• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zeino

  1. 18 minutes ago, yourkeau said:
    56 minutes ago, dampstew said:

     - A lady (a complete stranger) was walking her dog, and we commented how cute the dog is in our native language - upon this, she remarked "Not for eating!" with a really shitty expression and walked away.   

    Do not talk to strangers in Germany, do not comment on their animals, their looks or the books they are reading. This is rude.


    I would think the particularly rude thing here is not approaching someone's dog in a friendly manner but receiving the racially charged "not for eating". It is actually the lady who is commenting based on looks in this example, isn't it? What is there to adjust in this? Especially, if this is unable in her culture, she shouldn't do it. Other than that, millions of Germans - like any nation- are able to express discomfort about anything without stepping into the racial zone this way and in my experience, many do talk to strangers or approach them anyway. 


  2. 3 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

    Again, the court is unfortunately slow, but one alternative is to give the parents fewer avenues of appeal... 


    I have been thinking about the courts and agree with everything you have said about them. Only in this last one, I construct it like parents should be given more opportunities to build their opinions in a concrete, informed way in a shorter period of time - which I think would contribute to a more peaceful state for parents in terms of decision making, and in practice, yes, decreasing the chance of appeal. I have been thinking that a commission based, open debate decision procedure could have helped parents more instead of limiting this to X versus Y. More opinions, more variety, parents would witness a majority/minority of opinions perhaps as well as the distribution of opinions. Sometimes 2/3 gives a better idea than 50/50 etc. 


    How else do you think this could be improved? Or if you are thinking about limiting appeal, after which point would you consider that to be suitable? 


    I also have this criticism of the court. The US doctor first said 10%, then increased it to 56 % (if I remember correctly) and the family's lawyer also asked how that happened and the doctor said he guessed a bit too much. How did that initial opinion then rendered invalid get to court? Because, imagine, you agree with that opinion and then this sort of comes up. You agreed with palliative care because of that 10% and then learnt from the same doctor that it was actually 56%. Wouldn't that also be horrible? 


  3. On 20.07.2017 22:25:23, yourkeau said:

    1. Do you think Deniz Yücel should be in jail? I prefer "yes" or "no" answer instead of long paragraphs.


    1. What is Deniz Yücel being charged with? He's under arrest because of what he wrote, he is under arrest to give a message etc is not the type of evaluative answer I'm asking for. We can do that, too, we can speak about this politically. But speaking about jail, journalists, oppression etc in relation to a specific person, let's once do this with clear information and framework. What are the charges as you have read, heard in Germany?


    I'm asking this because you are asking me if a specific person should be in jail although I have openly told you that I have not read anything by him, I have not seen the court folder or official explanations and info here varies. I don't build person specific opinions this way.  So I want to rely on your info. What are they charging him with?  


    2. Why is he in jail?

    His situation is "trial under arrest", he hasn't been sentenced, yet. There are three options in Turkey. Trial under arrest. Trial with no arrest. Trial with no arrest but judicial control (you go to a police station once a week and sign something.) All forms can be used depending on a couple of factors. So, why this choice for this guy, not politically but from a legal perspective?  


  4. On 20.07.2017 22:25:23, yourkeau said:

    2. The government can release prisoners, but it can't put people to jail, it can order arrests. Small difference between Merkel and Erdogan. Last time when federal chancellor tried to arrest journalist he didn't like was in 1963 (if my memory is correct). In the end it led to dismissal or defense minister (who never said the chancellor authorized that arrest, otherwise he would also have to go).


    On 20.07.2017 22:25:23, yourkeau said:

    2. The government can release prisoners, but it can't put people to jail, it can order arrests. Small difference between Merkel and Erdogan. Last time when federal chancellor tried to arrest journalist he didn't like was in 1963 (if my memory is correct). In the end it led to dismissal or defense minister (who never said the chancellor authorized that arrest, otherwise he would also have to go).


    Checks and balances is not built on what you are describing above in Turkey, and I would be very surprised (shocked indeed) if the government can order arrests in Germany, too, or if that is left to the discretion or character of politicians.  I also think  the difference between ordering arrest and not putting people to jail sounds interesting. How does that work in practice? Here, for detail, only a court can order arrest. The police can detain for a legally defined amount of time. Its implications are different for me because you seem to focus your perspective on people, leaders if you like, whereas I prefer looking at the system which holds so many more people responsible and also appreciates them for good things they do. "Interference with law" with heated discourse and words? Have you ever asked yourself why that's done loudly instead of and as opposed to the secret fellowship FETÖ method based on penetration to all segments of bureaucratic, law, military and whatnot and crypto dialogues and 1 US dollars starting with serial number F carried in wallets  so that they can recognize each other? (What fondness of ritual btw).  


    When you say the small difference between Merkel and Erdoğan. Something that I find personally interesting (people have been thinking about this for a while.) Sometimes Trump is included as well. So Merkel and Erdoğan are very different politicians. One has a PhD in quantum physics, is the leader of one of the EU's locomotive countries. Erdoğan comes from grassroots and modest origins in a completely different country. Educated in Turkey, not hard-science. Trump, quite a vivid character who managed to get votes from people who are leading very different lives from him I think. Our general way of looking at emotionally heightened characters here is too look at their actions, which shows a different picture under the discourse. They have some coherent economic orientations, international tendencies etc under the surface. So Merkel for instance says, some countries like Turkey and EU members are swinging to the right more and are uniting around Trump (roughly). But look at the situation, look at the tensions Turkey and Germany are experiencing. How this quantum post-grad has been existing at this plane with everyone she has a criticism toward, trying to do things with them, getting a lot of flak from the left and right in a lot of places in the meantime, not just Turkey you know. Interestingly, in all her democracy/oppression talks about Turkey, Turkish immigrants in the country she is leading are not only the most frusrated, angry etc but also the most opposite of what she would like to see. Look even this Turkey under all this Germany criticizes ever  so strongly has come up with different referandum results much less monolithic than in Germany. The German press worked so hard, campaigns banned whatnot. Here, the opposition was like Corbyn style. Look at Germany's results. With all that democracy, look at what is happening in the world. What is it? It's easy to "profile" people, these millions with negative stuff. The don't know what's good for them, they are X,Y,Z (different ways of saying we know better, classic in Turkey actually.) But millions are resisting to something and technocrats are not better than others in solving this in a sense. What is it do you think? Has everyone flipped all of a sudden, were these people always hopeless cases anyway or is there a problem with this ever so beautiful democracy nowadays? Without providing an answer, I don't think practising democracy is possible for us anyway. Top-down pressure maybe but results of that are also questionable, let alone how anti-democratic it can be itself.  I'm asking this because nothing you explain is extraordinary about democracy and freedoms. They are known by everyone actually, even here. The theoretical question is more related, as is sometimes mentioned, to an idealism debate going back to Schopenhauer actually :) (so yes, in Turkey we are discussing this with Schopenhauer :) ) But what is it in all this where some people shout the right things as they deem fit and the results are the state of the world? (This is the level that I'm interested in regarding all the freedoms you mention, other than that, surely I can look from afar and say this is good, this is bad, not so difficult in today's world.)  


  5. 2 hours ago, msam said:

    This is a core philosophical issue - Do you protect someone who is known to have committed a crime, from being punished more severely than you think is acceptable?


    Simplest imaginable scenario (without going into specific cases like you have since I don't know about them):


    Someone did some REALLY bad things in his country A. He runs away to another country B. Country B knows about these bad deeds, but also knows that if he is returned to country A he will be "treated unfairly". What should country A do?

    In practice, many countries, including EU members, will not extradite unless there is assurance that a death penalty will not be imposed, because they consider the death penalty as unacceptable. So why is an unfair trial any different?


    Also note that the leap to torture isn't as big as you might think - simply replace "treated unfairly" with "tortured" above and see if your answer changes (logically, it should not)



    I have enough familiarity with leap to torture. And exactly where you have quoted me, I am actually brainstorming about a possibility for justice where fair trial is ensured for perpetrators but justice is extended to their victims as well. I came up with the idea of an international court for that  - without having thought about the details actually. Yes, fair trial is important for everyone, right to live is important. But the very people we are talking about need to be heard in cases of assasinated journalists etc. I believe we also need to extend justice to them and their families. 


    And, I will say something very genuinely, like not anything theoretical but a life observation. These principles go hand in hand with some political stuff and some stuff related to conscience. I have two examples in my mind, I have been questioning this on my own for a couple of days. Basically, I saw some photos of these ISIS terrorists kept in two tiny rooms in Mosul. Hundreds of them, almost on top of each other. Their heads were shaven, some looked really old, bony. Their guardian said their feet were swollen because they were not allowed to walk etc. I don't know about their cases but I've coded them as horrible, disgusting filth in my mind. I'm happy with my decision as well. Human rights? Torture? They are in a bad situation in that place there. Would I ever campaign for their human rights? No, I personally wouldn't bother with it. I mean if I was ever involved in anything related to them I wouldn't go and torture them on purpose but at the same time, I would not put any effort into protecting their human rights from afar. If someone, say, started a petition campaign, I wouldn't sign it. I wouldn't be particularly motivated or anything. It seems like no matter how much we talk about equality of these things, there are different levels of motivation for things. I don't know if I'm alone in this. 


    The other example, again I have seen recently is that a guy was caught in Denmark, a suspect of the Reina terror in Istanbul where a jihadist killed 39 people on New Year's Eve. People from all nationalities. The perp was caught 17 days later. In his defense, he said he did this "to take revenge from Christians." I hated this statement especially because for some reason, I think there is something dirty, cunning, manipulative in this. This is a Muslim country, we have tensions with the west at the moment. Did he think this "Christians" think could work? The prosecutor asked for a total of 2370 years of imprisonment for the guy. Charged him with attempting to overthrow the state (I think because  ISIS calls itself a state), life sentence for all people who lost their lives, transfer of guns, everything. Now Denmark has caught the other suspect who has provided him with weapons. He is put into prison for 4 weeks. I hope he will be returned so that we can try him. Now if this guy had been to Germany, had claimed asylum, if Turkish sentences were higher than what Germany finds acceptable, would politicians be able to "bravely" defend his human rights? Not a rhetorical question, just curious.   



    3 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    So, basically what kind of exchange is this?


    I have no idea, it came to press in Turkish translated from Bild, their sources are "diplomatic." As I have said, Turkey has not confirmed this or anything. Just something we read on papers a couple of hours ago. Maybe at some point, someone would comment on it, I have no idea. Maybe Bild knows. I just asked you what you would think about this because I'm interested in your opinion. 


    12 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    Do people in Turkey really think that lives have different values in Germany, and one journalist worth more than two generals? Or do they think Merkel can cancel granted asylum of random people in Germany and radomly deport them?


    No. You are attributing false meaning to people in Turkey as if they had this demand or something. It's actually the German politicians debating this on their own voicing opinions. 


    Mind you though, these "free people" are not exactly the owners of my favourite clothing company. They are generals of an army operating in NATO and who left their duty right after a coup attempt to seek refuge elsewhere. Obviously this makes them suspects of some military crimes at least, so they are legally in wanted category and can be part of extradition treaties. Can you seriously tell me one country (with laws you have faith in) where generals can just leave their NATO duty after a coup attempt and seek refuge somewhere and this hasn't violated some laws? What I mean by they haven't been convicted of anything is that they have not had a trial in their absence here - in which case we can also debate judgment by default and they haven't been convicted of a FETÖ crime. 


    I understand the fair trial argument but Turkey's asking for these people is not as weird as you may think. 


    As for what Merkel can or cannot do, hasn't she asked Erdoğan to release Deniz Yücel? Which is contradictory in itself especially when Germany constantly comments on how Erdoğan interferes with law. What are we supposed to learn from this in terms of notion of law or independence of law? That we can use interference when it works for us and criticize it when we don't like it? Even Deniz Yücel made an explanation after that saying he doesn't want any exceptions or release like that, he just wants fair trial. I don't know what exactly he did, have not read his stuff about PKK and have not read anything from the court case but he seems to have a different notion of law than Merkel. But really, if Merkel can bypass procedures and ask for things from Erdoğan personally, I think he can do that, too. I actually think state leaders probably have these kinds of talks quite often. We know Juncker does it although he isn't a state leader exactly. 


  7. 1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

    To answer this question I would like to know, what these Turkish generals were convicted for. Regardless of the answer, there is no resistance to deport convicted (or arrested suspects) abroad especially if German journalist will let free in return. Basically, the life of German journalist is more important than non-prosecution of foreign generals (unless they organized some terror attack in Germany, but it doesn't seem to be the case).




    There are no convictions, they were not tried or anything. They were abroad (in Greece) for a NATO duty, when the coup attempt happened, they left their bases, traveled to Germany and sought refuge stating they may be prosecuted. And now, obviously when generals do this, the public wants to know why they felt this need. What else can we do? There are 8 generals and admirals like this. And 260 lower rank people. Some were directly, physically involved - SAT commandos ran wild, some flew to Greece with a helicopter (I guess the normal refugees watched them from boats underneath.) Greece declared they would return the helicopter :) Those ones have committed a crime against the constitution. But these two, ran away on their own. And now the Turkish state really has to ask for these people, there is no other option, is there? If generals run away like this, a country has to demand their return and ask them what they were on about. Imagine not demanding this. Impossible :) 


    And we have this other example. (Again this legal conspiracy case of this ex-prosecutor we have been talking about.) When those generals were called from abroad for trial etc, not a single of them escaped this way. NATO apparently offered some to stay because of this prosecution/punishment thing, they too could seek refuge. They rejected it although they had money and the opportunity. They said they had done nothing wrong, they will go and be tried. Here is an emotion. This won respect simply because they didn't escape. Even if they had been found guilty, this aspect of not escaping would be something remembered. Those who run away evoke different emotions. 


    Culturally, to understand the general sentiment here, I will try to share how Turkish people in general tend to see stuff like this. Historically, the military has been part of many authoritarian acts here and have interfered with civil life and politics and people have always resisted this with vote. This is the core of Kemalism/political Islam debate and that's why when we talk about democracy, we cannot ignore this democratic reflex of the devout. But at the same time, soldiers are valued a lot in Turkish culture, by the very same public actually. Some of this is about our ethnic roots (the warrior, good horse-rider thing :)), some is about the War of Independence, some is because military is compulsory so privates are everyone's children basically. We call them "Mehmetçik", with the suffix signalling endearment. People are highly patriotic, too. The soldiers respond to this culturally. There is a code like they are honest, brave people, honorable people. Not cowardly. This is very important. It's perceived like the highest form of manliness or that code and they also get tremendous public support and respect for this. And if they have done something wrong, or if they are charged with something, they are expected to defend themselves honorably and not escape. And say they are found guilty, even then they are expected to accept this with dignity. So, if you are a soldier, your head will be high. Escaping, running away etc are very much looked down on. So when these generals ran away like this, the public has emotionally judged them like cowards. How can the highest ranks in the army can runaway is the feeling. Like, we have trusted this country to them. (These are "pasha", the highest of the highest.) So that's the general sentiment. Then comes things like what information did they take with them? Why do foreign countries protect them etc. So, this kind of stuff is among the basis of this world against us sentiment. We can look at how this reflects on politics, what different shapes it takes but this sentiment comes from the public really. And because they are perceived as traitors, this human rights thing does not emotionally unite people around it. 


    But no, they were never tried for anything, there wasn't a search warrant about them. They just did it. 


  8. On 18.07.2017 22:31:34, yourkeau said:

    Could you please link to this event, because I do not get this. First you talked something about radical religious movement, and now coup d'etat with bombing?!


    I'm confused now, too. Isn't the that the trouble with this supposedly religious service movement of Fethullah Gülen, and the last episode of their FETÖ actions? My personal opinion, I agree with those who voice that it's likely that there were some Kemalists jumping on the bandwagon as well as some careerists, opportunists. What link would you like? A video of bombings, defenses of the charged soldiers? (Military wing) An hour-by-hour listing of the events that day and night? Articles from reliable, trustworthy journalists who have been researching this structure for more than 3 decades now? Details of unfair trials that resulted in deaths by ex-prosecutor now Freiburg Fetö resident Z.Öz? This organization's imam is the problem I have voiced in this mosque situation right from the start. And let me make this clear again. I'm not questioning this from an international crisis point, where Turkey is tense with Germany. I'm not asking this with a frustration of "how can you ever..." That's another issue. What I'm questioning is something related to the reform possibility/impossibility of this mosque as related to the subject of this thread when there are these super unlawful and violent things about these people. It's not very different from me questioning the Saudi in the women's thing in the UN. What have the Saudi's done to me? Nothing. Shall I be personally or very directly affected by that guy there? No. But I can still say "What the hell, with that background? What does this mean?" I can ask the very same questions if Bill Cosby opens a women's rights help centre, say in Mexico. But counter-arguments are taking this to a Turkey tension - from which these structures tried to benefit from as far as I understand. Is there no way to criticize anyone outside this tension today? Is there no gray area for this discussion? I find that very dangerous, very limiting, too. But if their own ethics or accountability is so impossible to question, I will almost say they must be grateful to Turkey and Erdoğan, because without that international crisis, eff knows how they/we would ever justify them. (Because we are not speaking about anything else.) 


    On 18.07.2017 22:31:34, yourkeau said:

    Another thing, I do not really get why I should compare crimes in Germany with crimes in another country? Well, with Germany being one of the safest countries in the world, you can that way come to conclusion that all crimes here are of no importance due to crimes elsewhere. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges.


    Because, in western theory, universal human rights and some laws designed around those, and therefore punishments (and hopefully a culture and spirit in which these are made alive) are the basis we are using when we are evaluating different countries and situations from a common denominator? (That is, apples and oranges should meet somewhere.) The space/scope of universal necessarily involves many different contexts, apples and oranges if you would like, but if that very nature becomes a justification for impossibility or pointlessness of comparison, then how can we ever go to other countries and even talk about these "rights" really? But common standards, if we are mentioning them, should works both ways, too - shouldn't they? (This is the classic double standards argument btw.)  


    On 18.07.2017 22:31:34, yourkeau said:

    But you at the same time can grasp many arrested journalists being designated as „terrorists“ and coup organizers. Recently ARD showed some movie about Can Dündar who had to flee Turkey for being opposition journalist. His crime was not stone. His crime was not bomb. His crime were words. 


    Here, we are falling into an argumentative trap/error that is very common. I have been writing about an unlawful, corrupt ex-prosecutor who ironically jailed journalists alongside with army members with fictive evidence, who needs to be heard for the assasination of journalist Hrant Dink in 2007 and you are countering me with what Turkey does to journalists. Will you protect journalists by protecting people who do these to journalists, and by giving examples from journalists?


    Another problem with the so-called "defending" journalists. I'm sorry to say this but Europe's comments about Turkish democracy and "journalists" have been more on the reelpolitik side than a principled protection of journalists - or how strongly it is done.  Today, there are 157 media workers in prison. In 2012, this number was 114 (including the ones this guy above threw into prison.) But this wasn't much of a problem, was it? We were talking about refugee deals, we were celebrating Turkey's move to civil democracy through these very court cases - check out progress reports. Before the celebratory tone, Öz's cases about army members were mentioned in a total of 3-4 lines. The secular wing was shouting that this was a legal conspiracy - but whether this itself was done with a democratic tendency can be debated. But altogether, with more or less the same number of jailed journalists, we didn't have this sensitivity about journalists. It doesn't mean we shouldn't now. But let's not pretend that this issue is independent of international interests. The journalists themselves here say it isn't. Now, if we have started picking journalists to our own liking, that's not good, either. I can understand a common citizen not particularly devoted to Turkey's situation (why should they?) to repeat sensitivities when they read them from their media. But at international politics level, if they are imagining that this is only about human rights, then they too are in a fantasy of moral superiority where everyone else is operating within reepolitik, but their country is in heaven. That's not exactly true either. 


    This analysis, if used as an excuse to absolve one of all inner responsibilities, runs the risk of empty rhetoric. That's why I believe it is the job of the average person here to sit down and think about the role of their choices in historical tensions. You and I have been debating for a bit nicely. I benefit from these encounters, disagreements, differences, similarities, it's enriching. In this debate you constantly call Erdoğan a dictator and I don't respond to it. Would you like to hear why I reject calling him a dictator? It's not fear. It is considered freedom of opinion and political criticism here, as approved by court rulings, latest in 2017. I'm not using it because despite the charged content of the word I really believe it's a wishy-washy useless political discourse stemming from some troublesome roots here in this context. If you are curious about this, I can share the details. 


    Another new journalist situation. I have just read (from translations of Bild) that Erdoğan offered an exchange - give Deniz Yücel, take two Turkish generals from Germany in return. Turkish official sources have not confirmed this, yet. They may reject as well. These translations say Germany refused it because it's hostage politics. What do you think about it? Of course Merkel will be criticized if she does it. Turkey will say "what are you afraid of?" if Germany does not do it, etc etc. Details: Deniz Yücel case was separated from other journalists in the same file a couple of weeks ago. And it will go to the ECHR through a fast track and Germany is part of the case. Yücel himself stated before that he doesn't want to be returned etc, he only wants fair trial. His wife has repeated this. She says they want trial without arrest and Deniz Yücel is not going anywhere and that he went to the court on his own will when he was called. Some Turkish news had said previously that Deniz Yücel was hidden in the German Embassy for a month, with Germany (embassy workers I guess) stating his name to the Turkish police as "lost" but a month later, undercovers caught him coming out of the embassy. This should have police documents, I don't know particulars. But this is the thing behind spy talks. If Germany thinks the ECHR ruling will be in favor, it may opt for a trial there and keep the generals at the same time. I have no idea how long this case would take. Without a fast-track, ECHR ruling come in 5 to 10 years but this will be different. What would you do personally? 


    Can Dündar, I will write below. 







  9. 1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

    Putin propaganda tried to portray this as an ethnic conflict which isn't there. Sure there are people with relatives in Russia or other former Soviet Republics, however they are not in any sense different from people without such relatives or from people whose native language is Hungarian or Polish. Ukraine is quite diverse, and most Ukrainians are bilingual (Russian/Ukrainian). You can compare this with Switzerland: French speaking Swiss is not French, German speaking Swiss is not German.


    TBH, I often think economy plays a bigger role in these things than ethnicity, or they should at least be considered together. People who have economically safe, secure lives with different life plans do not drop them quickly to go and join fighting. They more likely want to have their children educated, think of buying a holiday etc. Maybe they become ideological elites or something. So development or financial opportunities do play a role in shaping approaches to these things. Also, when there are new opportunities, a side trying to make use of conflict may try to increase pressure not to lose the previous control or power. I once read an analysis of this WWIII possibility, which analysed it on a double-axis of maneouvers (the Middle East and Russia's other "fronts", taking it all the way to Latvia and suggesting that it would down to Trump deciding whether Latvia should go to Russia or not. Given that a presidential term is 4 years, it's kinda scary. 


    Other than that, language would be used in terms of first language / second language. Ethnicity or language is not the only factor in nation states anyway. 


  10. 3 hours ago, vmelchers said:

    I dislike how masses rally for 1 special child story while million other children get no air time like in Yemen for example. So much focus and attention on this one baby. Makes me hate the entire thing, I even hate the headline "Baby Charlie". And the fact that the president of United States AND the Pope are getting involved, is this the fucking second coming of the Christ? We all know that if that child grows up with a serious mental/physical disability, he will most likely be discarded by the very society that is cheering him on as a cute baby right now. On the other hand, if that child does get saved and manages to grow up as a functional human being, he will have to live up to the hype, make his life really worth while, can you imagine the pressure. 

    And am I the only one who would hate having a member of the Vatican examining my child? 


    ...or am I just a total cynic?




    I see what you mean but that inequality does not mean we should treat Charlie as if he were less valuable than he is. Maybe the goal should be to rise all children's status to this sensitive level. I see the bitterness but that's not Charlie's fault, either. Each time I read something like this, I think "look at how valuable some children are" and to me, that's not a bad reference, but a good one. (Obviously it would be better if we had the same sensitivity about all children but that would mean major changes in the world order I guess.) 


  11. 3 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    Malorossia was a province of Russian Empire and is generally considered offensive in Ukraine. It's like Bavarians declare a state with the name Krautland.


    Yes, I thought about this, too. The name is so politically provocative - in addition to lacking creativity so much that it sounds kitsch. Still, if there is a people there who want to live in a place with that name, who am I so to say anything. 

    3 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    P.S. The term „separatists“ is incorrect. Separatists are in Catalonia, Scotland or (to less extent) in Bavaria. There is some piece of land with own cultural identity, and separatists think it should be independent. These guys are Russian imperialists who want restoration of USSR at least in part. The country they proclaimed includes whole Ukraine, and this is not their first move to annex whole Ukraine. They are not separatists.


    So yes, they are speaking about Russia's covert military involvement. But I would like to ask you because I don't know anything about this. Aren't there ethnic Russians there, or how long have they been there? The director of UK's Russia research centre says this is a grassroots thing, with people who have a pro-Russia sentiment. Where does this come from? 


    I know you have ties with Ukraine btw, so if this is a sensitive topic, if you have relatives there and are worried in some way etc, please don't worry about replying now. I mean, I hope everything is OK for you. 



  12. On 04.07.2017 18:37:23, yourkeau said:

    Actually in this thread we discuss with zeino, who is of opinion that the woman is a radical, and nowhere did we attack each other with combat words.


    Am I of the opinion that Seyra Ateş is a radical? (I wanted to comment on this and a couple of other things but some other arguments came up and I waited.) 


    My main problem, more than the concept "radical" is on the opposite axis actually. How "ordinary" it has become, how "commonplace", to ignore the very things we seem to defend when people we for some reason wish to celebrate or promote are involved in their violation. To me, that is a double-standard that has become so commonplace that the word "radical" does not convey its meaning fully. People questioning these (like myself in this instance) are summed up and reduced into camps and are usually hilariously reminded of human rights, law and justice etc. I am questioning things with those in my mind anyway. Look, in another thread, about antiglobalists, you brought forth the argument that people throwing stones should be charged with attempted murder. Well, the people this woman associates with (or we think that "absurd"ly) stole F-16s from a NATO base where around 30% of NATO's nuclear bombs are kept. We don't know if they are there, we don't know if they were old and rusty and only the US can operate them, but still. There were talks about Turkey being excluded from NATO for security reasons. How big is this compared to stones? Then they bombed the Parliament, Presidential complexes, opened fire on civilians and whatnot. If those are attempting murder in your eyes, what are these? Just saying "staged" does not cut it, there is lots of evidence. And this woman is being photographed with their "imam" - that should be read as an active worker- in a mosque thing. You say all things about Turkey, but what is this really in your eyes if stone throwing is attempted murder?  International politics, or reelpolitik, will always be based on a concept of interest. But from a perspective of personal ethics, would you really, really not question anything if these happened to you and then you saw them joining congregations of your faith supposedly reforming it? Turkey is Turkey, but in your opinion, is Germany a place where stone throwing antiglobalists should be charged with attempted murder and corrupt ex-prosecutors and suspicious imams get involved in popular religious reforms? I will admit, I cannot grasp this.    


    As for radical...


    It is a word used with different associations in different situations, like a radical feminist is not necessarily radical in the way a DAESH terrorist is. Do I find Seyran Ateş's feminism and human rights activism radical? No. There is nothing radical in what she has done in this sense IMO. She is a lawyer who worked in some NGOs etc. That's the most common form of this sort of activism. We can make fun of this award issue as it was given (though not with the name "special") to Saparmurat Niyazov (remember the  interesting Turkmenbashi changing names of the week with his mother's name, advising his people to chew on bones for better teeth etc,?) the and other significant names of the Turkic oil and gas atlas, and to oneTurkish chairman of the Parliament at one point, who triggered more than one wave of feminist protest in this country because of the way addressed female MPs - "Ma,am, keep silent, as a woman, keep silent", "Don't look at me when you are speaking, I'm ashamed" etc. But that "radical" will have sarcasm in it. Sure one may bring arguments like one needs to be in touch with power structures to have a certain amount of power but then others may actually raise their eyebrows. A more suitable word for it is "opportunist." What would imaginary activists do if the chairman and this activist came together in another award ceremony? Boo one and applause for the other?  :) 


    From the perspective of Islamic feminism,


    I don't know. Thoughtwise, I don't see anything new, radical or theoretically fascinating about this. In my lifetime, I have seen much stronger discourses produced under much more radical circumstances than this. Compared to them, this seems to be ticking all the right boxes at the "right" dosage that some would find exciting perhaps. I, on the other hand, am more curious about how system-intact this is.  Feminism and Islam would be something I would like to discuss, but in an inquisitive tone rather than as something I am expected to celebrate. At the moment, for this mosque, I have very basic questions about how speaking of Rumi at every single opportunity sits together with banning people from there, how what seems like a partly understood form of Skopos theorie in translation will make a difference in interpretation etc etc but those don't have anything to do with feminism or radicalism.


    And now, the "flashiest" bit. Fetö and radicalism connection. I personally see them as radicals in the sense that terrorism is something bloody radical. But thoughtwise, it is more like a cult that actually goes against the grain of Islam (with very strange discourses sometimes) outside my whole conceptual schema. (What can I say about a movement that has thoroughly categorized women in the "service" starting from "friends" in the outer circles to women of the higher rank who are termed "cosmic women"? Is this radical, is this not? What is this? :) I have stated before, I am not against anyone living with their faith or beliefs the way they deem fit, but within a framework of lawful democratic operation. With or without a coup, I don't think their "taqiyya" permission for themselves suits a democratic environment, either.


    But resorting to guns was the last step of this. Questioning their democratic undertanding goes way back, to 28 Feb "postmodern coup" actally where he took side with army generals and against the political elect again. We were given what they openly termed "wheel balance to democracy" with tanks. That period can also be considered among the worst human rights violations against women here, as well as one of the most remarkable battles. Then they asked for 100 seats from Erdoğan, which he didn't give - and I'm glad that he didn't- , and somewhere along this the corrupt Freiburg prosecutor wrote fictive stuff about journalists and army members and kept them in prison (Erdoğan mentioned at the time that he was against this) and it is after these they released state secrets. Again, we can speak about all aspects of this, all our areas that need to be criticized in all this including everyone and every wing (say, military, and all parties including the ruling ones and the opposition ones) so that we don't find ourselves in a situation like this anymore,  but none of this changes the nature of these Fetö guys really. 


    Radical? Yeah. In a very crony capitalist, nepotist way as well. They stole government service exam questions for almost all sectors and then stole them from each other as well. The most pathetic example is promoting a funeral washer to IT-data manager position. (These are among the reasons why people in general do not have much sympathy for them at the moment because their actions mean unemployment for the honest and hardworking kids of this country.) So what does Islam say? You will no steal another person's right. These rights are categorized under 5 headings covering many aspects of life and are in a parallel with non-religious morals, too. (Preserving another person's life, dignity, etc etc.) They are corrupt at this very basic level of what they say they are representing. This commonplace corruption is enough for me to question this whole thing Yourkeau, I don't need to go all the way to radical violent actions.   




  13. 2 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    You are not pedantic enough: you should have noted that Belgian is not a language :)


    :) Ah, pedantic :) I didn't write what I write because I think it is a minor detail that needs to be corrected at all costs because of some personal quirk of mine. From my perspective, I was reading a debate about racism, which is a serious issue for me, read something about the Hispanic and how they don't exist in Europe and because Hispanic includes Spain (but not all Spanish are Hispanic), I wanted to put that note. And I did not do that based on the pure linguistic connection, either. Language in those definitions is to be understood to signify a shared cultural / or perhaps ethnic background. 


    Other than that, I wouldn't correct anyone just because they use a wrong word and I understand what they say. Ideas are  more important I think. And maybe I'm wrong, too, and then someone else corrects me but at least we get to see how we are perceiving these things. From this perspective, at least for me, what I did is not about me being pedantic and it feels like a minimization but I also know that your purpose is not to minimize this probably but you perceive "language" differently in this context from me. But then again, as people commenting on discourse a lot when others say things, I think it is our job to approach ourselves that way, too, without calling pedantic people pedantic :) 


    It's not relevant to this debate perhaps, but I find this debate interesting from the Jewish perspective, too where the distinction between Hispanic and Latino does not exist always and there is also the word Sephardic and the language being Ladino/Latino...  It has an inside outside thing as well. Many people consider themselves white until they are told by someone somewhere else that they are not. I think the world needs to switch to MAC foundation codes immediately as that has a more reliable standard :) 


  14. So we put scent on toilet paper and indoles in perfumes, practically changing the locale of poop smell on our bodies. And why is Chanel No 5 more expensive than human blood? 


  15. 27 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    That's why this violence have happened: police could not arrest anyone without evidence of crime. They had to film people throwing stones and then arrest. Without filming arrest makes no sense.


    I'm not so sure it is a crime at all times. I remember a 2014 superior court decision from Turkey (based on precedents in ECHR) that when one person throws a stone at another, yeah, it is a crime but when a group does this, it is political expression, protected under freedom opinion. Around a decade ago, thousands - some under the age of 18- were arrested because of this, sometimes together with Molotovs against police cars etc. The ECHR ruling came in march 2017 about one, it says freedom of assembly cannot be limited due to reasons of security. In that specific example, which now is a precedent, it says this was a "reasonable reaction" and these acts do not threaten the security of the state. I think it is better if these are evaluated on a case basis of course, it may be wrong to generalize. However, considering these a crime automatically may not be very accurate, either. 


    But declaring an "emergency" would change this I think. I think it was declared at some point, but I'm not sure really. 


    27 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    Peaceful protesters could also easily help police to stop violent ones, but they didn't. Didn't want to. This tells me a lot.


    I agree that politically experienced people whom the crowd would listen to could have interfered and that would be good. I have already written about that. At the same time, I think it is too much to ask from peaceful protesters and maybe unfair to arrive in conclusions about them because they did not interfere. I understand a person who would not want to interfere when they are there say for an artsy happening. They even don't have to get on well or agree with these others, this is a mixed event. Neither is there any guarantee that these others would accept it. The peaceful ones don't have a duty to do so, either. It's a G20, a 300 something million event.  Especially when others had warned about it so much. That's why I'm trying to emphasize pre-planning. 


    But I think, once it was announced, the gov't did not want to take it back because it would be considered political defeat - understandable from the perspective of power. And the others did not flinch, either. This was a power fight. But I think all sides should be criticized. Peaceful protesters getting involved could create even worse things actually if they were planning some creative stuff. Imagine them forming a human shield around the police. That would be an opposite corner goal methinks.  


  16. 2 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    But I read comments on Youtube like „I am a football fan, and police also treats us badly, but what were they supposed to do when these people threw stones at them?“


    This is very remarkable when a football hooligan supports police.


    This is very interesting. On the one hand, I see what you mean. Someone who habitually exhibits socially OTT behaviour states this is too much (even by their standards perhaps) and that sounds convincing. On the other hand, does this not mean, albeit paradoxically, that this person's opinion on violence somehow becomes more authoritative than the rest because they show violence? Why do we not tend to think that the least violent person's voice would be more authoritative in this? 


    I also think, do we even need to look at who thinks what this way? The law looks at this in relation to Article 11 and the balance between the strength of action aimed to disperse a crowd or defend one's self and the responsibility to protect the right to assembly. In a human rights court case, the court will evaluate the events right from the start with this right in mind, looking at when things started getting tense, whether alternatives were offered, whether blockades were minimal in order to protect the right to assembly or whether rights of civilians were also being violated at that moment etc. In some cases, throwing stones is interpreted as political expression - though this surely does not mean whoever starts stoning people can go "this is my right of opinion, this is my right of opinion." Still, the often linear cause-effect link we build in these things may not always be so in the eyes of law. I think that is the most authoritative voice in these things. I see nothing wrong with supporting what the police do but I think it's also important to keep the right to assembly in the equation as well. My favourite action here would be some local authority or MP closer in ideology to these people and chosen beforehand communicating with someone chosen by the groups beforehand, if necessary standing between these sides so that the violent will consider again what they are doing. I don't know if these things were tried, but I don't like the left or more peaceful anarchists etc not interfering with stuff like this, either. Some people speaking the same or a closer language need to say whoa sometimes. 



  17. According to Deniz Çelik, Hamburg MP of Die Linke I think, their party had an observation committee and I think they will publish a list of violence and violations. It would be up to the public to evaluate how much of it was necessary and how much of it wasn't. But the guy says something significant - I personally don't think he would lie on this.  He says the total cost of the event is calculated to be 315 million euro, and it is said that 50 million euro of this will be met by the federal budget. Apparently they will ask for the exact cost to be declared. He says they have asked for this before as well but numbers were not given transparently. He considers to be a scandal actually because such spending can be decided on only by a parliamentary decision. This did not happen for G20, which is a violation of the Hamburg constitution he says. He also says this 265 million should have been spent on immediate needs of the public such as education, health and transportation as there is a shortage of carers and  educators in the city. 


  18. What makes me think is Charlie was kept in intensive care with treatment for 4 months, and with his suffering, so that the court could come to this decision. I appreciate all the hardwork of the judges there, and I know they were working as fast as possible. But if palliative care can be suspended for 4 months for this reason, this shows that suffering is not the ultimate factor always, at least when a decision is being made. So I think it is not absolutely unfounded to ask for a window of 4-6 months for Charlie, so that maybe they can observe some initial reactions to this experimental therapy. There is something wrong in making a baby wait for 4 months for a court case (the determining factor is the speed of the court there, not suffering) but not being allowed four months for this thing which may not be a complete quack - medically it wouldn't have made to the ECHR I think. I mean, what is this now, having to live with pain for courts but having to be moved to palliative care because the new treatment may prolong pain? With all due respect for law, as a parent I would want to say "Fuck you" at some point in this whatever the rational reasoning is. 


    We can counter this with how many "what ifs" it would take for this to end. But certain things sound so off in some senses. In the first rulings, the brain damage was stated to be irreversible, but now the US doctor says something different. I think this is the core of futility evaluation rather than the pure physiological benefit of the new treatment. And that's why the doctor probably says meaningful improvement. Yet, he hasn't examined Charlie in person, which decreases the credibility of decision-making even if tests were sent to him. Or maybe I'm getting this impression because of reading bits and bobs of it in newspapers. But it sounds so frustrating.