• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zeino

  1. 17 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    Wow! I wonder if @zeino can confirm or deny this. No more questions.


    I can share what I know. FETÖ organization in the air forces starts with pilots born in 1963 earliest and moves upward. At the moment, we know air forces pilots were exposed to medical conspiracies, there is a case going on for more than hundred pilots diagnosed with heart disease when they didn't have it, prescribed some medication the side effect of which is to expand the aort and they became unable to fly. This is the air forces. 


    One day after the incident, the then PM Davutoğlu said he gave the order. Maybe Erdoğan said it, too. I don't remember. Later, when he was questioned by the Parliament Coup Inquiry Commission, Davutoğlu said there was a motive in saying Davutoğlu gave the order because he couldn't have, engagement rules would apply. When he said he gave orders for the engagement rules, they meant a standard order not particular to any situation, or any country. He also said the army said this guy was not FETÖ. 


    The pilot Alparslan Çelik was arrested in an operation with some others. Guns, walkie talkies, automatic weapons were found in their houses, cars etc. So he is in because of this anyway, and if I'm not wrong they cross-checked some lists or something. But yes, the pilot is also suspicious because of this armed thing. So I personally believe this isn't your ordinary, clean pilot who just applied engagement orders. 


    CHP made the comments made here, more or less. But in a way they had to due to their politics. They want to own the "our army" discourse. So they were ready to defend this pilot against the gov't at some point. (My impressions, I didn't follow it closely.) 


    Some journalists who strongly voiced this was FETÖ are in prison now because of FETÖ. Changing direction did not save them. One of them was proven/revealed by a secular-wing investigative journalist to manipulate information and black evidence about the earlier assasination of a third journalist in cooperation with other journalists. (This may be the ugliest sentence I have ever written in my life.) They were also conspiring against the investigative journalist when he was in prison himself because of a court case started by a FETÖ prosecutor with fictive charges. (The same case I have written to you about today.) 


    Davutoğlu is probably my least favourite politician in recent history for more than one reason. He tried to hinder or affect many things behind closed doors and did some rather disagreeable things IMO. For me, what's more significant than his words is the operation where they found these guns, automatic weapons etc. 






  2. 9 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    It's not specific to Turkey. It's called "whataboutism": I ask one question, you answer "what about this?" Great discussion tactics, but what about my original question?


    I'm not discussing with you to win anything with any tactic. We are speaking about life and death, human beings, lives. There can be neither ego, nor winning/losing in those things. When you have shared yet again "intention" of mine, I was actually writing something else, connecting the two actually. I think it should be important for you because everyone you have been speaking of is being tried with terror. And a certain psyche - along with IMO very erroneous political moves of those involved from the opposition, from the human rights aspects etc etc- has a part in this. A recent objective poll shows that people's number 1 priority is terror here, and that's not without reason. You can evaluate how politics connects with this all the way you like. It is nevertheless very much here. 


    As for howaboutism, if you go back and read these 14 pages, you can very clearly see who has changed the course of the religion / reform/corruption debate, despite my very clear comments that this is not a debate I would like to pull to Turkey, Germany, Erdoğan, FETÖ debates as this FETÖ thing has been first and foremost a topic of the seculars  

    here - not that they too haven't connected with the guy politically btw. But none of this was heard. I didn't respond to these with "whataboutism" comments because if yu want to speak about anything, you do. I will take that only as an addition to the topic. If we are willing to go back to that original point, no problem for me. 


    But today, especially today, I will take it to that original point and I will speak about a journalist. He has been a part of this thread since my first comments about journalist arrests of this corrupt prosecutor Zekeriya Öz. He died some hours ago, so let's remember him properly, too. If you take it as tit-for-that, that's only your perspective. But really, justice for all? 

    He made me think about another journalist I have written about before, too. Yes, more details for him, too. 


    So, Doğan Yurdakul, aged 71 died yesterday in his home. He was arrested in 2011 "Ergenekon" charges of Zekeriya Öz for being part of a terror organization, attempting to affect fair trial (ha!), etc etc with a sentence for 21 years. This journalist. He was released in 2012 due to his health conditions. The court case lasted 6 years. His wife died when he was in prison, he attended his funeral with a "special permission." In those years, this Ergenekon thing was met with praise by Turkish liberals, or everyone except the CHP wing because it was perceived as an attempt to dismantle the military control over Turkey's democracy. Turkey really had this problem. Surely journalist associations mentioned them. They actually attracted tremendous support from Silivri prison protesters, but only from the CHP wing. Elderly hardcore "laicistists" as we sometimes jokingly called them defended them in mass protests under difficult circumstances again. They were voicing things wrongly if you aske me, "how can soldiers be arrested"? hinting at the age-old reflexes of a certain political attitude that is found antidemocratic by much larger circles than AKP. These are the journalists some other journalists almost lynched. Whatever. Today, we know this was a fictive case by FETÖ. If you are not believing in this FETÖ, you are ignoring the very victims you superficially sound as if you were defending. Can Dündar's newspaper's journalists. The prosecutor who started that case is being tried with FETÖ, too.


    Whatever allergy you may have about Erdoğan does not change the fact that  as long as you are defending these blokes, you will always have something inevitably dismissing these victimhoods. Journalism does not consist of only the people you choose to mention to me, does it? You can either develop a justice solution that encompasses all victims, or you can refer to justice only whenever you like but that will not have an effect on me. I'm happy that it will not actually. That's the anger with Can Dündar in some people, not in Erdoğan supporters but in the very seculars. That he didn't say one word about these but became a strong voice for Gülen connected newspapers. Nobody has a problem with his fair trial, but beyond that, really, not many people take his "opinions" that seriously I guess. Why should they? There are people who defend these things under all circumstances, they are liked better. It's neither our fascism or fault that he didn't choose to become one of them. Doğan Yurdakul said one thing about the FETÖ cases the day these started : "Nobody observed the presumption of innocence when we were arrested; they lynched us, decalred us guilty from the start. We mustn't corrupt our own attitude. We want them to be tried fairly, too; but we also want their crimes to be revealed. Who placed those fake digital evidence there, how did they do it, who placed those bombs found in diggings, where were those weapons found from?" Zekeriya Öz has these answers because these are his "charges", the "evidence" he "found". So when I question how there can be a mosque reform when one has no questions about this very guy living in a FETÖ place in Freiburg, when they appear together with this thing's imams, your saying these will be forgotten does not suffice. Neither does pulling it to the sphere of Erdoğan's Turkey. Read what a journalist said above carefully. 


    If you are curious, Erdoğan did apologize for the FETÖ thing. Rather strongly. You can say anything about it. Doesn't matter. Not in relation to the above. In that one, there cannot be any questions. It's not political or ideological. You can be from any ideology. You may believe in any religious thing or non-religious thing. You may want to battle for your own rights, however you choose to defend them. But if you are not uniting with others in search of justice for the person above, if you are diluting it with other things, there is something wrong no matter what your beliefs are. It's not we versus you or anything. I expect it from all political parties, all individuals, anyone who is saying something about these. Surely I will not forget about these journalists because you tend to ignore anything you relate with Erdoğan. I have told these people to you right from the start. Had zero effect on you. At least, please don't try to suppress journalist with journalist. 


    Dismiss this as whataboutism. This guy has been on this thread from day 1. Indeed, he is one of the most relevant journalists to my questioning of mosque reform. I'm not being off topic when I mention this guy. You are, perhaps, when you mention Erdoğan and Deniz Yücel and Meşale Tolu but because I care about journalists, I'm not dismissing what you say. 




  3. 29 minutes ago, yourkeau said:
    55 minutes ago, zeino said:

    All conclusions you have drawn about me have been wrong. If you have questions about this, please ask me. 

    Then might at some point decide not to write contradictory sentences.


    No. You ask me please. It will mean allowing another human being the credit of doubt before you arrive in a conclusion and not bring further conditions like expecting coherence. Is it democratic to or fair to expect that expectations should be met when we have no recognition for the expectations of the other?


    29 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    For example this:

    55 minutes ago, zeino said:

    To me, that principle does not start from "human rights"


    And then

    55 minutes ago, zeino said:

    It starts from "respect for life, the right to live"

    You think UN declaration of human right is a pile of shit? Why do you need to invent your own with literally the same wording?


    I am aware of the "formal", "verbal" contradiction there resulting from the use of the word "rights". But if you had asked me what I mean, instead of jumping into conclusions, I would say this: I mean "human rights" in its associative sense. In our debate for instance, that will more or less mean the journalists' rights for instance - and that only selectively as far as I understand. But the right to HIV medication is a human right for instance. That it is not present in visible form in a debate does not mean that it needs to be absent from theory. When I think of Turkey, I think one important problem that the intellectuals find themselves in is that they cannot condone terror, would you believe it? Many will not be able to easily condemn suicide bombing on ordinary urban streets, everyone seems to have "their own dead." I think this is the basic problem. The "opposition" language of the left - some portion of Turkish left is usually armed left - is actually very harsh. Like sometimes, feel sorry for a soldier who died in something, you will be a "fascist." It's that crude.


    Often times, once people decide their cause is just, legitimate whatever, once they decide they are "the" victim, the road to seeing everyone as "collateral damage" is very quick. So, for my reasons and in the language I employ myself, I try to voice that differentiation in my understanding. If we will speak about it with the UN terminology, we can say there can be no article without the preamble. Metaphorically, preambles are important as they help us keep the articles within "the spirit" of the text. That's what I mean. Not "the UN declaration is a pile of shit." As I said, if you have a wish to understand where I'm coming from, you can ask me rather than countering directly with your wording. Or we can have a dialogue of the deaf, which will probably turn into an advertisement of everyone's views in some way, objectifying each other. Don't know. As I said before, I think of your posts. I actually know what you see in me or how you see things from afar. But I feel we cannot come to a point of debating further because of a constant counter-attack style limited to most immediate, verbal things. I also think this is the biggest problem of Turkey today, that there is no "active listening." Sometimes it feels like listening has become a waiting time for saying whatever one wants to say anyway. I'm thinking with these more basic concepts nowadays - at the cost of sounding like a tiny Buddha or Yoda- because I think ever since the foundation of this country, we, none of us, really managed to hear "the other" in a genuine sense. 


  4. 23 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    I gave you a possibility to say "fuck you" to me. You didn't use it, what should I do more? Organize a Duell? Provide my real name, so you can make Interpol Red Notice warrant on me?



    Thank you for the opportunity :) 


    Another difference between us. I never felt anyone ever needs to give me the "opportunity" to say "fuck you" to anyone. If I want to say it, I do. Not built on "opportunity" but "necessity" the way I feel it if I ever do. Ergo, I didn't say it because I didn't want to. 


    And the way I understand it, you did organize a duel by saying "you have no courage" actually. I didn't rise to the occasion. 


    Interpol and all that. No, no, no, you are going to the other direction in regard to my question. I meant something else, starts with an "a", ends with a "y" and is best practised mutually in some cultures so that it is not a sign of strength/weakness but a mutual recognition of the boundaries trespassed. Do you have the Interpol in your mind in relation to me because of the Doğan Akhanlı case or do you in general think people would be willing to perpetrate you through Interpol? In the case of the former, do you think it is fair to treat me this way? 


    Would you be interested in a connection of this question with more or less everything you have been voicing here and see how some people (in this case, I) may see similarities? 


  5. 20 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    I see your point.


    No, you don't. I think, right from the beginning of this discussion, I have been categorized into something I'm not - although I never bothered to "prove" myself to you. I think we had the same dynamic about the EU once, you were for some glad because you thought I had nothing against the EU or something. My point starts at a place where I am questioning the role and function of  "legitimacy" in politics. You, too, will come to that point when you stop a passive and defeatist position about everything you seem to be believing in - observing and shouting is not an active position, no matter what you make think about it. Thinking about causes, building something that can have an appeal to those causes, that can have a chance to transform them and at the same time, hopefully, not giving up on your basic principles is. To me, that principle does not start from "human rights" as you may choose. It starts from "respect for life, the right to live" that will hopefully ensure that there will be some humans that will enjoy those rights. That's why I'm severely against killing in all forms, do not fall into the superficial and indeed invalid distinction between terror and freedom fighting and use terror equally, regardless of which wing it comes from. I wouldn't like you to draw conclusions from this, too. All conclusions you have drawn about me have been wrong. If you have questions about this, please ask me. 

    20 hours ago, yourkeau said:



    Completely depends on how you define "use". To be, a quality discussion is actually one which has no "use" - such as convincing anyone on anything if that's a use. That, to me, is the freest form of thought building where people have a chance to hear new, different things. More or less everything else is frozen I guess.  If I had to say one thing about this discussion, I would say one of us wants philosophy, the other wants rhetoric. 

    20 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    You started this that the lady organizing this mosque is a FETÖ supporter.


    I wrote why this question came to my mind. Photos and explanations. And yes, if you are a "human rights activist", it means certain integrities are questioned about you. I can ask anything I want - in the end of the day, we are talking about my rights as I am human. So I can also question how she felt receiving an award given to Saparmurat Niyazov the Turkmenbashi before as well. Or another guy whom the womens rights movements have continuously protested on streets. And if she has an answer, then I listen to it and consider it. Women's movements - unless you know- are things where women from all views can come together sometimes. Even if they don't, they try to be aware of others' views. This is a basic ethic. I have written clearly that what disturbed me was her reply, not bothering to respond to very valid questions she knows are there and instead choosing to posit herself in what I would define as indeed a very profitable tension nowadays. Her choice. 


    An Alavi may equally ask how on earth she dares to mention Alavi and have that guy there, given the Alavi reactions against this movement's leader. Armenians may say worse things. Likewise someone from this movement may have questions, who knows. Shall everyone shut up now so that a woman can supposedly defend their human rights? 

    20 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    Just like all others, rightfully arrested.


    No. You are saying unreal things now. Plus, factually, (like if we will apply fantasy to me in a realistic way) she is not arrested. FETÖ supporters are not uniformly arrested here, either, Yourkeau. There are degrees of criminality. Actually, speaking of journalists, the prosecutor who started the investigation on Cumhuriyet Newspaper journalists - the paper of which Dündar was the editor-in-chief- is also being tried for FETÖ membership. Apply your disbelief in stuff accordingly. 


    20 hours ago, yourkeau said:


    P.S. There can be some typos, like "there" instead of "they". Feel free to point out the bits which make no sense.


    No worries, completely fine by me. We are both visitors in English, I guess our capacity to understand incorrect stuff may be a bit higher because we write incorrect stuff as well. 


  6. On 19.08.2017 05:33:34, Techsmex said:


    Seems our tombstones are in jeopardy. There will come the day when our headstones become relics and insignificant, dug up and transported to space to make room on our earth for the billions, perhaps trillions, of others.  cremation seems like the right path



    Capsula Mundi is nice. 


  7. 16 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:


    Like I said, that's why hijabi women rarely participate in these forums -- it is inevitably demanded of them that they mount a defense before the inquisitory panel of their personal choices.


    They shouldn't worry about it too much. I'm not a niqab wearer, my questions are not answered, either :) If you come from anything associated with a "foreign" and "not preferred" culture, you need to become the right signifier first I guess, having to climb up to the level where you have "earnt" the right to have the capacities everyone else is automatically supposed to have. TBH, I associate it various degrees of nationalism or racism rather than Islamophobia - but then I think Islamophobia is a manifestation of those at some level. And no, I don't find comments on this thread particularly racist or nationalist etc. I'm very against reducing all debates to that black/white level. 


    And it's not unique to Europe, either. Travel to the "other" part of the world, Europeans will have to do it in the reverse somehow giving the message "I'm not prejudiced against you"  blah blah. We set terrible exams and difficulties to each other sometimes. (Why would I think someone is prejudiced against me because they come from a certain spot on the planet?) If they are prejudiced, they are prejudiced. Travel is not a pre-requisite for prejudice :) I will say with certainty that all my accidental friendships with women who "signify" the "dangerous" other for me and for whom I did the same started with an extra step of soft encounter where we covertly tried to give each other the message "I am not juding you in any way you have been judged so far, and I'm not a participant of anything that wants to add to your torment." It always starts with a political talk. 


    I'm sensitive about these things because I come from a country where very militant forms of this have traumatised women very severely, reducing their opportunities in life very badly, in addition to violating very basic rights horrendously. (The 28 Feb thing.) The "oppressed women in headscarves" did not give up, ha. Some become refugees in other countries, some changed countries for education. One example is a medical doctor who was kicked out of university because of this headscarf battle, a very prestigious medicine faculty in English and it was her 5th year. She went to Hungary and earnt her degree there. Then the degree lost recognition/validity. She couldn't practise even as a GP. But it was recognized in Britain, so she went to Oxford :) Completed specialty studies in various cities, returned to Turkey as the only person in this country who is an expert in a particular neurodevelopment area for autistic children. We should be proud of this, no? No. It's utterly unknown unless you exist in particular circles. She studied with a scholarship from the government - Erdoğan may have been the PM at the time but I'm not sure. But not everyone has this high capacity, determination or luck. These things harm the weakest the most. When I write about these things, maybe people think I'm trying to "earn" something for "my" culture in a foreign land. No, to the contrary. I come from a life where I have been the advantaged consumer of certain advantages that came at the cost of the oppression of others. Not personally, but historically, "I" as a cultural being probably did worse things to Muslims than the sum of total of this thread's participants have ever done in their lives. And neither did that oppression take anyone anywhere. I'm glad it didn't. But when I look at Europe today, I would like to see a better solution of tensions with much better human rights, a much more democratic attitude. Sadly, it reminds me of a bad past sometimes, that even we managed to overcome under our different circumstances. To me, its symbol is that French beach thing. 



  8. 3 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

    when my son's kindergarten teacher starts saying that her husband does not allow her to speak with other men , then yes, it is my business.


    It is indeed very much your business. I also believe it's "our business", that is you should not be left alone in your battle against it because children raised this way become producers of a world that we all live in and are affected. If I was a parent at your child's school, I would join you in all talks with the admin with the full mouth I have. If we decided to sue the school at one point, I would say "no, no, let's not sue just the teacher, let's sue all the admin and split the costs." But that's about any educational action that goes against the principles of what we have chosen for children - which should be shared with parents right from the start I guess. 


    But, honestly, is this not an inequality issue in an educational environment where some administrators are responsible? What are this school's educational values, goals and how do their teachers carry these to their classrooms? What has it got to do with a niqab wearer on the street? But if we will think "they are all like this", that's something very political. Ha, you are entitled to your politics as well, maybe you want zero foreign culture where you live, whatever you fill that foreign with. Your choice. But then don't you have a duty to carry on with your beliefs and actions without practising these on people at street-level in a very personal way? Especially if you appreciate democracy and the environment it creates, which means people don't have to be uniform lovebugs agreeing in everything but having the civil respect that comes with "bearing" someone. Is democracy a happy experience of the "same" celebrating each other, or is it sometimes an unpleasant experience based on accomodating difference as long as that difference does not violate your rights? 



  9. 3 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

     When you start seeing young refugees harassing women on the U-Bahn,


    I genuinely believe you need to stop what you are doing because of this reason actually.  (I will also involve rape in it.)


    This horrendous, deplorable, violent breach of a person's boundaries is one of the ultimate forms of reducing a full, wholesome human being into an "empty signifier", which is then filled with all sorts of things we feel entitled to see in them. They are not in our human category anymore - nobody has a problem with not harming humans most of the time. There is a mental process where some humans are exiled from this category, reduced to something else. Those attackers attacking women do not see them as human subjects. They are objects of their hate - an weaker ones in their eyes, so it's OK to attack them. That hate can be about anything but that woman. Under circumstances related with war and violence, this goes rather deep. I tend to think it's a war between men sometimes, practised via the female body. Some men feel "stronger" by attacking the "other's woman." Disgusting. But when you build a parallel between this, and a niqab wearer, you are also seeing a woman as "an other's woman", in this case a Saudi man's  probably. Which nobody has to be. Even when you say Saudi culture, that is more or less ineavitably (in your circumstances) the Saudi male culture. It's your choice to see it that way, ignoring Saudi female world, that is probably inaccessible to you without some special effort. It is indeed patriarchal to think that a culture consists only of its outspoken patriarchal elements. That does fortify patriarchy, not oppose it.   


    When we pick a woman in a particular quality that says "this signifies/demonstrates/shows" this for me, we start practising the very thing that results in these attacks you mention in its ultimate form. Does this mean we are potential rapists, attackers? Hell no. But at the same time, I believe, if we have a wish that these things stop, we need to be conscious of not contributing to the social web, discourse, anger, the ever existing symbolic violence that makes these possible to a large degree because we exist in that web. 


    This sort of classification is part of human nature in a way. But when we start using that as some form of social theory, it runs the risk of creating the consitions of the violent circumstances you mention. 


    Any "woman" you are seeing in any form is not demonstrating support for anything more so than you demonstrate support for things you probably very much disagree with through the very way you look, you walk, conduct your body, exist. If you wish to start working against patriarchy, start from yourself. Not because you are a man. I as a woman have to start from myself for instance - I think this is especially important for women because bonds of childcare etc make us "educate" children into socialization. Women transfer this culture from generation to generation, so does language. Ultimately, both men and women are victims and producers of it. It's neither a sin, nor a good/bad division. It's an ingrained thing that has no pure categories. That's why, we need to look at ourselves everyday. Can there be something as "I've cleansed myself from patriarchy completely"? I personally don't think so. 


    This hierarchy does not exist between men and women only. It manifests in lesbians, it manifests in transsexuals. Some female- to- male transsexuals who don't choose to be politically active, out etc state particular difficulties during transition because of the new language that has to be learnt - body, words, levels of voiced empathy, everything. Many of the transsexual people I know (in both directions) started this journey by wanting to never be publicly out after the transition phase but changed their minds during this journey because the language transition felt too meaningless and not preferable for them under their circumstances where they thought it would mean a leap that they didn't prefer. It may be a different experience elsewhere. 


    Where would you place a Saudi trans in a niqab in terms of demonstrating support for patriarchy? Surely neither the "rule" (have transsexuals ever been the rule anywhere?) nor the majority. That doesn't mean they should be excluded from theoretical existence though, does it? 


  10. 1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

    So you found a rare example and you want to make it the rule? And you ask me to ignore the rule and consider the OP an example? Does that even make sense?

    You hide nonsense in the middle of a sad story.


    How many women would you need so that you choose to be convinced of anything? Why do you think it is you who needs to be convinced anyway? That would be pretty patriarchal actually. Why do you need to develop a rule about how some women exist? Do you have rules / generalizations as such about women who don't wear a headscarf? Please share. 


    And what happens when someone, anyone, doesn't demonstrate support for patriarchy with their  clothing really? (Which may be inesacapable in a lot of examples though. It's the bras.) If people are existing in a manner that even consciously supports it, what changes when their clothes don't show it? Shall we feel relaxed because it's not showing or what?


    When you see women on the street, do you evaluate their clothes, the way they look etc to see how much they support patriarchy? What am I supposed to look at when I see men on the street - or are they exempt from supporting patriarchy? Or did women who came up with the concept have only a particular set of men (Saudi men?) in mind do you think? 


    If I said all women are like that woman in their determination to reject patriarchy, you would have a point perhaps. Not that they have to, more than other women clothed in whatever fashion. But I'm saying that what you see may not be what you choose to understand.  It's not about those women actually. It's about you. So we are still at the original point. It is up to you to bring forth an argument that differentiates between "this is what it demonstrates" and "this is what I understand from it" I guess.  If you are curious about numbers though, it's sad that you have never managed to come across any independent female with a niqab (in real life or in your readings etc) although you sound rather sure about these things.  


    I don't think we are having a debate about freedom right now anyway. We are actually speaking about political fear in a covert way, which treats a subject as phenomenon, a reality without reality if you like.   




  11. On 01.09.2017 20:34:14, yourkeau said:

    zeino: despite your doubts, I do read your posts


    No doubts. Just surface meaning of TL;DR. 


    On 01.09.2017 20:34:14, yourkeau said:

    In the meantime two Germans arrested in Antalya "for political reasons".


    So we are carrying on with the practice of bringing forth more and more, without worrying to answer. I have decided to do that, too. We can exchange all the info we know. So yes, two German citizens with Turkish origin. Husband and wife. (Would probably be called Turks in another context.) FETÖ. Probably in Antalya for Eid, but it's a wild guess. Someone informed them. Maybe it's a relative of them who called the police on them because he was angry about a football debate or money issue. So many Turkish people did this that the government had to tell people not to do it. Or maybe it's FETÖ themselves, they are conspiracists, arent they? Isn't it a bit unfair to expect them to perp people like us all the time? Maybe they start conspiring on German citizens, too. 


    So if these Germans have been approached by someone who told them that from now on the communication will be in cell organization fashion, between 3 people at most, through a crypted communication app called Bylock, and if they have put money into this fellowship and if there are those incredible communications on their phones, that will be FETÖ. This is the basic level. 


    At a higher level, as we read on papers today, we have read about medical FETÖ doctors in the army who have given unnecessary medication to some hundred non-FETÖ army pilots, which resulted in the enlargement of these soldiers' aorts, which then made them defunct. I'm horrified. 


    At a higher level, you get robotic killers. Do you read their court statements on paper, are they translated for you at all? I don't think so TBH because Germany's free press or at least FAZ seems to be censoring even the words of the main opposition leader Kılıçdaroğlu when he says FETÖ coup. Either this, or the British press is adding sentences to translations about FETÖ. Naughty. 


    I'm curious about free press even more. About Can Dündar. No, I didn't like it when we was attacked. No, I don't have a problem with journalists. But in the midst of some political chaos, I do have some questions about what these people are all up to. Sure sure sure their human rights are important. But that's so for everyone. I have questions beyond that basic level so that I will place him somewhere in my mind politically. So, he wrote twice that they "documented" Turkey's support for ISIS. You know the issue. We as Turkish people, other journalists etc. searched high and low for these documents as he didn't share them. (So we don't know how he documented this exactly.) All records of the event have been checked, not one word of ISIS. His newspaper didn't say a word about ISIS, either. This is a serious issue. Why is he not sharing the documents, we have a right to know. Until then, he just seems to have lied. In the court, too, he was asked if he had documents, he said no. Now that he is in a "free" country, maybe he enlightens us. 


    Also, they are all confusing us instead of helping us get informed.  You know another journalist, a CHP MP has been sentenced to 25 years for passing the news to him. This was based on Dündar's book where he says he got the stuff from a leftist MP. Surely journalists cannot be forced to declare their sources. But he nevertheless gave this "hint" and said the source said he could give his name if he wanted. Anyway, the CHP MP said he was ready to take all responsibility for the news. He actually gave a press release in the Parliament saying it was him who gave the stuff. Can Dündar actually thanked him. He didn't say he didn't take them from him.  The thing is the CHP guy now says it's not him - after being sentenced to 25 years- and that he wasn't an MP at the time. What was that press release in the parliament? Theatre play? But they have phone signals. On that day, Dündar communicated with two other left MPs. Is it them? Is it someone else? Are they all watching that an innocent journalist is in prison? Which journalist shall we believe now? Who are these people? What are they doing? People were surprised when he didn't visit in prison the elderly editor-in-chief of the paper of which he became an editor afterward, that he didn't join one single protest about press when even elderly ladies were doing it, fainting and all that. But he remembered journalists when it extended to Zaman newspaper. So he, too, doesn't defend any right unconditionally about journalists, let alone anyone else. And now they are all watching. One of them changed his mind, he says he didn't do it, he will be in prison for 25 years;  the other has happened to thank this guy. They all know who the source is. The source is watching this imprisonment. Whoever that person is, I think they shouldn't be in politics. (Eyes turned to the main opposition leader here.)They are all playing with each others' lives and it looks like everything but journalism to me. 


  12. 34 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    But then, I believe Böhnemann did it on purpose


    Nooo, what makes you believe that? It must be completely accidental. Writing something. 

    35 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    Bundestag cancelled it, so Böhnemann remained unpunished.


    AFAIK, 18 lines out of 24 are/were censored but maybe that's changed now, or I know it wrong. 

    36 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    God, zeino, it was metaphorical penis! I don't think anyone this days takes this theory seriously, so when one speaks about small penis, it's in metaphorical sense to describe someone who is easily offended, or someone who compensates own complexes with some ridiculous things like buying a BMW. Or arresting innocent people.


    God, then I condemn the use of metaphorical penis. All the rest applies. Just add the word metaphor. 

    38 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    But then you are not a politician.


    Am I not? Hmmm. Obviously you know better. 


    39 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    If you want to work in politics then, yes, it is a part of your job to hear things about your vagina.


    Thank you. for defining what my work in politics should consist in. But maybe I choose to make politcs about people who tell me that it's a part of my job to hear things about my vagina. 


    44 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    I understand that here were have some cultural misunderstanding: it's not a big offence to speak about someone's penis in the West. Because sex is not censored, it's everywhere. That's why.



    Again you are working with assumptions. I'm not protesting that because it's an offense. It has nothing to do with sex. It's you who is constructing me as a woman like that. I'll say the same thing about fat for instance. 


    As for culture... Is it normal in your culture to say to people the things you have said to me and then carry on communicating as if nothing happened? That would be a cultural difference. 


  13. 1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

    Don't be naif, she does not dress like she dresses because she think it looks cool. The underlying reasons are part of the same patriarch culture of Saudi Arabia.


    In what way is your own attitude not patriarchal when you are very antidemocratically "reading" intentions of a woman, defining her existence from a limited perspective that is accessible to you? Correct me if I'm wrong but I personally do not even think  you have ever sat down in your life with a woman in niqab hearing anything about her life, her opinions, whatever in a friendly chat. And even if you did, that person would not be representing all niqab wearers anyway. You seem to be simply insisting on the universal validity of your opinions about next to completely unknown human subjects to yourself, while at the same time mentioning patriarchy.


    I know a lot of women, probably more educated and informed than you in these things - unless you are at least an associate prof in a respectable western university in a related department. What makes your word more valid than theirs? They can theorize it much better than "don't be naive" when a question is asked. 


    I also know a lot of women who have opposed everything that patriarchy does, sometimes at the cost of their lives knowingly and no, some did not leave their chosen garments behind. Indeed, the first Muslim feminist funeral I attended where women came to the front to represent the deceased person was that of a woman who wore burqa at the request of her husband, started writing in a Hezbollah (!!!!!) related magazine where her opinions became so "radical" in terms of interpreting Q'uran and feminism - also with the influence of her leftist female relative. She then started appearing on TV under rather patriarchal conditions, commenting on women's breasts, clothing, menstruation blood and religious practices and everything. She had left the burqa but kept her headscarf. That's her intimate relationship. She knew she would be killed by Hezbollah, she was. After 40 days of torture, videos of which the police could not bring themselves to watch. Feminist funeral was her will. If you saw her, you would see a chubby woman with a headscarf and a long coat demonstrating her support for patriarchy. She didn't no matter how your brain processed the information you had in front of your eyes. She rejected it at a level that would never be able to dare.


    What makes our word carry more weight than hers? That we managed to put a Saudi in charge of these at UN level and are  not doing anything about it? And not even because we believe that's a useful guy. Just because womens' issues have become something "soft" and "petty" at a very co-opted level so when we want some funding, we give some position to the patriarchs in these "harmless" offices. Now, that demonstrates more support for patriarchy than an individual in niqab can ever do. Let's live with it and carry on believing in ourselves.  


  14. On 30.08.2017 21:44:00, Metall said:


    ... first and foremost of which would be Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. He banned wearing the fez (men's red felt cap) and the headscarf in public, mandated school FOR GIRLS, mandated the Latin alphabet, a proper legal system etc. etc. etc.

    Boohoo that the fundamentalists cannot flaunt their cloth cages.


    My dearest female Turkish relative, who is past seventy by now, still proudly walks with no hijab or headscarf and advocates university for my female cousins. We love and admire her.


    Compulsory schooling for all Muslim children started during Sultan Mahmut II, before the reform period and around 100 years before the Republic - 1824. This was mostly a superficial religious and daily life education in a mixed system at primary school level and the order did not become widespread but it was there nevertheless. Education for women became more widespread gradually, especially with the reform period. Women entered the work force first as teachers, again pretty long before the republic.  The concept of mixed education is very interesting during the Ottoman period. The number of mixed primary schools opened by Muslim foundations was way more than primary schools for boys only - opened by the later republicans. In this respect, separated education seems to have more to do with modernity in our history  - although higher education for women did mean more separation during the Ottoman period, too. Women entered what is known as Istanbul University today in 1919, again before Atatürk. It was mixed education. 


    The "official" republican history presents things in such a way sometimes that it seems as if women were "granted" rights by Atatürk. This is, again, only partly, true. The first wave of Turkish feminism dates back to the period of Second Meşrutiyet, when censor was lifted. Women had more than 30 associations, loads and loads of magazines etc. They had also given an ultimatum that they wanted to watch the talks in the Parliament or they would knock that place down. 


    Indeed, the first political party after the Republic which completed its application process properly - papers, mission etc- was not Atatürk's CHP but Women's People's Party under Nezihe Muhiddin. The purpose of this party would be to defend women's rights but its application process was purposefully delayed by Atatürk and his friends - known as the First Group in the Parliament. Then it was rejected saying this party would mean divisiveness (like dividing the country) in the lst reject it received and women would be better off in areas like charity. The single party period of CHP lasted until 1946. Nezihe Muhiddin turned the women's group into an association, which was later charged with corruption and closed. At some point, women were forced to practice self-censor.  The suffrage that came in 1934 was not something granted by Atatürk out of nowhere. To the contrary, women had voiced it for 9 years before it was earnt. The day it was accepted, Nezihe Muhiddin's Turkish Women's Association was asked to close itself as it completed its purpose. IMO these are very important parts of our history of women's rights. 


    And again, though, Atatürk never banned the headscarf unlike the periods afterward. 


    The "banning" of fez etc also resulted in many executions by"travelling courts", one being a woman executed there and then, not fully understanding why she was being executed. She is known as Şalcı Bacı - Shawl Seller Sister- a devout independent Muslim woman earning her life selling shawls. We owe a lot to our modernity as well, but we cannot deny that it was so top-down and at the cost of many lives indeed, which caused a reaction - indeed a democratic reaction IMO- in the public. This is one of the reasons why CHP never won an election on its own after the single-party period ended - that was in 1946.  Even the first multi-party election was "open vote, secret /closed counting". We are a total of all these things I guess. 



  15. On 26.08.2017 20:38:03, yourkeau said:

    Result: Erdogan tried to sue him in Germany.


    And what happened? 


    On 26.08.2017 20:38:03, yourkeau said:

    Result: Merkel didn't give a flying fuck. Maybe she even had a laugh while watching this video, who knows.



    Isn't it even worse if she didn't give a flying fuck but allowed for Böhmermann to be sued? Oops, "Law". AFAIK, the bits about zoophilia and pedophilia have been censored by German law. 


    ZDF did not broadcast it, Frankfurter Allemagne criticized Böhmermann for not knowing the difference between satire as protected by press laws in Germany and primitive insult. Others in Germany did not agree. Ultimately, I personally don't see that particular disturbance as something that is unique to Erdoğan, many people would react. Would I sue if this was said to me? No. But I would make a good critique of it so much that the guy would be embarrased to appear in public. I would refer to Eco's "carnival" and an old Guardian article "Don't laugh when you say that."  If a clown made those zoophiilia and pedophilia jokes about Merkel in front of the German flag in Turkey, I would loudly protect every right of Merkel as an individual who does not deserve such slander and symbolic violence. Political criticism or satire is one thing, zoophilia, pedophilia is another. If you consider these humour and laughing at these as a sign of strength, call me weak and enjoy the "fun" - whatever you find funny in these is beyond me and it will stay so.  I would see that as perping a woman actually. And I don't do to men things I don't want to be done to women.


    Your pseudo-Freudian comments about a person's, any person's genitals. Freud's theory was born "wrong" after his paper about sexual abuse in the middle class Vienna circles did not receive the applaud he was so excitedly hoping for. Ever since then, you have been reading the diverted, "softened" version of a theory at the cost of women and children. What he saw in Paris, he couldn't tell in Vienna. Go and read the original papers . Penis envy is also a misogynistic theory, your choice to employ it or not. 


    But even if it were true, psychoanalysis was not invented so that males could build phallic hierarchy over each other, referring to the size of each others' Sergeants Pinkerton each time they wanted it. When someone brings these up, it inevitably extends to others' bodily functions and we almost find ourselves in a world where one's opinions should be valued only after we know the size and strength of their organs. Do you think any male is exempt from it? If we don't want to live in such a world, we shoud not be producing these. That is a world that I find totally ugly, hierarchical, and primitive. And it affects women, too. I'm now wondering what I may hear about my vagina or my sexual functions at the face of disagreement, if my opinions are understood through that filter. Feel free to share your opinions so we learn. (No, I'm not "offended".) 


    So yes, I want to condemn that penis comment of yours. If anyone said "this woman needs a good fuck" about Merkel for instance - because that's how phallic symbolic violence affects women sometimes- I would respond equally. Call me anything you like for these. It's really OK. 


  16. 11 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    I have had such thoughts.


    I am very vary of polite smiling people who then put a knife in your back in real life.


    Prefer arrogant people like you who call me a clown on TT, but would have a drink in real life.


    Ooops, now I'm being described in the context of backstabbers. I'm against metaphorical violence as well, but at the same time, I don't think we have a friendship or a loyalty oath between us, so metaphorically stabbing you from your back or front does not even apply to me as a sign of trustworthiness or hypocrisy. Geez, look at the things we are speaking about. If you are wary of people whom you feel have betrayed you, please - again- do not project that onto other people who have done nothing to you and who are not enemies of your existence, although you are unable to see it for whatever reason. 


  17. 16 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    Your posts become more and more passive aggressive, zeino.


    I'm not being passive aggressive awarely or on purpose but if you take responsibility of your own disturbance and state what words bother your exactly, I can consider that and try to be more open. Other than that, you can call me whatever you like but the problem that seems to be disturbing you may have no chance to stop. Your choice. I think I have spoken very openly but you found it too long and didn't read. I cannot do anything about it. If I wanted to drive you crazy, I would have told you long ago that no other man in my country -from any political view you may choose- has ever spoken with me this patronizinly, in such an inequal and unncessarily personal way that I'm surprised you don't ever question your style. If I heard this from someone to whom I was constantly "teaching" democracy and whatnot, I would sit down and think what I'm doing instead of leaving myself to my emotions though. If this style continues, I will almost be grateful to the men here, maybe I've been a bit unfair to them all my life. That's the effect this communication is having on me.  


    I will comment on your small penis analysis in a minute, that may also drive you crazy. That's the thing about psychoanalysis and deconstruction. They don't stop when you choose them to. Dora showed this to Freud a long time ago, didn't you know it?  Not my passive aggression, consequence of the lines of thought you have opened for us. 


    16 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    I see you have a class and cannot throw offenses at people, but maybe you should join other users of Toytown Germany who do not have this kind of class and write what they really think.


    What I consider my "class" - if I ever choose to use that wprd- or what sort of behaviour I allow myself within that is completely my choice, regardless of how you choose to perceive it from your filters. If you want to categorize me into any group you have in your mind about other users and judge me in association with them, you are again entitled to your opinion. But when you tell me what to do all the time, that is also not up to you. I will not call you an illiterate fool because: 


    1. Calling you illiterate would be pretty funny given the medium. 


    2. Whether you are a fool or not is not something that bothers me. That you want to discuss an idea is enough. It is then my responsibility to conduct that debate in a manner acceptable to myself if I'm agreeing to discuss with you. If not, I leave. It has nothing to do with your foolishness or the opposite really. If you are curious, I don't think these disagreements are happening in general because anyone is a fool. I associate these more with the problematics of the concept "militant demcracy" as I see it. That is not something I'm willing to reduce to personal stuff such as your supposed foolishness that you are putting in my mouth. I don't have an obligation to exist in your emotional / conceptual framework. 


    3. Within my values, I actually believe I said worse things than "arrogant fool." If I were willing to reduce that again to a personal sphere, I wouldn't have said them in the first place. 


    4. What I have shared with you is some context within which I live. That cannot be reduced to your personal qualities even if that's the only message you choose to hear from it. Within this framework, whether I think you are an arrogant fool or pinnacle of high IQ humility is completely irrelevant. I guess all political opinions have representatives of all these. 


    5. Why should I even bother with writing insults when you are so readily putting them into my mouth? 


    16 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    First you deny that I am bad, then write two long paragraph about how an arrogant illiterate fool I am.


    Again, you misunderstood it. I'm neither defending/ proposing that you are bad. I'm simply not employing that concept when I interact with strangers on the Internet because I find it completely out of place. Why is having to have an emotional opinion about you dictated on me? I have asked you more than once not to project onto me, I hope at some point you will choose to respect this very personal boundary.  In the meantime, I can imagine having exactly the same debate with people that I know and find "good." 


    What's the point in insistently telling people "I know you think I'm bad, tell me I'm bad, tell me I'm bad?" Can't we still carry on with the political debate? Then you also state that it has occurred to you that maybe I'm saying things to torture you. I have written about things like 28 feb, death penalty cases, corrupt prosecutors, cult like ideas, jail regulations that have happened where I live as factors that occur to people naturally. We may have cultural differences at this point, but this entire "admit you think I'm bad" discourse you are approaching me with is so irrelevant, I'm thinking why it is so fervently having to happen. 


    16 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    You have no courage to call me names?


    Maybe I don't measure my courage with calling you names?




  18. On 26.08.2017 20:29:06, yourkeau said:

    Sorry, didn't comment this for a long time.


    TL:DR: yourkeau is bad, Merkel is bad, there were other arrest of journalists before Erdogan, so why do we care now and not back then?


    I hope, this is correct summary.



    Of course it's not the correct summary. For one thing, having a disagreement with you does not entail a thought like "Yourkeau is bad" in my world. Too black and white and too personal for my liking. Again, I feel you are projecting yourself on me. (No, I'm not offended, I'm not angry, I'm not this, I'm not that.) You say this to other people when they disagree with you AFAIK, I'm not sure how much feeling or judgments they have for you, please know that I'm not debating very serious issues in my standards with you to think "Yourkeau is bad", you as a person (toward whom I  can have feelings) don't occupy a space in them. These things are debated at many levels in our everyday lives, if we called everyone "bad" with a simplistic adjective that suits the world of a 5- year- old it would be a childish world. Such an existence has no chance of building a peaceful life with recognition for the other, or respecting everyone's right to live. 


    Yes, debating these may take a bit "long" sometimes, if you ever bother to think why people are the way they are and have a wish to transform things for the better in the way you believe. It's also because some tensions you mention are historical and very much related to terror and bloodshed that's surrounding all these. Add to this your next to zero contextual knowledge about things that you choose to comment on, yes it is sometimes long. There is a way to debate these with shorter forms, which I can do, but I'm not sure that you can do that about our sociology or political history. If you want to hear what you only like, you can surely, but that will not benefit anyone about whom you are talking as that's part of the historical tensions already. If you have a problem with people blindly believing what is given to them, and rejecting any factual, emotional, whatever context outside that, why posit yourself exactly in the same place? In the parts you didn't read, I questioned your integrity. Whether you are interested in that to go back and read or not is your existential attitude, not mine. I read everything you say and think about them. 


  19. On 09.08.2017 23:25:26, yourkeau said:

     I can only say your posts are very disturbing. 


    I'm OK with you finding my views disturbing. I'm also OK with debating with people whose views I find disturbing. In our discussion, I don't feel you have explained anything to me. Dismissing any piece of thought that does not fit your schema of things, dismissing any contextual or factual info about situations that you obviously do not know much about, attributing intentions and feelings to me (anger, offense), telling me how to search for information and even in what language (what is that to you really?) when I asked you what you have read about stuff and offered credit of doubt actually.


    I posted on this thread genuinely questioning how someone associating with corrupt people (guys who kept journalists and others in prison for years with fake charges) can have a potential of reforming a religion elsewhere and you even told me that these will be forgotten and people are remembered with their good deeds. It's pretty obvious from that that you don't equally care even about journalists. You don't even get curious when it is voiced by people that you have somehow judged in your mind, you don't have a problem with people who don't have a problem with that. Are you now disturbed because I reject saying this person is innocent, this person is guilty when I also say info varies and maybe this jail situation has something to do with something other than journalism, what do you know and when you attempt to discuss law without law? I will not turn to you and say these will be forgotten and we remember people with their good deeds. Maybe you do that to Deniz Yücel and whomever you want when they say they have been victimized. It's even not me who says stuff like this to people. Your Can Dündar does that. As he wrote to the victims of that period "go to another door" about a case - and generals he finds antidemocratic "historically." Only to receive letters from others saying "you said this about us, we will not say this about you" and then reminding him that journalists were involved in that case, too. That's your intellectuals here. Remembering things only when it suits them. 


    But neither saying these to me, nor bringing up Erdoğan in everything you like changes that I find many things I have read here incoherent thorough and thorough. You can "explain" anything you like but I even don't think you have a problem with the concept dictatorship actually. Don't you think Merkel is the best politician since Adenauer already? Well, she is a politician protested by a Muslim woman exactly in the press conference where she was announcing with Sisi their mega deal. You probably know what that woman said. But Merkel certainly mentioned that death penalty is bad so that must make it alright in your eyes. So there it is. The best politician since Adenauer in your words has drawn the lines. Well, apparently some can choose to trade with dictatorships, expand automative industry and benefit from the tax income that comes from that. Fine. But please do understand that when you shout dictatorship elsewhere and "explain" things to me, I only have a bitter smile on my face. We are actually pretty lucky in that I don't think Turkey is a dictatorship. Because if I believed that, you would be the citizen of a country selling armament to a dictatorship, and while telling me what to tell my grandchildren which I would never have probably, you would probably be teaching democracy to the likes of me with the comfort of that income. And with this incoherence, I actually don't feel obliged to prove my understanding of democracy to you at all. If you can do things for money, I can do them, too, right? I can support whomever I want for my financial and other interests and that will be bad. But I have suspicions that you would be at a point to criticize me for that. Until you start criticizing your own politics first. 


    On 09.08.2017 23:25:26, yourkeau said:

    Let's hope you will not regret your support of Erdogan and will proudly tell this to your grandchildren. Because my parents do regret supporting the commies when they were young (well, they had little choice: support commies or prison, but still). They tell me a lot of funny stories which sound unbelievable these days, but they helped me to be very critical of the government.


    More things we may be disturbed by now. Ever heard of 28 Feb victims, headscarf protests in Turkey? Women who had been studying at universities with their niqab. This right was taken from them. Check out youtube videos if you are interested and see what happened to them. They formed the longest human chain in the world to protest. Do you know what happened to them? They were tried with death penalty. Now, if nobody in Turkish politics has offered to these women any sort of assurance that they will not go back to those days and if they are supporting Erdoğan with that, it doesn't make them less democratic than yourself. Actually, I find their reasons more genuine. 


    This debate has been done. Between Cem Özdemir and some youth in Germany, in a conference where Özdemir said those who think Turkey is super can leave - how antidemocratic, how lazy, how irresponsible. If he believes  that he should at least take its own responsiblity and campaign for kicking those people out rather than seeing the solution in their giving up on their rights. But anyway. Some youth stood up and said to him that maybe they are voting for Erdoğan because of the headscarf issue, maybe because he took giant steps toward solving the Kurdish problem, this and that. With the magic keyword there, Özdemir could only say "you are right about the Kurds." So, there you go. 


    Many "seculars" who say "I can't recognize Turkey anymore" got very rich during the AKP period here. They do recognize that money - their houses increasing 6fold in value and whatnot. That they can afford both saying the right things in your eyes and living luxuriously does not make them more democratic than anyone actually - especially when they are silently intent on keeping their gains. 


    Call me an Erdoğan supporter for writing these, too. It's OK. Here is more. I was visiting my mother one day and the news got very strange. Coup. We were assured of our property rights. The Parliament was bombed with people in it. They killed people on the streets. If that thing had succeeded, I think I would be living under someone who has "dreams" where Prophet Mohammed tells him who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. This person wails shaking back and forth most of the time and I cannot understand anything he says. One thing that has ever felt slightly familiar in discourse was that he wouldn't support Angel Gabriel if Angel Gabriel had a political party. I couldn't understand the reasons. Reform yourself with these all the way, not my problem. Discuss with Angel Gabriel the freedom of opinion and get your answers not from law and articles but from dreams. I don't want to exist in that sphere. It was minutes away. (Secrets you will not hear from people who say the right things to you. Many seculars say among themselves that it could only be Erdoğan who could finish this thing in Turkey.  


    My sphere: we will probably have early elections. After the referendum, the bar has been raised to 51%, which is above the current vote of parties. (According to an analysis I have heard). According to the analyst, everyone will have to get votes from their historical opponents if they have a claim for anything. No "overthrowing fetish" will work, people who can convince people that they will hear others' concerns with soft discourses will win. Let's see how much politicians can assure "'other's" that they will not lose their rights if they come to power. It's very complex if you think everyone has rights, such as the right to live etc. It may be simpler for you if you limit stuff to whatever you like but that doesn't say anything new to anyone. That's how it has always been.   






  20. 37 minutes ago, yourkeau said:


    AFAIK, the only Empire Turkey was part of was Ottoman Empire.


    The other Empire was British one. AFAIK, no former part of this Empire regrets that times. Actually, British Empire is an example, that not all colonialism is necessarily bad. At least Cyprus, Honkkong and Malta do not regret. Neither do Israel and UAE.


    " Imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military force or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy. "


    Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism


    As we can see from this definition, imperialism is not something that is practised by empires. 


    As for what you know about imperialisms, colonialisms and who regrets it or not, I will not try to convince you of anything. To me, any concept which involves mutinies, slavery, famine etc and against which wars of independence have been fought (India, Algeria etc etc etc) would not be discussed with statements like no former part regrets it etc. (Though the colonizer land can be perceived in ambivalent ways in postcolonial times and this is well documented.) I'm not saying this about any particular empire btw. But if you are interested in how people felt, Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth is a painful book about the psychological and psychiatric effects of colonialism because it dehumanizes people. But that's not even necessarily the period that I mentioned - more recent Middle East is more relevant. 


    Edit: Israel was not exactly a colony btw, although some will argue that in essence it was. Still, logically, we would need to look at Palestinians in this regard I reckon. 


  21. 20 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    I had a university professor who was born in a concentration camp. He spent his first 7-10 years of life in prison despite being a child and have not committed any crime. I can't believe Turkey is becoming a similar country. But the news from there are very, very disturbing.


    This is partly what we disagree on. Not that it's nice that kids grow in prison with their parents but I think differently from you in two senses. 


    1. It is actually an earned right in many countries (including Belgium etc) to obtain permission from the court so that your child can stay with you until a certain age - here, it is 3, so that your baby is not put into childcare when she needs you most. This is, in principle, to protect a child because separation at that age actually harms the child.  Mothers whose children are out may apply court to have their children with them actually.  Growing up in prison surely hinders development if not applied under circumstances where children's developmental needs are met. But, I believe, improvement areas are those where conditions for children are made better. Turkey has done some good things about it with some legal regulations, civil projects, campaigns etc, all of which helped. I hope they go on on a continued basis. But I do not see separation of mother and child as a good thing myself. Another solution would be designing alternative sentences for short term imprisonments for mothers with children under 3 years old but there isn't that in Turkey at the moment.


    2. So this is the disagreement - from my side. You bring these and say this is what Turkey is "becoming". But we have had this regulation for a long time. They didn't matter to you at one point, they do now. But to those of us who have been more familiar with this context, Turkey is not particularly becoming anything because of this on its own. Turkey has been dealing with things on a much larger scale, and without bringing solutions to those, everything you mention may go on for a while. Terror is truly related with this, so is what is happening in the Middle East. Everyone must learn to make politics and express themselves without resorting to guns and suicide bombing and whatnot and put a distance between themselves and these things, period. They are truly at a vile level here, Yourkeau. We can talk about why I think this is critical. 


    But anyway, we read these new interpretations - and especially the world's reactions after the coup attempt which I personally did not find democratic - within a different context, even the jailed journalists themselves are saying that this is not purely about "democracy." I'm not saying that you are doing this as a person, neither are you any official politics representative. But at a large scale, do you genuinely believe this is just about democracy and human rights? That we can have a variety of democratic claims inside (from civil liberties and freedoms to achieving equality among women to improving conditions of the mental patients, you name it - there will probably be an early election so we will certainly hear a lot of things from everyone) does not change the fact that we can also criticize what is coming from outside. 


  22. 3 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    Whatever, if you claim "very negative view" is not hate, let's reverse the situation: suppose it's a poll about Turkey, and two countries have significantly higher percentage of "very negative view" of Turkey. Would you consider this countries as "Turkey haters"? Would you agree, that at least these countries host more Turkey haters than the other countries?


    I have attempted to express this reverse situation twice so far and my answer is no. I have said this, too, if you read my post above, you will see it. But again, no, I will not consider people as Turkey haters. That is deflecting criticism, which is a deaf way of being to me. And I'm not made of teflon. I will think "what are these people saying?" If they have a point, I will take that into consideration. If they are saying things like "they stink, I hope they all die"  etc, I would think that's hate. And even in hate, I will try to see if there is something that we can learn something from. On a political note, I don't think politics based on hatred help or solve anything. I like thinking that there are ways to transform it into more constructive things. I like thinking about those possibilities. But on an individual note, I don't care much about people's feelings, they are entitled to them and as I have said before, what matters is whether they turn violent, destructive etc - that I don't like. Statistically, an increase in the percentage of haters in some country does not mean that country hates my country more than others, but yeah there are haters there. Sentence 3 above applies then. 


    There is a certain reality though. Western countries are not as appreciated in the east as they are by their own citizens in the west. One part of may be because they are manipulated - I would say the same for westerners as well. But there is another reality where western democracies are not experienced that way by people in other places. They are also severely associated with torments in the Middle East, exploitation of natural sources  etc etc. Iraq is the historical example of this for my generation. Whatever the Middle East's own problems are, it is kind of clear for people living in these geographies that military interventions etc bring more chaos than democracy and very big torments. It is also associated with imperialism, colonialism etc etc. We cannot completely ignore these experiences if we are talking about feelings although they don't inevitably result in hate, either.     


  23. 19 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    It is hate. Surely Eurobarometer uses very politically correct language and can't include the answers like "I hate the EU". One should read along the lines...



    Well, if we want to read Eurobarometer's politically correct language as hate, then maybe we should directly ask people if they "hate" anyone so that they would have a chance to represent themselves at least. (But again, I don't know if they actually worded it as "hate" while asking questions. I wouldn't think so but who knows.) If they haven't done that, what  are doing is called "reading intentions" in my political culture and is found severely antidemocratic so that's not something I will do to anyone - likewise, as I said, if anyone's criticism of me or whatever I feel I belong to is worded as "very negative view" I will not turn and say this is "hate". None of us can democratically attribute feelings to anyone without knowing what they are basing their very negative views on. Neither do we have the right to project our feelings on them, if that's what we are doing. The world would be quite a weird place if everyone closed their ears to any criticism, explaining stuff away as "they hate us, that's why." I find that irresponsible. Trying to understand always feels better to me. I will answer all the other questions, it is becoming a list but I like discussing these things. Only my focus is a bit slow nowadays. But I'm thinking on them. 


  24. On 06.08.2017 18:08:40, yourkeau said:

    Eurobarometer: Turkey and Russia have record hight hate for the EU out of all non EU countries.



    Very remarkable for me.


    I have checked the link, and was particularly curious whether the Eurobarometer actually used a dangerous concept like "hate". Didn't check the links though. All I could see was "a very negative view", which I would seriously hesitate to interpret as hate, regardless of whomever uses it.  If we think everyone having very negative views about us hates us, I don't know where we would ever be - obviously not in a good place. The EU has very negative views about Turkey at the moment, shall we now think "they hate us"? Ha, if we think the EU can have a basis or a point other than hate, but Turkish people cannot ever do that when they have very negative views and can only act with hate, I think it's a very very unfair and inequal discourse in itself. People everywhere have a critical capacity beyond "hate". Again, thinking the opposite would be something I would find very dangerous. 


    It is indeed remarkable that Russia and Turkey followed a similar pattern although I would again hesitate to attribute it to a singular factor. 


    As for "hate" and "love" in itself, why does anyone even have to have a positive view of the EU? I think everyone is entitled to their feelings, whatever they are as long as they don' turn it into destructive action against others. (And in this example, it's not exactly unequited love, is it?) It seems that despite the low in relationships, Turkey still managed to have a higher percentage of  positive views than Norway and Switzerland, which I also find very remarkable.