3 ms·

In turkey, you will be thrown in jail simply for dissent - http://www.npr.org/2012/01/26/145844105/for-turkish-journalists-arrest-is-a-real-danger http://www.np

• iuguy 14y ago
  I can't believe you're trying to defend this position. I'm really quite shocked. Human rights abuses against local people for dissent happen all around the world, including the US and the UK. In Germany you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. In France you can be jailed for wearing a headscarf. Exercising common sense is generally a good thing to do anywhere you go, but the things you talk about occur around the world and aren't just limited to states with a majority muslim population. > The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support. It's clear you've never been to Turkey. Turkey's outpaced the EU for economic growth for years and effectively dodged an economic bullet by not joining the EU. It may benefit by not being in the Euro, but loses out on tariffs and taxes. If you walk around Levent in Istanbul you'll see the real money's coming from China, Russia and the Middle East, not Europe.
  • intended 14y ago
    With regards to your other points, I have nothing to add. Regards Turkey - I'm not disagreeing, but I must point out that Turkey wouldn't have gotten to where it is except for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe; that process is being reversed gradually by the those elected in power today. Turkey is where it stands precisely because Ataturk decided that they had to join the Euro region, and then had the military on his side who constantly defended his vision and the secular fabric of the nation. Later, the Euro rejected them, to their current benefit. Today, the secular institutions built during the earlier reign are slowly being converted and accommodating a new political reality which is a lot more comfortable with its Islamic credentials. edited for flow and clarity
    • iuguy 14y ago
      > I'm not disagreeing, but I am pointing out that Turkey really wouldn't have gotten there for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe, and that process is currently being reversed gradually by the those elected in power. I see where you're coming from but when you look into it the whole thing isn't so clean cut. Ataturk was obviously the singularly biggest influence in modern Turkish history, but because of it's geography Turkey has always had prospects to do well. It's position in control of shipping between the mediterranean and black sea, combined with it's black sea and mediterranean coasts and position as a gateway to Iraq, Russia and Greece has meant that it was always going to be a major trade centre. Ataturk never modeled the country on being able to enter Europe, he died decades before the coal and steel treaty and the Euro region didn't exist until 1992 depending on your views on EU history. Ataturk's foreign policy doctrine was one of strict neutrality, "Peace at home, Peace in the world" (Yurtta Barış, Dünyada Barış). The decision to keep Turkey out has been largely made by the French and German governments who are worried about uneducated Turks coming into Europe and flooding the labour market and (particularly in the French case) not integrating into their host countries' cultures. Ataturk modeled his country on the Austrian system as the best way of modernising a new country widely regarded as extremely behind the times. This was a continuation and radical acceleration of work that had been going on for nearly 200 years prior (with the help of the Germans, which is why the Ottomans were forced into the war on the German side, that and an alliance between France and Russia being seen as a threat). The acceleration of that only occurred because of the destruction of the caliphate and the establishment of a secular republic. Later in Ataturk's life and in order to maintain territorial integrity a personality cult was built around him, this was to keep the revolution going, to ensure that the country didn't sink into religious backwardsness and that they could keep themselves as an independent state without having to deal with external interference. Other leaders who included Ataturk's principles of Kemalism to some extent included Nasser and Mossadegh. In the end Ataturk's models became so fixed by subsequent leaders that his party CHP lost it's relevance and AKP, the current party gained power. Now AKP is putting it's people into various positions to ensure it's longevity. While it has a much more pro-Islamic agenda, AKP cannot afford to overstep the mark and betray it's financial backers, who'll pull out the rug as soon as someone more moderate comes along. If you're interested in reading about Ataturk, Andrew Mango's Ataturk book is the definitive English language book on the matter.
• soc88 14y ago
  So what? It isn't better in the US, it's just more acceptable to you.
  • chii 14y ago
    "It isn't better in the US, it's just more acceptable to you." i m sure it is much better in the US of A, or any other western countries. Hyperbole can only be taken so far.