Can Turkey Learn Tolerance?

[elendil]

1)I'm wrong :Of course you cant deny the most undeniable truth,I'll give you creditfor that much.

I am a muslim. I believe in Jesus Christ.
However religion is a relative concept that varies from individual to individual. The concept of this truth changes form from mind to mind streching from undeniable truth to complete nonsense. You can not name it undeniable truth for people of the world but yourself only..

2)Culture and Heritage is what you make with the genes that you have .The DENIAL you project is telling me your culture and heritage is based on false pride in the genes you started with therefore it negates and will continue to negate any progress in that culture.

No it is not. Turkish nationalism was not installed on blood heritage though naturally we have Turkish blood in us...

3)Yes your flag that gives glory to the pagan svmbols of the moon and the star on top of the innocent blood of believers,is that what you don't DENY?

Yeah we were pagans before, I have no problem with that. But one mistake we did not differentiate between believer or heretics those times... Innocent or no innocent blood. Does it matter? It is blood regardless...

4)You DENY,Settle things in human rights issues like you have in the past ?Until one admits honestly to wrongs done one continues denial .no excuses ,It"s that simple.

We are not looking for excuses. We dont need any since we are progressing though slowly...

[Gavur]

Elendil:I am a muslim. I believe in Jesus Christ.
However religion is a relative concept that varies from individual to individual. The concept of this truth changes form from mind to mind streching from undeniable truth to complete nonsense. You can not name it undeniable truth for people of the world but yourself only..


Is Genocide a relative concept according to you?

[Gavur]

Elendill:No it is not. Turkish nationalism was not installed on blood heritage though naturally we have Turkish blood in us...

So what your telling me is you could feel like you are a Turk and presto yura Turk
Blood has nothing to do with it ?

Is it sort of like a confederation of states except the ethnicity of the states are unnamed,unmentioned?


lol.Like the United states of Turkey?

[Gavur]

Ellendil:Yeah we were pagans before, I have no problem with that. But one mistake we did not differentiate between believer or heretics those times... Innocent or no innocent blood. Does it matter? It is blood regardless...

Ok if you don't have a problem with your flag that serves up believers blood to pagan gods thats your grave you must lie in it!

[Gavur]

I love her writing style she just makes everything easy to understand and she is brilliant.keep your I on her !

Sunday, November 13, 2005
What's happening in France, how does the US media see it and its significance for Turkey
'No matter what the liberals claim, what’s currently happening in France is neither a manifestation of class struggle nor an uprising by the oppressed. Rather it is a war of religions,' blast the conservative radio stations in the United States

Elif Şafak
“No matter what the liberals claim, what's currently happening in France is neither a manifestation of class struggle nor an uprising by the oppressed. Rather it is a war of religions,” blast the conservative radio stations in the United States. “What we need to do now is not to grant more freedom to these mutineers but to bring into being a new hero, a new Charles Martel, who will stop all of them. Where are the Martels of today?”

Known as “Charles the Hammer,” Charles Martel is a national hero for the French. He is famous for his victory over the armies of Cordoba from the Iberian Peninsula at the Battle of Tours in 732. In short, he is praised as “The leader who prevented Islam's invasion of France and the Europe that lay beyond.” It therefore comes as no surprise that the ultra-conservative media in the United States is calling for another Martel today. These people see the incidents in France as the “War between Christianity and Islam.” They share Jean-Marie Le Pen's stance. Your past might have been imprinted by French colonialism, your family might have arrived in France three generations ago or you might have been born in France and see yourself as French, it makes no difference: In the final analysis it is the color of your skin, your family roots and that “foreign” sound of your name that precludes you from being a part of France. You don't belong here but there is no “elsewhere.”

It is assumed that the number of Muslim immigrants in France, most of whom are Arabs, is approaching 7 million. In other words, they constitute around 10 percent of the population, but they have no representatives in Parliament nor do they have equal labor opportunities. The system has been forcing them into ghettos for years. Their cultural differences are not openly acknowledged, let alone respected. They are neither “French enough” nor complete outsiders. They have makeshift lives and constantly face some form of tacit racism. Under these circumstances, the only thing those who are torching cars today on the streets can fear to lose is their clean criminal record.

The consequences yielded by centralist, assimilationist Republicanism reflect first and foremost the yawning gap between “political theory” and “social practice.” In theory and on paper, all citizens are recognized as “equal,” no matter what their religious, ethnic or cultural background. That's why in population censuses, no one is asked about their ethnic roots. At first glance, the French model appears as quite an egalitarian practice, but in social practice it generates just the opposite effect, strengthening the ongoing discrimination against the minorities.

The social agony caused by the systematic uni-culturalism forced by the French political structure is of special importance for Turkey. After all, Turkey modeled so many elements of its centralist state after France. We imported the principle of laicism and uni-culturalism, the idea of denouncing any mention of ethnic roots, the prolonged failure to come to grips with the concept of “minority” and many aspects along the formation of our nation-state directly from France. Between Turkey's Kemalist Republican elite and France's Jacobinist/reformist elite there have been important similarities.

Turkish politicians should not watch the ongoing events from a distance but rather grasp their relevance for them. Turkey has to speed up its process of transformation from uniculturalism to multiculturalism. Turkey needs to embrace its ethnic diversity. A multicultural and democratic Turkey that is not alarmed about or frightened of its minorities and is at peace with itself and has finally come to grips with its history is the best answer that can be given to the “Islam-phobia” that is gradually spreading all over the world. What Europe needs today is not yet another “Hammer Martel,” but to join forces with a politically, culturally and religiously diverse Turkey that will render the clash of religions thesis void.

[maral_m79]

Novelist denies 'genocide' claim

Agencies in Ankara
Monday October 17, 2005
The Guardian

Orhan Pamuk, a best-selling Turkish novelist facing trial for speaking out about the 1915 mass killings of Armenians, moved at the weekend to soften his controversial remarks, insisting that he did not describe the episode as genocide.

Don't start celebrating "neutral Turk" .... there is nothing to celebrate my friend.

Orhan Pamuk NEVER said the G word ........

The only thing he said was " 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in this land, no one dared to speak of it , but I do "

So .... He didn't describe it as Genocide from DAY 1 .... The man didn't change his statements nor soften them .....

[Gavur]

Denier=Natural=NATURAL DENIER

[Gavur]

The untouchables

Monday, November 14, 2005
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI


Yusuf KANLI
Perhaps as a natural consequence of a reference to it in the Accession Partnership Document released by the EU last Wednesday, Turkey has started to debate once again the “judicial immunity” shield enjoyed by parliamentarians.

The list of judicial “untouchables” in Turkey, however, is far bigger than just names of the parliamentarians, though we often debate only the so-called “parliamentary immunity” and demand that it must be restricted with activities within Parliament. Civil servants in this country enjoy, perhaps, a far greater judicial immunity than parliamentarians because of the strong shield provided for them in the “Law on procedures of trial of civil servants.”

Virtually, almost the entire top bureaucracy is spared from judicial action against them with that law which states that a legal case against a civil servant can be opened only if it is approved by the top executives of the government agency he/she is affiliated to. That is, unless the energy minister or the public works minister does not authorize judicial action against a top bureaucrat alleged of involvement in fraud, a probe into that issue cannot go anywhere further than an investigation into the charges. That's why the judiciary or the gendarmerie investigation of such issues often “leak” the details to the media, build a strong public sentiment on the developments and force the political administration to approve legal action be taken against accused top bureaucrats.

Is it not awkward to have investigative bodies affiliated to the Interior Ministry, Justice Ministry, the Prime Ministry and the Presidency while we have prosecutors whose duty is to undertake specifically such work? If the jurisdiction of such investigative bodies is limited with how the state services are provided to the citizens, perhaps not. However, if judicial action can be taken against bureaucrats only after such investigations “substantiate” some wrongdoing and the relevant public administrator approves the issue to be referred to the judiciary, how are we going to end “politization of the judiciary” or achieve “equality of all in front of the law?”

Besides, there is a “uniformity of education” principle in the country, but there is no “uniformity of justice system” code. Active military personnel or people accused of committing a crime within the scope of military courts cannot face civilian courts. Furthermore, due to the nature of such courts, there is a “veil” over proceedings of such courts, which further complicate the situation.

Much worse, the pushing under the carpet practice, with political or institutional benefit considerations or for the sake of not hurting the image of a state body, is helping many criminals escape unpunished.

Naturally, if despite all the pledges made to the nation on the contrary during the election campaign period by a political administration -- not necessarily the AKP government, but what the preceding governments did as well -- opposes lifting the judicial immunity of parliamentarians on grounds that “Turkey needs political immunity for some time. Deputies do not want to face persecution with their political identity,” that is a manifestation of disbelief in the Turkish judiciary.

If that is the case, if the political elite does not believe the Turkish justice system is scared that if political immunity is lifted prosecutors could launch a witch-hunt against politicians, why don't they launch a judicial reform process as well. Particularly, the current political team has more than sufficient strength to undertake such an initiative and win our applause.

Similarly, if the current political team is saying “Yes to ending judicial immunity, but not only for politicians, across the board,” who is preventing them from doing that?

When politicians become accountable; when bureaucrats become accountable and when privileges and exceptional practices come to an end, it will become more difficult to undertake Susurluk-style mafia-politics-bureaucracy (including security apparatus) “happy triangle” gang activity.

Unless somehow we make “touchable” the “untouchables” of this country, equality of all in front of the law, good and transparent governance, as well as true democratic administration and individual rights will continue to remain as pressing issues for this country.

[neutral]

Don't start celebrating "neutral Turk" .... there is nothing to celebrate my friend.

Orhan Pamuk NEVER said the G word ........

The only thing he said was " 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in this land, no one dared to speak of it , but I do "

So .... He didn't describe it as Genocide from DAY 1 .... The man didn't change his statements nor soften them .....

"Asked about the numbers of deaths he referred to in his newspaper interview, Pamuk said that they were "spontaneous remarks". "

(He says he made spontaneous remarks. spontaneous=Spur of the Momment=Hastly made statement without thought)

"His comments on the Kurds were no less controversial, referring to Turkey's 20-year conflict with Kurdish guerrillas seeking autonomy, branded a terrorist group by the US and EU. "There are martyred Turkish soldiers among those 30,000 to 35,000 killed people. Let's express our respect to them," Pamuk said, complaining that he had become a victim of a "defamation campaign". "

The day two of his statements will come after the trial when questioned about it. But what even gives you the impression that there is going to be a third time?

[TurQ]

Phantom, You see we have problems with our Genes.

Gavur keske senin gibi Turkiye dogumlu Ermeni'den bu tip bir soz gelmeseydi. Biz bekliyoruzki sizin gibi Turkiye dogumlular diyaspora ile aramizi bulsun. Yardiminizi bekliyoruz bu konuda


Turks/Muslims do not deny Jesus(peace be upon him). We accept him as our Prophet.

We dont have pagan symbols in our Flag. That's a claim by protestant evalangelic fundementalists that Muslims(not only Turks) adapted Pagan symbols of crescent in their mosques and flags. This certain fundementalist evalangelic claim says, Arabs were Pagans, and Islam itself is another Pagan Arab religon and use Pagan symbols. Firstly Crescent belongs to TUrkish culture, and because of Ottoman Khalifa other Nations adapted these symbols after the collapse of Ottomans. Forexample Suljuks had the double-headed eagle symbol(which you can also see in Byzantines). The Ottomans thought the crescent symbolizes the Ottoman nation and the star is Prophet Muhammed(peace be upon him). A Nation gathered around the Prophet and his tradition. The Three Crescent Ottoman flag that was used in previous Ottoman times symbolizes the Ottoman rule over the three continent. These have nothing to do with Pagan symbols. You should find other rightous Christian personalities not people like evalengelic Pat Robertson etc.

Ok lets see
1)I'm wrong :Of course you cant deny the most undeniable truth,I'll give you creditfor that much.
2)Culture and Heritage is what you make with the genes that you have .The DENIAL you project is telling me your culture and heritage is based on false pride in the genes you started with therefore it negates and will continue to negate any progress in that culture.
3)Yes your flag that gives glory to the pagan svmbols of the moon and the star on top of the innocent blood of believers,is that what you don't DENY?
4)You DENY,Settle things in human rights issues like you have in the past ?Until one admits honestly to wrongs done one continues denial .no excuses ,It"s that simple.
5)We agree you DENY (for now)