New explosions in Istanbul!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by dannubis
So who are you (or your governement) to deside whether it is morally right or not to go and fight a war which can only have one result : more terrorism.

And what would pacifism produce? It would produce more terrorism as well. Al Queda is not going to stop bombing us just because we decide to "play nice" and turn the other cheek.

[dannubis]

not turning the other cheek ...

defending yourself by all means
as long as by doing this you don't any 'collateral damage'

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by paiktis22
However, the argument goes, if the army gets out of politics, thus elevating the level of democracy in Turkey to "european" standards, then the country could lose a large part of its secularism.

Some people present it as a catch - 22 case. That's why Shroeder has said that Turkey's society requires "small revolutions", meaning the acquirmement of the possibility to oust the military off of politics and remain secular.

That's one opinion but if I dare say, it really is the "big" one. The big question.

I catch the drift about the catch-22, I think those small revoltuions are already happening, faster than it shows...

Originally posted by paiktis22
That does not mean there's no hope of course. Actually with the rise of the seculer islamists government in Turkey there had been progress in getting the military to pull back somewhat from politics, as was seen in Greece - Turkey relations.
However after that attack I have to say that the military can have a very big "benefit" unfortunately and a return to the little authority it may have had relenquished or at least was going to. That would actually IMO be a recession of the "military withdrawl" process.

Well, it is true that in Turkey the army had traditionally assumed the role of vanguard against the danger of fundamentalism, but I sometimes get the impression that outside Turkey the stereotype is that the army actually RULES the country, that they are somehow actively involved in the day to day policy making on a variety of issues...This is not exactly an accurate description...Their rare "interventions" are only in extreme cases of a breach of the fundamentals

I also know, this is enough to make a case about lack of total democracy in Turkey, but my other point is, just by granting a date for start of negotiations of membership for the EU, the EU can actually accelerate this process.

Many people in Turkey think that this is where the EU is cynical: Greece negotiated its membership for 7 years, Spain and Portugal for 9 years, during which the prospect of membership had a stabilising effect on the post-dictatorial democratic processes. But the damn date for start of entry negotiations is not given to Turkey (give the date, and if you have the slightest doubt about Turkey's maturity, negotiations may last as long as you like)...

So, people in Turkey conclude, it's about religion...They dislike a large and Muslim country that will have more weight than all but Germany in the EU, plus they don't believe in a Muslim country democracy can take hold. Any progress is too good to be true, so Europeans drag their feet, "it can't be true, if we give the date what if the Turks screw up? Better wait till they really screw up and say `yeah see they screwed up, we were wise never to take them seriously`..."

Frankly, I find it hard to disagree with the idea that the EU thinks that way

I sometimes think we would have such a different story if Turkey was, say, Protestant

Originally posted by paiktis22
Needless to say I'm in favour of a fully democratic Turkey entering as a full member of the EU. Half of my summers I'll be there

I would particularly recommend an combined tour of Greek islands and the Turkish coast

[Az]

My condolences to the people of Turkey and Britain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

both of these sentences sicken me each time when i hear them

Why does insh' allah sicken you? All it means is 'God willing'. It's a saying.

[lord of the mark]

insh'allah, Gott Bench America!

[Ramo]

Actually, Turkey is the only country that has enshrined secularism as a clearly stated and defined principle in its constitution, thereby closing all institutional ways and byways or loopholes for religious extremists to work their way into state structure.

That might be true, but that also wasn't what Rufus asserted.

And needless to say, Islam has a history of being political. It was (and still is in some places) inconceivable throughout Islamic history to imagine Islam to be something not covering every aspect of human activity. Social contracts, relation of the individual towards the state, legal system, economy and by default politics were never thought in any way different or seperate from the practice of religion.

And yet, most Moslems live in secular societies (and choose to do so) and are getting along just fine.

In light of this prevalent and suffocating interpretation of Islam, Turkey cut the Gordion's knot instead of trying to fit modernity into the tight shirt of obsolete tradition, as the vast majority of Muslim countries try with varying degrees of success today. How dangerous an alternative is that for AQ?

I don't think it's such a "dangerous alternative" for al-Qaeda. If anything, it gives Islamist terror groups a nice recruiting boost - liberate the secular infidels and whatnot. And it tends to lead people to blame secularism when they're dissatisfied with the gov't (Algeria comes to mind).

There are in the Muslim world varying degrees of secularism, some declare Islam as state religion. Some like Indonesia fall short of that but lacking a state commitment to secularism, there's a growing pressure on the government to adopt Islam as state religion. You don't have that in Turkey.

Despite the current gov't being mildly Islamist? Despite the military having to pull of a coup whenever the gov't goes outside the bounds of secularism? I think you're overstating the committment to secularism of the Turkish people.

Bangladesh has Islam as official state religion since 1988.

Which means very little. Bangladeshi civil law is a variant of English/Indian civil law, not sharia. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. Thus, it's a secular state.

In all fairness compare Turkey with any other Muslim country and you should call it democratic.

On the contrary, that is hardly true. I'll bring up Bangladesh again; it doesn't ban parties that are too Burmese (insert whatever ethnic minority you want), or too leftist, or too Islamist. It hasn't been waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing throughout the past few decades. The military is in no position to pull off a coup if it disagrees with the civil authorities.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The bottom line is, I think there are some cases where self-defense is appropriate. To never ever be willing to defend your life or the lives of people you love, no matter what, is utterly idiotic IMO.

And what does this have to do whatsoever with this thread? Please, do explain the line of reasoning that brought this line of debate about- I can sort of guess, but I do not want to be incorrect in my assesment.

[Ancyrean]

And yet, most Moslems live in secular societies (and choose to do so) and are getting along just fine.

Ramo: Sure, they do I don't mean they should emulate the Turkish system.

Let me try to elaborate more. As I tried to explain, Islam has a tendency to try to cover all aspects of human activity. Muslims learn never to question Quran, and by extension anything Islamic.

There are also in Muslim societies many who take it upon themselves to "explain" to people what Islam "thinks" about any given issue (is cigarette forbidden? Can we print Quran using the printing machine which is invented by infidels, as ridicilous as it sounds thousands of questions like that). People have a habit of listening to them (sometimes they are the mullahs, sometimes the imams, sometimes whonot)without much questioning. Then when they also talk about the government is not doing things right, when they claim they are "against Islam", people rally around them never even thinking they have just been politicised using religion. Hence, even if at any given time in the past or present, any Muslim society might be "getting along just fine", there is always the potential danger that the religious people will hijack the agenda and force the hand of government.

Therefore, it is a grave mistake to just look at the current situation in any given country and seeing things getting along reasonably fine, and then to say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

You may still disagree with me, but I'm not saying everybody should do as Turkey did, as it was quite a miraculous achievement in Turkey. But short of the degree of seperation of state and religion the way it is exercised in Turkey, there's always a danger of fundamentalist backlash in times of crisis for any given Muslim country.

I don't think it's such a "dangerous alternative" for al-Qaeda. If anything, it gives Islamist terror groups a nice recruiting boost - liberate the secular infidels and whatnot. And it tends to lead people to blame secularism when they're dissatisfied with the gov't (Algeria comes to mind).

In light of what I've written above, that's exactly why it's a bad example. Regardless of the chances of any country taking Turkey as an "example", the very existence of a Muslim country that shuts down religion from so many aspects of public life as opposed o historical and current practice is an anthithesis to the AQ idea of setting up a global Muslim domain practicing a Taliban-like administration. I don't know if I could make myself clear here.

Algeria is a perfect example of how fundamentalists can take advantage of a crisis. No matter how "Islamic" you are, if ypu are not as "Islamic" as the fundamentalists themselves, they will always accuse any government to be "secular infidels". If this sounds exasparating, that's in fact the whole sick mindset I'm trying highlight here.

[Ancyrean]

Despite the current gov't being mildly Islamist? Despite the military having to pull of a coup whenever the gov't goes outside the bounds of secularism? I think you're overstating the committment to secularism of the Turkish people.

I think I might be understating it. The reason secularism as it was practiced in Turkey survived so successfully was not only the long shadow of the army. It was also because people never had a fundamental problem with it so as to rebel against it en masse. That's what freaks AQ out, the people are behind it. Support for Sharia is insignificant in Turkey.

Combining two quotes:

Bangladeshi civil law is a variant of English/Indian civil law, not sharia. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. Thus, it's a secular state.

On the contrary, that is hardly true. I'll bring up Bangladesh again; it doesn't ban parties that are too Burmese (insert whatever ethnic minority you want), or too leftist, or too Islamist. It hasn't been waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing throughout the past few decades. The military is in no position to pull off a coup if it disagrees with the civil authorities.

Freedom of religion in Bangladesh still does not make Hindus, Buddhists or Christians there not worry about the Islamic nature of the state. The very fact that the government felt it necessary to declare Islam as state religion is proof of pressure from the circles in the society that use religion as political leverage. An institutional safeguard is a better protection than any current state of affairs of calm.

Your implication of Turkey pursuing an ethnic cleansing against Kurds is plainly outrageous But so many people rely on stereotypes about Turkey

In a nutshell: There are some 10-12 million Kurds (in 70 million) in Turkey, majority of which lives in the predominantly Turkish western part of the area. The struggle against the PKK seperatists was never thought as a fight against Kurds in general. Kurds are not a monolithic body, they speak different dialects unintelligable to each other. In traditional areas, their allegiance lies to their tribes, not to a sense of nationhood. Many tribes supported the government against the PKK. Wrongdoings on the part of the army during this long struggle can in no way be described ethnic cleansing, if we understand the same thing from the word "ethnic cleansing".

I'm just plain astonished by such a simplistic assertion, putting Turkey in the same league with Milosevic's thugs

About party closings, the political arm of ETA is banned in Spain. ETA is an ethnic seperatist terrorist group. Closing down parties that act as political branches of terrorist groups is not a crime against democracy.