!!! this unstable area will not be a part of EU one day. this is stg. such an irrelevant answer or excuse given to Turkey, this idea is mostly used in elections in EU lands and the right parties use this idea to get vote from their basis). Secondly does secular / christian (i myself am secular) europe really want an islamic your are unfortunately biased, you use "secular cristian" as concept for EU lands but you use "islamic country, or moderate country" as concept for Turkey, Turkey is not maderate or islamic or something else, Turkey is a secular country, If I discuss how secular it is I guarentee you I win in defending of "Turkey is more secular than most of the EU lands, I dont mean any discussion here!!!!!! " country of 70 million in the EU? this would make it the second most populous country, and with religious tensions rising this could spell disaster, however 'moderate' turkey claims to be.
The far right in europe is rising, as is islamofacism - Turkey in the EU would simply exacerbate the situation.To me the reason for the far right to rise in some countries in EU is the economic divergences some in EU lands. Only Germany and France are benefiting from EU, Italy and England and Holland are protecting themselves. but Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria,Greece and Turkey (Turkey is also inside the Custom Union of EU) and lots of other small lands inside the EU are being exploited by EU economically, I mean by Germany and France. That is the reason I find for the far right to rise in EU. However, islamofacism has nothing to do with Turkey, this concept is used against Taliban militants.

.............

dragonslayer

March 27th, 2007, 08:19 PM

.............

You are entitled to your opinion, just as i am entitled to mine. We can agree to disagree on this matter.
Your argument cuts no ice with me at all. Most of it is irrelevent i'm afraid.

Capn_Birdseye

March 28th, 2007, 06:27 AM

musicial

March 28th, 2007, 06:00 PM

Turkish prime minister today afternoon said to media that after his interference to the issue, Iran will release an English soldier, named Faye Turney. http://www.cnnturk.com/images/dunya/asker422.jpg

the news is on this web side but in turkish, however, I write the source.
http://www.cnnturk.com/DUNYA/haber_detay.asp?PID=319&haberID=322994

musicial

March 29th, 2007, 07:09 AM

Turkey’s first gay and lesbians students club established at Bilgi University

Thursday, March 29, 2007

ŞAFAK TİMUR
ISTANBUL

“In order to block homophobia and liberalize lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT) by setting a wider area for them within campus borders,” around 15 students came together and founded Bilgi Gökkuşağı Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender students club in Istanbul's Bilgi University a couple of weeks ago. They Applied to the university administration officially and were approved. Still giving interviews (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=69244#) to mainstream media, the Bilgi Gökkuşağı LGBT Club, Turkey's first official students club on LGBTs, prefers to take a formal identity rather than moving unofficially, aiming to make LGBTs more visible.
“Friends found [other] friends. … We asked ourselves: why don't we found a club?” Bilgi Gökkuşağı volunteer İzlem Aybastı said. “There were people conscious of organized struggle.”
Aybastı who is also among the founders of the club was highly satisfied with the attitude of the university administration towards the club. They were proud of the club volunteers when Bilgi Gökkuşağı was on a mainstream daily last week, she said. The university administration is liberal and democratic, according to Aybastı. They provide space for any thought.
Bilgi Gökuşağı is a work of five months, but it is functioning as an official students club for three weeks. The club is open to anyone who wants to get rid of his or her homophobia. They organize regular meetings per week. The meetings are now just to meet with more students, but in the future they were planned to be a platform for discussion.

Questioning gender roles, for any gender:
Aybastı consciously avoided using the word “homosexual,” saying that the concept was used in the 19th century to imply a disease that needed treatment. She proposed the abbreviation LGBT, which consists of the first letters of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, as she was diving (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=69244#) into a deep conversation about the gender roles and the dominant character of heterosexism in the world. “We are living in a world that you are accepted as a heterosexual unless you open yourself up,” she noted.
Discussing heterosexism, homophobia, and gender roles as critical for both LGBTs and heterosexuals, Aybastı said, “We want to drive people to question … drive both LGBTs and heterosexuals.” Homophobia is not only the problem of heterosexuals she added.
It is not right to expect LGBTs to go beyond their homophobias as they live in this heterosexist world too, Aybastı said. “They struggle with fear and shame as they realized that they are not heterosexual, they think that they are not normal or this is a disease,” she said. That's why Bilgi Gökkuşağı plans to collaborate with the Psychological Consultant Unit of the university to support LGBTs.
Among the other plans of Bilgi Gökkuşağı there is a fanzine, and they are planning to prepare it in the university canteen, to draw more attention. Panels, screening films (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=69244#) and joint workshops with other clubs are other plans of Bilgi Gökkuşağı for the future. There will also be posters to show people something about LGBTs that they have never seen before. Aybastı does not think that Turkey is a more difficult country for LGBTs. The struggle started later than the European countries, she said, so they have more acquired rights. “Heterosexism is dominant everywhere,” she commented.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=69244