In referendum, Turks reject military-era laws Turks approved sweeping changes to their military-era constitution Sunday _ a referendum hailed by the government as a leap toward full democracy in line with its troubled bid to join the European Union.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Fiddling around with things like religous freedom is not a move forward for a country like Turkey.
Not sure these reforms are a good idea.
While on the surface this may seem ok, the very strict constitution set up by Ataturk is what has kept Turkey a fairly secular country.
Fiddling around with things like religous freedom is not a move forward for a country like Turkey.
Not sure these reforms are a good idea.
Nope, Turkey seems to slowly be sliding into becoming a religious state. If that happens and becomes fundamentalist, look out. One problem is the the more religious Turkey becomes, the less likely the EU is to allow them to join. The less likely it is for Turkey to join the EU, the more it slides toward a religious state.
With Israel ending the settlement construction moratorium, that will also put more pressure on Turkey to move away from the west. I guess Netanyahoo decided that his short term political prospects are more important than finding peace.
Talking about this issue based on headlines of newspapers and extrapolations made along personal convictions achieves little. Lets talk about the content.
First, the precise content of the constitutional amendments can be found in the following link for interested readers. (The document has an introduction in first 8 pages. Then, from page 9 to 31, you will find the full content the old version of the articles (left column) together with the proposed amendments (right column). )
As any reader of these amendments can easily understand, the mentioned amendments serve no whatsoever Islamic agenda. They serve for the further democratization of the country.
The most controversial amendments were those changing the structures of Supreme Court and Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors. Yet, the mentioned amendments will not change anything except improving the democratic representation of judicial members in mentioned bodies.
Overall, the amendments represent an important step to convert Turkey from a country under the law of autocratic �supremes� to a country under the supremacy of democratic law.
And this crystal clear observation cannot be ignored by a simple reference to the islamist roots of PM Erdogan.
[quote="Igor Antunov":1ule3kcs]Maybe the Turkish majority want an Islamic country.
No They do not. Spectrum of political beliefs of Turkish people has been more or less as follows in past two decades:
~5% - Communists, socialists, ultra-left
~20% - Center Left
~50%- Center Right & Liberals
~10%- Islamists
~10% - Turkish nationalists
~5% - Kurdish nationalists.
Erdogan�s AKP achieved 47% support in 2007 general elections and now 58% support in yesterday�s referendum. You do the math and then make your own conclusions.
Those Turkish Islamists are cleverer than I thought they were. They are displaying almost Persian or British levels of deviousness and cunning.
In 2002, when AKP was newly established and secured parliamentary majority in same year�s elections with the support of reactionary electorate who fed up with previous governments corruption and incompetence, many people including myself had suspicious about this new party and its leader. But, now, we have the track record of AKP government in past 8 years. I see no whatsoever sign of Islamist motive or agenda in that 8 years long record.
Erdogan in 2002 promised that his party will be the voice of center of political spectrum and he has largely honored his promise in past 8 years. That is why he is still in government and I guarantee you (given the incompetence of Turkey�s opposition parties, good for nothing but yearning for the old and happy days of corrupt Turkey, shows no sign of changing themselves) he shall win 2011 general elections with overwhelming support of the mainstream.
The coups tend to happen when a party trying to overthrow secularism comes in to power. I always kind of liked the Turkish military for that reason.
Pfft.
�Secularism in danger� was just one of the pretexts (alongside �communists on our doorsteps� and �national unity under threat�) for legitimizing coups, though secularism in Turkey was/is not in a danger at all.
And, before you deepen your love for Turkish military, let me list the main �accomplishments� of the 3 years long military rule following 1980 coup d��tat:
- 1 million 683 thousand people were branded as �politically deviant� in state's records.
- Among them, 650,000 people were arrested with the suspicion of �political crimes�.
- 230,000 people were prosecuted in courts for political crimes.
- Prosecutors asked capital punishment for ~7,000 people.
- Courts decided for 517 death penalty.
- 50 people (two of them were minors) were excecuted.
- 299 people died in prisons and detention centers under suspicious circumstances.
- Among them, 171 deaths so far were proved to be as a result of torture.
- 30 thousand public servants (including high profile judges, university professors, etc) were fired from their jobs because they were belived to be �politically devinant�
- 30,000 people fled from the country to avoid persecution.
- 14,000 people were banished from citizenship of Turkey.
- 23,677 associations, NGOs, unions, guilds etc. were closed down.
- Sale and distrubution of 937 movies were banned.
- 400 columnists were prosecuted. 31 of them were prisoned.
The military it appears was a sect of liberalism that had an influence on Turkish society and now with their power limited, it will be interesting to see what will unfold hereafter.
Dude. What have you been drinking? I want of the same.
The truth is the ideological connection between Turkish liberals and the Army was broken in 1913 and this separation later turned into mutual grudge between Liberals and increasingly-Jacobin army with 1960 coup d�etat.
You are confusing secular with democratic. The military are indeed hard-line secularists as well as being undemocratic and have monopolized economic and political power for the past several decades. Economic growth and the concomitant rise of a middle class is challenging the military establishment and it is that middle class that has made possible Erdogan's rise to power.
QFT.
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... 2&t=123075
Kindly refrain from being an apologist for the Islamists who run Turkey. PM Edrogan is on the record as to just who and what he is.
* �One cannot be a secularist and a Muslim at the same time. The Muslim world is waiting for Turkish people to rise up�
�The mosques are our barracks, the domes our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers. . . . This holy army guards my religion.�
* �Democracy is like a bus, you ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.�
* �There is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that�s that�
This is a satirical website. None of what you read here has anything to do with Islam, because Islam is a Religion of Peace. Everybody knows that good Muslims never do the things they do, (because Allah does it for them, Quran 8:12) and we know that only our misperceptions, ignorance and stereotyping of Islam makes Muslims chop off heads, kill and rape women and children, bomb subways, buses, nightclubs and fly jets into buildings. If it wasn't for the media and da Jooozzz, we wouldn't even know its happening.We welcome open, honest, thoughtful, and vigorous discussion in the comments threads, so do yourself a favour and don't accuse us of being 'haters' because we are loving, tolerant people. Don't curse us, don't threaten us with death or hellfire, and don't accuse us of being "just like the terrorists" because we don't do to Muslims what they do to us or to themselves. Yes, we know that only idiots oppose Islam and sensible people submit, but you should know that we are ignorant bigots, hypocrites and Islamophobes, and we prefer to remain that way...But since you are forcing yourselves (and your abhorrent belief-system on us) we will defend ourselves, because we must. Avoid tu quoque and ad hominem attacks. If you annoy us, you will be banned and your posts summarily deleted.Try to add to the discussion, don't try to sell snake oil, don't try to cover us with Islamic shrouds of kitman and taqiyya, write in English, try to tell the truth, (we know that's hard for you because you are all pathological liars) but the truth will set you free, try it!One more thing: don't think you can post here under multiple monikers. You will quickly be disappeared! The same goes for trufers and conspiracy kooks: you get one chance, one time. Blow it out of your ass if you must; put your stupidity on display.But you won't be back, trust me on that.Take a deep breath before you post, try to make some sense, do not just vent, do not make a fool of yourself and if you prove us wrong you can earn 10 Islamic dollars for your piggy bank. Deal?
Do you have an source for those quotes? Like date, time and where?
Google it yourself. Why take my word for it?
Google it yourself. Why take my word for it?
When I do post a quote for good political debates. I post sources from non biased sites. Also I don't have the time to search.
Doc, why do you care what some nutbar forum that Bart is on has as it's terms of use statements. Sounds like a pretty insular forum to me - "opinions expressed must match ours or you will be banned." Just the blind shouting to the deaf, sounds like.
I replying to his so called quotes from the Turkish PM. Heck I help run a politics forum that requires good debating skills or banishment, so I've been used to those standards. Also it's kinda of a respect to other members.
I replying to his so called quotes from the Turkish PM.
The reason I generally do not post links to quotes such as this is that aspersions tend to be cast on the source and the content of the quote gets dismissed.
That said, here are some links and I'll ask you to research further on your own as opposed to critiquing whatever link I reference here.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... nu-35/1460 is where you will find:
The other two quotes are best sourced in Lexis if you have access to it.
But the last one, �There is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that�s that�, is probably the most notable of Erogan's quotations and it is paraphrased also as , "There are no moderate Muslims, there are no radical Muslims, there are only Muslims".
Granted, that last quote may simply mean that you're either a believing Muslims or not. But then, if that is the case, then that means the good fellow has no place in his world for Muslims who do not adhere to the admonitions of mohammed to wage war on the world until islam is supreme.
Comments like this one are devoid of meaning to people who do not have at least a passing knowledge of the koran. That's why when I encounter folks such as yourself who tend to defend islam, I encourage you to read the koran for yourself and then you will be better able to understand these comments when they are made by muslim politicians.
The reason I generally do not post links to quotes such as this is that aspersions tend to be cast on the source and the content of the quote gets dismissed.
That said, here are some links and I'll ask you to research further on your own as opposed to critiquing whatever link I reference here.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... nu-35/1460 is where you will find:
You are right. Also note I told you unbaised sources:
This is from the about page from "The New American"
The New American: The Essential News Source
The New American, a biweekly magazine, is the essential news source for freedom-loving Americans.
Our editorial point of view is guided by our support of the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which our Constitution is based. Specifically, we want to restore and retain the values and vision that made America great � limited government under the Constitution, the freedoms our Constitution guarantees, and the personal responsibility a free people must exercise to stay free. In the area of foreign policy, our editorial point of view is based on avoiding foreign entanglements and going to war only when necessary to defend our country and citizens. Our purpose is encapsulated by the slogan appearing on the cover of The New American �That freedom shall not perish.�
As you can see, unlike myriad news organs that deceptively slant the news while claiming to be "objective," The New American forthrightly acknowledges an editorial point of view. But, that aside, we always approach the news honestly, relying on facts and reason to make our case and allowing the chips to fall where they may.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/about
For finding quotes. I would recommend: http://en.wikiquote.org
based on your own bias.
based on your own bias.
I tend to source news from like: CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and others.
Ones I don't tend to source is: Newsmax, Drudge Report, Townhall, Breitbart, Huffington Post, Fox News, and MSNBC. Also the Daily Show. I love them, but you can't really source them as news.