HE is NOT promoting freedoms for people....he is seizing media outlets left and right, censoring the media heavily, sending people to prison for insulting him or criticizing him, and persecuting the Gulen movement on false pretenses........how can you people support a crook like him?
Kindly read this link and decide who is the best for the Muslim Ummah now in times of Fitna of isis and Bombings at Sacred Medina when western media is trying to create more confusion with Erdogan's Photos that he was seeking asylum and fleeing turkey
10 Shameful Examples of Western Media “Reporting” On Turkey Coup
Kindly read this link and decide who is the best for the Muslim Ummah now in times of Fitna of isis and Bombings at Sacred Medina when western media is trying to create more confusion with Erdogan's Photos that he was seeking asylum and fleeing turkey
10 Shameful Examples of Western Media “Reporting” On Turkey Coup
We have here two media sources to choose, which we are ready to "believe": the western one and the Erdogan one. We know surely that both of them write partly truth and partly propaganda. I wish I could hear also the third one (or more if possible) which means the opposition parts in Turkey, so those whose disagree the rule of Erdogan and whose aren´t too much westernize. But is there kind of sources or has Erdogan already silences all of them?
As I see this situation, this "coup" gives to him more opportunities to silence his opponents and critics and calling them as terrorists. Some news have claimed that all this coup was actually Erdogan´s own plan to strengthen his own power and few hundred victims was quite small price for it.
But this too might be only a propaganda against the rule of Erdogan.
Someone who is supporting the coup is not aware of turkish history. If they would succeed they would arrest and execute many muslims, like it happened in the past. All turkish scholars, whether they are sufi or salafi, pro government or anti-govermnent agree that muslims should be against the coup, not for democracy, but to defend their rights, which will be violated if the coup succeeds. It's not the matter of Erdogan but of all muslims living in turkey.
There were even some people who deleted their accounts, because they thought that a successful coup took place and didn't want to get in danger...
If they would succeed they would arrest and execute many muslims, like it happened in the past.
I am against the coups and as well against the democraticly elected leaders whose use their power wrongly but how come this your sentence might be true? After the coup failed, government too have arrested many Muslims and they also plan to start using the death penalty - so execute their political opponents as well - the fellow Muslims.
I see it´s very danger if we ever at least to imply that people behind that coup wouldn´t be as Muslims as the supporters of the government are. If we do it, we are using the religion as a weapon against other Muslims and for our own political perchants.
^ Focusing: I don´t blame you said so, that was only my notion.
From Occupied Palestine:
We have suffered too much for too long. We will not accept apartheid masked as peace. We will settle for no less than our freedom.
I am against the coups and as well against the democraticly elected leaders whose use their power wrongly but how come this your sentence might be true? After the coup failed, government too have arrested many Muslims and they also plan to start using the death penalty - so execute their political opponents as well - the fellow Muslims.
I see it´s very danger if we ever at least to imply that people behind that coup wouldn´t be as Muslims as the supporters of the government are. If we do it, we are using the religion as a weapon against other Muslims and for our own political perchants.
^ Focusing: I don´t blame you said so, that was only my notion.
What they done is basically treason and it carries the death penalty in many countries including the uk & usa and many other countries, it would include hanging, death by firing squad, drowning, (wether they still actually carry it out is another thing but from what i remember treason is still punishable by death)
It was also carried out in the battle of the trench, when the tribe of jews broke their treaty with prophet mohammed s.a.w and turnd against him s.a.w with the Quraysh & other jewish tribes, as they (the jewish tribe who swore allegiance to prophet mohammed s.a.w) commited treason it was punishable by death & they choose it to be by the way of the Torah
As for this whole situation wether the coup had any grounds,
from what im hearing they wanted to go back to being a "secular" country with no religious ties and Erdogan had a islamic approach and was making the country muslim (so tbh if this is true then im for the country being muslim LOL)
Too many muslim countries are bowing down to the west and westernising themselves, getting rid of their islamic identity, their religious principles, if they want to mordenise themselves with state of the art transport, technology, better buildings, etc etc Alhamdulilah but why do they have to westernise themselves and allow western influence to take over
Its like now being a westerner comes before being muslim, why would i want a muslim country to be a secular country with no religon, without religion ruling the country, laws came from our religion not man
Last edited by muslimah_B; 07-17-2016 at 10:53 AM.
Narrated Jubair ibn Mut’im: The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W), said: "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyah or who dies for `Asabiyah." [Sunan Abu Dawud (Vol. 2, pg. 753) No. 5121]
also, Erdogan is turning turkey into a police state
Every National State is always a secret-service police state. That is simply the nature of the beast. In fact, that was apparently already the case in Turkey during the last century of the Ottoman Empire. The problem is rather that Erdogan seems to have lost control over a relevant part of his secret-service police state. That is why the coup was possible in the first place.
format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16
committing war crimes in southeastern turkey
That is the real existential problem of the Turkish National State.
If you switch over from a tribal conglomerate, that was the Ottoman Empire, to a National Turkish State, you will immediately run into the problem that -- no matter how you define the borders of such state -- not all demographics in your Turkish National State will be Turkish.
The idea that you could browbeat an ethnic group like the Kurds into submission, is quite misguided. Either you kill all of them, or else you kill pretty much none, because doing anything in between, will just make the surviving group stronger, and usually much more unmanageable too.
Somalia taught the world that helicopters are not valid military equipment. The Iraq occupation taught the world that armoured vehicles are a joke. The bluff is getting called every day now. I suspect that the current wars will sooner or later reveal that fighter jets and drones, in fact, do not work either. The system of National State is running out of military options. But then again, I do not like the system of National State anyway. So, the current evolution suits me perfectly fine.
I wonder why anybody would call Erdogan an islamist? He is rather a Turkish National Statist, isn't he? I am quite sure that he believes in the legitimacy of a satanic ***** that would have the right to suck you dry and tell you what to do. Where exactly in the Quran would that kind of system be described as legitimate? In other words, how can anybody simultaneously be an Islamist and a Turkish National Statist?
I am against the coups and as well against the democraticly elected leaders whose use their power wrongly but how come this your sentence might be true? After the coup failed, government too have arrested many Muslims and they also plan to start using the death penalty - so execute their political opponents as well - the fellow Muslims.
I see it´s very danger if we ever at least to imply that people behind that coup wouldn´t be as Muslims as the supporters of the government are. If we do it, we are using the religion as a weapon against other Muslims and for our own political perchants.
^ Focusing: I don´t blame you said so, that was only my notion.
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft
I wonder why anybody would call Erdogan an islamist? He is rather a Turkish National Statist, isn't he?
Yes, Erdogan is not an Islamist: that's just a projection and scaremongering term that the Western media uses to primarily describe specific instances of his sometimes pro-Muslim policies though if the Western media was more unbiased in its reporting they would see it as part of pro-religious-liberties.
While Turkey is considered officially located in the part of Middle East, it is also many times held mistakenly, due to its proximity to Western European countries, as part of Europe. Tbh, while Turkey is on good terms with Western countries, the Western countries have a "needs must when the devil drives" relationship with Turkey, which is why during the reporting of the coup, this bias against democratically-elected Erdogan was clear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@sister herb Like you, I do not believe President Erdogan is right to curtail the freedom of the press or to go on an arresting spree in the aftermath of the coup (though the latter is understandable as he has to move fast or there might be another coup attempt and one that might succeed). Tbh, I'd have bet a pretty penny before this sad turn of events that Turkey was the only remaining country in the Middle East that was currently stable and I'd have lost as is now obvious. For some in the Turkish military (as it clearly wasn't a unified military decision) to try to attempt a coup when the country under Erdogan's power was becoming an economic superpower and also a force to be reckoned with in geopolitical affairs was quite unwise and shortsighted and would have opened the floodgates to a bloody civil war as the electorate who'd voted in favor of Erdogan's favor would naturally have tried to wrestle back power from the military who'd unilaterally bypassed the will of the people. Tbh, while outwardly Western nations profess Turkey as an ally, they resent so having to do so because they do not like any Muslim nation to have any bargaining power or strength enough to be able to have any say or will that opposes theirs in Middle Eastern affairs.
Turkey was the only remaining country in the Middle East that was currently stable
That assumes that a national state would fundamentally be a stable thing.
That is an assumption similar to the idea that paper money would fundamentally be a stable thing. That assumption is in direct violation of the Law of Voltaire; Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero. Often rather quickly. According to Voltaire's Law, it takes an ever-growing amount of effort to produce the illusion of stability of paper money, which will at some point exceed the maximum effort that could ever be produced. From that point on, the terminal decline of the value of paper money will set in.
The national state suffers from the same problem, for pretty much the same underlying reasons, and must inevitably go through the same process of decline. In the meanwhile, such national state would still ask its population to produce the ever-growing amount of effort required to keep it stable, even after it has exceeded the maximum effort that this population could ever produce. In other words, the end of the national state will invariably come to most people as a relief. No more need to keep that monster going. Let it collapse and enjoy the sight!
Why would anybody actually need a state?
At the moment, we only have them as a tool to keep other states out. However, technology is rapidly making non-state actors more effective than states at their core business of the use of force. If the state has become technologically obsolete, what would be the point in keeping it?
Reality is, in fact, that if we stay passive and be friend with our enemy, we remain weak.
This reminds me of some specific lyrics from a song by 21 Pilots.
"I'd die for you," that's easy to say We have a list of people that we would take A bullet for them, a bullet for you A bullet for everybody in this room But I don't seem to see many bullets coming through See many bullets coming through Metaphorically, I'm the man But literally, I don't know what I'd do
And for the record, there are friends of the United States all over this world that have become incredibly strong and stable and prosperous. Friendship with the US is generally very good for a country. I will acknowledge that it's bad for individual people whose main goal in life is to engage in religious coercion, but that's really addition by subtraction. Life isn't supposed to be good for that kind of person.
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
So, I think you're misunderstanding sis herb here: She's not referring to friendship with U.S. but Israel here and that's because she herself from what I remember (and she can correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly) is that she's a human rights activist and she's worked with Palestinians in many cases in her home country of Finland and helped them settle there and find peace and meaning in their new home country. So, I think she understands the situation better than you and I in terms of the human rights violations that occurs in West Bank and the horror stories that exist and about which we don't ever hear.
Secondly, I'm an American myself. I dislike our longstanding unnecessary involvement in Middle Eastern affairs due to our dastardly alliance with Israel because I do think many times Israel is like a puppeteer and we let it pull our strings even though we're the world's number one superpower and don't need to kowtow to Israel. Also, I'd say Israel has to be my least favorite country in the entire globe followed then by Russia followed by then China.
And of course, while I agree with you that friends of U.S. do get strong and stable and prosperous in some rare cases, there is nothing like what we do and have done for Israel as the example to be used for this and if you don't believe me, I'd advise you to do your own research into the kinds of things we have done and do for Israel which to me as just an observer makes absolutely no sense considering the fact that U.S. top priority should be its own citizens instead of minding Israel's business like Robin to its Batman except like in a twilight zone type of thing or parallel universe thingy where we play the game of villainy for a clear villain.
format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein
This reminds me of some specific lyrics from a song by 21 Pilots.
"I'd die for you," that's easy to say We have a list of people that we would take A bullet for them, a bullet for you A bullet for everybody in this room But I don't seem to see many bullets coming through See many bullets coming through Metaphorically, I'm the man But literally, I don't know what I'd do
And for the record, there are friends of the United States all over this world that have become incredibly strong and stable and prosperous. Friendship with the US is generally very good for a country. I will acknowledge that it's bad for individual people whose main goal in life is to engage in religious coercion, but that's really addition by subtraction. Life isn't supposed to be good for that kind of person.
That assumes that a national state would fundamentally be a stable thing.
That is an assumption similar to the idea that paper money would fundamentally be a stable thing. That assumption is in direct violation of the Law of Voltaire; Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero. Often rather quickly. According to Voltaire's Law, it takes an ever-growing amount of effort to produce the illusion of stability of paper money, which will at some point exceed the maximum effort that could ever be produced. From that point on, the terminal decline of the value of paper money will set in.
The national state suffers from the same problem, for pretty much the same underlying reasons, and must inevitably go through the same process of decline. In the meanwhile, such national state would still ask its population to produce the ever-growing amount of effort required to keep it stable, even after it has exceeded the maximum effort that this population could ever produce. In other words, the end of the national state will invariably come to most people as a relief. No more need to keep that monster going. Let it collapse and enjoy the sight!
Why would anybody actually need a state?
At the moment, we only have them as a tool to keep other states out. However, technology is rapidly making non-state actors more effective than states at their core business of the use of force. If the state has become technologically obsolete, what would be the point in keeping it?
A state is necessary because, in a vacuum of total instability, there is essentially a constant state of war. Unrestricted, no international law, no Geneva convention, literally no holds barred war.
Thomas Hobbes is frequently quoted on the subject. In the absence of a state, and as a precursor to central government, which is presumed to be pretty much a state of war, this is what it's like.
"In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
Thomas Hobbes, from The Leviathan.
It can, and has, been pointed out that Thomas Hobbes died at the age of 91, in relative comfort, in the presence of his family. But that is not because his prediction failed, it is because his proposed remedy for the anarchy type of situation was so effective, and he was one of the main people responsible for its success.
Islamic regions are giving us several examples of what it looks like to be, in effect, stateless, or to some extent for an area to be outside the normal realm of control for any particular state. How is that working out in the Levant, or in Waziristan?
If you were living in an anarcho-whatever type of place, how do you think education would be there? What would be your replacement for a police force? What are the odds that an average pregnant woman would have a skilled professional with her during birth? What would academia look like overall? Who would ensure that you have potable water- would you do it yourself, or would you hope that a charitable organization from a place with a proper government takes care of it for you? How would the roads be kept up, would you do that yourself? Who would pay you for it, and how would that be financed?
All of these are super relevant examples of things that a state does besides keep people out of it, although yes it does regulate borders and prevent people from invading, beheading you, and taking your female relatives as sex slaves. Apart from that though, there is so much that a state does that makes everyday life much easier and safer, from preventing corruption to forcing employers and anyone else to honor contracts to getting around to the quality and safety of basic dietary necessities, insofar as the state is effective in carrying out its intended functions.
This is not a conclusion that should be difficult for you to arrive at. But if you have a convincing reason to push back against this line of thinking, I do hope it's a good one, and I do ask you to consider whether there's any chance at all that I would think it's a good one once you put it out there.
A first problem here is related to the method of thinking and the way in which you offer validation for your claims. Depending on how the statement has been validated, it will acquire another truth value. The truth status of a claim could be:
Tautologically true. Example. All men are human. This is so, just by definition, given the fact that a man is defined as a male human.
Provable. Meaning that all untruth in the claim can only be the result of untruth in an explicitly-stated list of underlying statements, possibly, recursively, turtles all the way down to some basic statements that we ordinarily designate as axioms. Statements are provable only within an axiomatic system. Example. The claim that 3 < 5 is provable, since 5 is an element of the succession chain (repeated application of the successor function) of 3. Another example: participating in a lottery is forbidden behaviour in Islam because the Quran condemns gambling.
Falsifiable. Meaning that we can conduct experimental testing in order to find counterexamples for the claim. Example. We can repeatedly cook water to 100 degrees and verify that it will start boiling.
Corroborated. Ultimately we always rely on testimonies as to whether facts have truly occurred. Fact-checking is an important method for historians and other professions. Note that this method only verifies if one particular event has taken place. It does not say anything about the repetition of such events and certainly does not try to predict the future. Example. John was born on 15 Jan 2001. Why? We have three witness depositions of people who were present at his birth: two nurses and a doctor. All three signed off as witnesses for this fact.
Unsubstantiated. No accredited method has been used to validate the claim. Therefore such claim is neither true nor false. It could be either. In non-Aristotelian, many-valued logic, it could even be both. Therefore, in absence of real validation, a claim must be considered merely ideological.
To cut a long story short, everything that you have said about the alleged necessity of a National State are not tautologically-true, nor provable, neither falsifiable, and not even corroborated, but merely unsubstantiated ideological claims.
Concerning your and Hobbes' claims in detail:
A state is necessary because, in a vacuum of total instability, there is essentially a constant state of war
"international law Geneva convention" would be needed
In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain
consequently no Culture of the Earth
no Navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea
no commodious Building
no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force
no Knowledge of the face of the Earth
no account of Time
no Arts; no Letters
no Society
continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
A first remark is that there is a tremendous amount of confusion between progress in technology and National States. The State has never produced any progress in technology. The State's core instrument is the use of force, while technology, on the other hand, is the result of freely collaborating individuals. It is especially the freely aspect that makes technology people so libertarian.
For example, you can find the technologically most-advanced communities from the globe on the tor network, where there is absolutely no State nor government in place whatsoever. In fact, it is exactly the freedom from States and governments that make these communities so technologically advanced. The reason why the technology clan is hardcore libertarian, anti-Statist, is exactly because the State is an impediment to progress, if only because its incessant use of force disturbs us while freely collaborating. Hence, there is no love lost between technology and the State.
format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein
Islamic regions are giving us several examples of what it looks like to be, in effect, stateless, or to some extent for an area to be outside the normal realm of control for any particular state. How is that working out in the Levant, or in Waziristan?
Well, you can of course easily prove that Waziristan is always in state of war, if you incessantly drone-bomb the people there. The same holds true for the Levant. It is not hard to prove that there will always be a war going on there, if you continuously have fighter jets bombing the area. The place can impossible settle down in those circumstances. The same holds true for Somalia.
One important reason why these places remain at war, is because outside powers try to impose their views on government there. They want to impose a National State under their control there.
What you are claiming amounts to saying: If you incessantly keep bombing Islamic regions, they will not be doing well. My answer to that is: Yes, you are right. I totally agree.
format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein
education, police force, skilled professional with her during birth, academia, potable water- would you do it yourself, the roads be kept up, would you do that yourself? Who would pay you for it, and how would that be financed?
When the State establishes a monopoly on a particular activity, say, formal education, it will indeed become the only source of education. It is not hard for the State to establish monopolies. All that they need to do, is to use their core instrument: the use of force. So, yes, since the State will use force to prevent anybody else from providing education services, the only remaining provider, the State, will indeed look absolutely necessary.
It is not that the State would be doing a good job in the field of education, or that people would not want other service providers. It is rather that the State will prevent this from happening by using guns and state-orchestrated violence.
The same holds true for everything else you mentioned. The State will prevent at gunpoint that anybody else dares to solve any of the problems that you have mentioned. This does not mean, however, that the State will actually solve it by itself. More often than not, the problem will just remain unsolved. Example. We need a road somewhere. The State will not build it, because they do not want to. At the same time, they will prevent at gunpoint that anybody else would do it.
So, yes, now that the State has become necessary, because otherwise nobody else will exercise its monopolies, the State needs lots of money. Of course, you are not supposed to mention the problem that there is absolutely no link or relationship between the amounts of money that the State will extort from its population and the amounts actually needed to exercise its monopolies.
The State is entirely predicated on the use of force and State-orchestrated violence. The use of force itself is nowadays very much predicated on the use of technology, At the same time, technology itself is the product of the technology clan, and not the State. From there, you can probably understand why the technology clan keeps asking the State if they really count on us for continuing and expanding their systems of mischief, because we are not their friends at all, and we are totally unreliable when it comes to assisting the State in their use and abuse of force.
format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein
prevent people from invading, beheading you, and taking your female relatives as sex slaves.
The use of force requires at least two important ingredients. One: the determination and will power to do do what it takes Two: technology.
Concerning will power, you and I know that, for example, the Islamist extremists score several orders of magnitude higher in terms of will power and determination than the staff of any State armies, police, or other security departments. If it were only an issue of will power, the State would not even exist.
Concerning technology, you and I know that it is the hardcore-libertarian technology clan that controls it. One weird thing about technology is that you need to understand it, in order to control it. States do not understand anything at all. People do. As soon as you understand technology, you will get heavily influenced by collaborating with other people in the clan, and gradually but surely adopt hardcore libertarian views. We are fundamentally anti-Statist. Therefore, the State should never count on the clan, because one of our hobbies is to incessantly stab the State in the back.
Furthermore, we do not make any technology a secret. In fact, we refuse to do that. It would prevent us from collaborating freely. Therefore, most technology leaks almost immediately, and is accessible not just to the State but also to its enemies. Seriously, we like it that way. This levels the playing field. Therefore, you can expect that on the long run only one fact really matters: will power. As you know, the staff of State security departments have pretty much zero credibility in that realm. Their enemies look much stronger in that respect. In other words, you probably understand who I think will win the ongoing conflict between National States and Islamist Extremists.
But then again, this suits me absolutely fine, because I find National States several orders of magnitude more detestable than the Extremists.
Erdgoan has just declared a three month long state of emergency, and continues to fire civil servants and/or put them in prison.....he also has banned academics from leaving the country......I swear turkey's headed down the path of Nazi Germany....
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
Make duas that the innocent jailed are freed from incarceration and that the matter of traitors is resolved in a way that ensures stability and peace for Turkey. And also, pray that despite what has happened, Turkey emerges stronger as a country from it and that the emergency called in the state is soon uplifted so that people can breathe a sigh of relief.
Btw, I know you don't like what's happening. And I know that you have no sympathy or like for President Erdogan, and I completely understand that and respect that too.
At the same time, I ask you to be grateful that Allah has saved Turkish peoples from falling into a bigger fitna like a civil war and also prevented bigger bloodshed.
Also, instead of criticizing Erdogan or fearing him, pray that God guides him to rule with both mercy and justice in a way that brings relief and prosperity to Turkey. (And peace be upon you)
format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16
Erdgoan has just declared a three month long state of emergency, and continues to fire civil servants and/or put them in prison.....he also has banned academics from leaving the country......I swear turkey's headed down the path of Nazi Germany....
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
Make duas that the innocent jailed are freed from incarceration and that the matter of traitors is resolved in a way that ensures stability and peace for Turkey. And also, pray that despite what has happened, Turkey emerges stronger as a country from it and that the emergency called in the state is soon uplifted so that people can breathe a sigh of relief.
Btw, I know you don't like what's happening. And I know that you have no sympathy or like for President Erdogan, and I completely understand that and respect that too.
At the same time, I ask you to be grateful that Allah has saved Turkish peoples from falling into a bigger fitna like a civil war and also prevented bigger bloodshed.
Also, instead of criticizing Erdogan or fearing him, pray that God guides him to rule with both mercy and justice in a way that brings relief and prosperity to Turkey. (And peace be upon you)
I suppose youre right.....the military is probably even worse......my parents lived through the days of the 1980-1989 military coup, and let me tell you, it was awful.......ill pray that those detained who are innocent are released and that the state of emergency is lifted, and that Turkey becomes stable....
Erdgoan has just declared a three month long state of emergency, and continues to fire civil servants and/or put them in prison.....he also has banned academics from leaving the country......I swear turkey's headed down the path of Nazi Germany....
We have to contend with more than 200+ National States - of which Erdogan's Turkey is just one - and that -- more often than not -- exhibit utterly detestable behaviour. While sitting between the devil and the deep blue sea, it is undoubtedly a viable temporary strategy of contending and putting up with Erdogan, because the alternative actually looks even worse.
There is nothing wrong with putting military, policemen, and civil servants in prison. On the contrary, this is rather a desirable outcome. If he could put ALL of them in prison, Erdogan would be effectively be rolling out the real solution to this problem. Unfortunately, some of the aforementioned individuals are still roaming around freely. Therefore, Erdogan's solution must be considered incomplete, at best. If Erdogan feels like reintroducing the death penalty -- but applicable to the aforementioned individuals only -- I would totally endorse his plan. Seriously, why not? For what reason would this not be A Good Thing (tm) ?
Last edited by kritikvernunft; 07-21-2016 at 05:04 AM.
We have to contend with more than 200+ National States - of which Erdogan's Turkey is just one - and that -- more often than not -- exhibit utterly detestable behaviour. While sitting between the devil and the deep blue sea, it is undoubtedly a viable temporary strategy of contending and putting up with Erdogan, because the alternative actually looks even worse.
There is nothing wrong with putting military, policemen, and civil servants in prison. On the contrary, this is rather a desirable outcome. If he could put ALL of them in prison, Erdogan would be effectively be rolling out the real solution to this problem. Unfortunately, some of the aforementioned individuals are still roaming around freely. Therefore, Erdogan's solution must be considered incomplete, at best. If Erdogan feels like reintroducing the death penalty -- but applicable to the aforementioned individuals only -- I would totally endorse his plan. Seriously, why not? For what reason would this not be A Good Thing (tm) ?
are you kidding me? 21,000 of those fired or arrested ARE NOT SOLDIERS they are TEACHERS.....Professors are BANNED from LEAVING the country, and 3,000 judges have been dismissed....all for ties to the gulen movement! I see a serious problem with the muslim world today, and that is the inability to confront tyrants.....
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
sister herb liked this post
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
(And peace be upon you)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks