This Mustafa Akyol guy writes many articles specifically criticizing the Turkish government and Kemalists. He seems to think he's some kind of neo-liberal that believes in freedom of everyone to be able to be free to do whatever they want freely, which is just naive idealism. Anyway, the guys logic is full of flaws, and my comments I think express the flaws of his articles. Tell me what you think!
Why Turks love Conspiracy
Why Turks love Conspiracy Theories
The Kurds have always had their freedoms, they are not suppressed. Just because they weren't able to open a TV station of their own language or unable to talk Kurdish in school didn't mean they were suppressed. In fact, if I talk French or Spanish in an American school, I guarantee you many teachers will tell me to speak English. This is simply a matter of communication, and whether you're talking Turkish or Kurdish, you are still communicating. Now with modern laws the Kurds have full freedom to do whatever they want. However, let's look at American history when African-Americans had extremely limited roles as well. Martin Luther King, protested the government and even spent some time in jail just ~45 years ago. He protested peacefully, and he succeeded in approving rights and laws that gave his people their civil liberties. Now, the PKK, is out there killing the innocent, blowing up touristic areas, killing anyone that is Turkish, or anyone that is Kurdish but supports the Turks.
The Kurds currently have their freedoms, you cannot undo the hate that the PKK has, because they do not have hate--- what they have is nationalism driving artificial hate toward a common enemy, The Turks. Their goal is a great Kurdistan, not unlike how those facebook people have made a "Greater Turkey" they have made a "Greater Kurdistan", just like the Armenians dream of "Greater Armenia" to this day. So you see, conspiracy theories are not a genetic trait of Turks as you so ridiculously imply, but a sociological response to events in society that is perfectly normal, otherwise, everyone would be sheep. Greater Kurdistan is the dream of PKK, and it doesn't matter if the Turkish government drops candy and money from the helicopters they will not put down their arms and surrender and hug the Turks.
A Proper Solution for terrorism
You are right, violence creates more terrorists, but sometimes it stops it as well, but of course you don't seem like someone who would do his research before writing an article so that's fine I guess. They want a piece of land, Al-Qaeda wants America to stop helping Israel, and wants Israel to get out of the Middle East, the Chechnyans want an independent state. The proper way to deal with terrorism is to attack the terrorism while helping the people and showing Kurds around the Middle East that the Turkish government is here to eliminate violence not to provoke it. You bomb 15 terrorist camps, build 5 schools for Kurdish children in South Eastern Anatolia.
Your conspiracy example
--- Next, onto your BBC conspiracy theory idea. The BBC does declare many terrorist organizations as "militant" or "rebels" instead of using "terrorist" as a word. However, I have heard them call Al-Qaeda "terrorist" on several occasions, so you're dead wrong again. Also, the BBC may not be a terrorist organization, and the Turks on Facebook are not implying that, they are saying that they support terrorism by making statements like these, and they have a point. Every time you call a known terrorist a rebel, it gives them motivation and the feeling of righteousness.
If you kill the innocent and civilians, you are a terrorist and have left the freedom-fighter club. Especially since Turkey has given freedoms to its Kurds, there is no reason to rebel against Turkey anymore. Everyone should be allowed the opportunity for forgiveness. This is why the Turkish government offers amnesty to terrorists who surrender, this is the political aspect of fighting terrorism, and the Turkish government is by far the leader in fighting terrorism.
An Analogy
Dealing with terrorism is like dealing with an irritating child. You have to show the punishment for bad deeds but ALSO the reward for good ones. This is what the Turkish government does and people like you and your nasty opinions that do nothing but convince naive minded individuals that your way is the right way-- just get off your high horse.
Headscarves in the Middle East
You're quite a radical aren't you Mustafa.
So your argument is, that disallowing headscarves in public areas of government, is an oppression to freedom. I'm sad to break it to you, but freedom is not defined by "Let's do whatever the heck we believe in" or "Let's do whatever we want!".
Learn Freedom
This is the best way I can teach you freedom, because you seem to lack any sense of it. Freedom is a circle and you are a dot in the center, when this circle grows, in an equal society, other people's freedom circle grows as well. However, what if your circle intersects someone else's circle, that's when you have a conflict of interest. This is what is occurring in Turkey, a conflict of interest, not an oppression of freedom.
Where do we draw the line?
Let me explain to you this concept a little deeper to get it through your close-minded neo-conservative head. Kemalism is progressivism and the idea of modernization, that is what Ataturk founded his party on and his nation. By your logic, that freedom should exist your imaginary world, well, then I should walk naked in the streets of your imaginary-perfect-freedom-world. Would people like that in your world? I guess you are going to argue they would enjoy it. What if my religion believes in the sacrificing of people to God (Incidents like Waco and Jonestown are related examples). You're oppressing me by putting me in jail for sacrificing a volunteer who wanted to be sacrificed to his God. Hmmm, or would you argue that you wouldn't put me in jail for that?
The Headscarf
The headscarf is a symbol of oppression, a symbol of Muslims that came AFTER Mohammed that wanted to suppress women in Islamic society. Mohammed never said to worship himself, and to live as he lived, he said to believe in God and the Quran. The Quran simply states that you should cover your private areas, not your hair, what does your hair do anyway, just a bunch of protein on top of your body. Headscarves are a tool of religion, and religion is a tool of control, this has been widely accepted by even the most liberal of all scientists, sociologists, and historians.
Why are you targeting your own country?
Mustafa, I have a personal question for you, why don't you ever seem to criticize real oppressors of freedom like France and Switzerland for taking people to court for simply expressing their point of view on the Armenian genocide theory? Where is your passionate criticism and your hate of oppression there?
Anyway, I'm sure you think you know all the answers. It's nice to know that people like you are put in this earth to use wrong logic with good writing skills to convince the world that people should be encouraged to do wrong. Oh and btw, Iran was just like Turkey once, they had a more oppressive government, but it did indeed start with small things like headscarves and evolved into full revolution. But I'm sure you think Sheriah Law is not oppressive at all.
If my belief is to walk naked in the streets then no one should stop me right?
If my belief is to carry a large sword around like the Sikhs, is it not my religious right?
If my belief is to wear a fez, it's my belief isn't it?
Oh wait that's right, Mustafa Kemal removed this, similar to how Russians don't always wear a Russian hat in the city, and similar to how in America no one wears bowl hats anymore. In fact, they also stopped wearing the 1920s-1950s era hats. They also don't wear the 1900s top hat, the kind that Abraham Lincoln and Ataturk wore.
Guess what, society has a dress code, and if your religious beliefs are making problems for others, then you do not need that right. Wearing a headscarf in a mosque is fine, it's a religious place, but it doesn't belong in the public. It's kind of like, people in Europe wearing white-curly-haired wigs everywhere, it kind of makes you an outcast nowadays.
Hello, Mr. Wilson,
I guess you think that way about Mustafa Akyol and you're criticizing him because you don't exactly have an idea what's really going on in this country.
Some politicans just won't stop using some values (like Kemalism, head-scarf etc.) to create provocations, and redirect/lead the people the way they like. What M. Akyol opposes is, just like I do, that you cannot take someone's rights away from them just because of their beliefs or dress which is unfair and doesn't comport with being laic and/or Kemalism.
Yeah people seem to be under the assumption that freedom of speech means freedom to hate. Or Freedom of religion means the freedom to promote your religion aggressively to others.
One's freedom ends where the others begins
Well Jon, as we all know there are bad apples in every group, and there are liberals, conservatives, and extremists in almost every country. This guy seems like an extremist who thinks the world will be a happy place if everyone just was free to do whatever they want, and that's just being naive. It's like the old American naive saying that people say when they do something annoying to someone else like cutting in line, "It's a free country". Even though it's not a free country anywhere, you're not free to commit murder or trample on someone else's freedoms or rights.
One more thing, these women who wear headscarves are sociologically brainwashed that way from a young age, after which they never even feel any hate toward it, in fact, they find it to be safe and the proper way to live life. If they take it off, I guess they must feel like they are committing major sins, and the Train of Consequences to Hell is coming to pick them up.
One problem is, people see the headscaf-ban as an oppression to freedom of expression, even though to me, the headscarf itself is an oppression of expression and religion. It literally is like wearing a sign that says "Hey, I'm wearing a headscarf to not go to hell, but you aren't so you'll probably burn in hell", it's a complete insult towards women of all religions. It is not Islamic law nor is it an Islamic rule. It's a corruption of Islam that needs drastic reform to fix.
If these women were given a choice to either wear the headscarf or not wear it after they are 15 or so, it wouldn't be a bad thing, because then it's the women's choice. Right now it is the sociological corruption's choice. These women are in dire need of psychiatrists because they have been psychologically harmed from a young age to require the headscarf. If God demanded that women needed head scarves they would have been born with it, or the Quran would have said it clearly while MENTIONING that the HAIR should also be covered. It does not.
Mustafa Akyol you know what you are an example of? You are an example of someone who takes the Wrong approach for the Right reason. When you should be taking the Right approach for the Right reason (freedom).