Aren't you implying the Turks fully justify their notoriety for crime and barbarism ?

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Oct 8, 2011 at 10:39

Ayla Kosebey wrote :

> Firstly,my name is Ayla Kosebey.What's your name? Ianus? Don'be afraid of giving your own name.Bravery is a nice wisdom<

Well, well ... Bravery implies there is some danger and intimidation not to be brave involved, doesn't it? So what do you as a Turk mean thereby, I wonder? What sort of danger is involved in your mind in disclosing names and identities to Turks to justify the word "bravery" in doing so? Are you suggesting perhaps that the Turks can send a hired, perferably underage, murderer to kill a critic or doubter of Turkey's "virtue" just like they did with Hrant Dink? Or that they can organize a car accident as was the case in Ankara with Ehud Sadan in 1992 or a kidnapping as with Ephraim Elrom in 1971 in Constantinople ? Or that they have embarked upon a worldwide witch-hunt for denigrators of Turkishness and Ataturk collecting data on everybody who expresses his dislike for Turkey's new god and his lies, threatening the potential internet "denigrators" living outside Turkey with "be(ing) detained upon entering the country"? Or that they simply will use any other criminal means to achieve their criminal goals of silencing any voice of criticism of Turkey? And we do know fairly well these criminal state-sponsored means and goals from the Susurluk scandal which revealed Turkey as the mafia-nation par excellence, don't we?

Anyway,by suggesting that there is implicit danger in saying who you are to Turks , you as a Turk are clearly denigrating Turkey and Turkishness because with your craven implication that giving names to Turks would somehow jeopardize the persons in question you indirectly confirm Turks' "alleged" notoriety for criminal barbarian behavior, don't you? So aren't you both ashamed and afraid of connecting Turkishness and Turks to barbarity and thus of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code as a punishment for such suggestions ?

> Secondly,it was your expression 99,8% Muslim country and I've told this expression as an irony to your words.<

First and foremost , it is not "my" expresion but that of the CIA Factbook which takes its data from the Turkish population censuses which explicitly include the question of religion even though without specifying to what sect of Islam a given respondent belongs.So what sort of "irony" do you imply in the CIA Factbook , I pray ?

> It is hard to reflect people's real beliefs.<

Not so hard if you are really interested in knowing them. What is going on with religion in Turkey is best illustrated by the following quote :

"Today, Turkey has over 85,000 active mosques, one for every 350 citizens—compared to one hospital for every 60,000 citizens—the highest number per capita in the world and, with 90,000 imams, more imams than doctors or teachers. It has thousands of madrasa-like Imam-Hatip schools and about four thousand more official state-run Qur'an courses, not counting the unofficial Qur'an schools, which may expand the total number tenfold. Spending by the governmental Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet Işleri Başkanlığı) has grown five fold, from 553 trillion Turkish lira in 2002 (approximately US$325 million) to 2.7 quadrillion lira during the first four-and-a-half years of the AKP government; it has a larger budget than eight other ministries combined. The Friday prayer attendance rate in Turkey's mosques exceeds that of Iran's, and religion classes teaching Sunni Islam are compulsory in public schools..."

Now feel free to either deny or run away from it.

> In Italy people are are considered 90% Christians but only half of it real believers. It is the result of a survey held by sociologists.<

So still you have 10% of non-Christians in Italy while in allegedly "secular" Turkey you have merely 0,20% non-Moslems without having any worth quoting numbers of atheists, agnostics, Buddhists etc. etc. 90 years of Kemalist genocides, expulsions and terror of everything and everybody non-Moslem have borne their expected fruit,haven't they?

> You said"Kemal appointed some of his followers to act as an opposition party. When the wretched men took their task too seriously and told a few bitter truths in the dictator's face, he had them all hanged in public and went on to rule in a one-party "republic", i.e. in plain text dictatorship" You talk about 1930s.Now it is 2011...By the way,do you remember what happened in other countries in 1930s, e.g. Russia,Germany,Spain..? If you want an objective aspect,you have to consider others in general."

Indeed it's 2011 in Europe, although you don't mention that many in Turkey would rather say it's 1432 after hijra. Now let's look at the three European states, you have named, then and now.What can we see? Stalin's crimes have been denounced by the Soviet political leadership just 3 years after his death and the cultural elites and simple citizens of the USSR and Russia continue the open debates on Stalin. Nowhere has more been done to expose Nazism and Hitler than in Germany. In Spain a frank, open and heated discussion of the bloody civil war and Franco's years in power have taken place and continue until now.

Now let's look at Turkey of 2011 (or 1432 after hijra)! What an amazing contrast to the above countries Turkey is! Ataturk's genocides, crimes, terror,his alcoholism,sexual perversity,his cruelty, xenophobia,his political lies and treasons,his gross ignorance reflected in the absurdities of his historical and linguistic views have never been open to any public discussions at all, let alone questioning and doubting!Quite the contrary! Turkey' mind has frozen for good in the lies and dogmas of the 30-ies. It has been immobilized and imprisoned with Law 5816/1951 which makes any such discussion in principle impossible ! With thousands and thousands of statues and portraits of Ataturks everywhere in Turkey and the mad personality cult of this founder of Turkish fascism in full force you don't need a better proof of how regressive and unlike any other civilized country Turkey is.

I understand you mentioned the three countries just to make Turkey's own heinous crime look innocent and relative by comparison. It goes without saying though that you haven't even noticed how self-defeating your method turns out to b for you. You meant to make Turkey look more civilized by comparison while it does look in fact more barbarian by comparison. Well, my advice to you is to think sometimes also of other things than just of your favourites ...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".