Turkey to have their "do you want your country to become a dictatorship" referendum on April 16th

[Honey Honey]

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 4/16/2017 at 0:19 PM, HoneyNUFC said:

Erdogan is claiming victory. 51.3% apparently.

2 years until the next General Election.

It makes you wonder about whether the man who could become a dictator would pull a card from the dictator deck and rig an election. Seems plausible and the party Ataturk founded seems to think so.

Or at least they did before they were beaten in the streets and detained.

Erdogan's also learned from Putin and paid for an army of internet goons and his state media to go around trumpeting his far-right ideology to Turks worldwide.

It's a disturbing trend, and when you look at what Duterte has done in the Philippines and you look at Erdogan post-coup, it makes me wonder where the world is headed.

[Inverted]

It's a shame that Turkey has totally abandoned the path that Mustafa Kemal set. Turkey was meant to be the great beacon of hope for democratic secularism in the Muslim world.

Now it's a choice between secular despots like Assad, theocratic authoritarianism like in Iran and Saudi Arabia, or corrupt Islamist democracy like Iraq or Pakistan. 

[Vegan Kel]

Islam and democracy don't mix. At all

[Honey Honey]

Disagree. Turkey's history is evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy and that it is actually unsafe environments that are not compatible with democracy. Hence in the economic climate and unstable border Turkey finds itself in it has lurched away from democracy.

History shows this to be fairly consistent trend regardless of the main religion's.

The safer the environment the more open a religion becomes and adapts.

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Disagree. Turkey's history is evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy and that it is actually unsafe environments that are not compatible with democracy. Hence in the economic climate and unstable border Turkey finds itself in it has lurched away from democracy.

History shows this to be fairly consistent trend regardless of the main religion's.

The safer the environment the more open a religion becomes and adapts.

Quiet with your history and facts. Only emotional arguments work.

[Fairy In Boots]

7 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Disagree. Turkey's history is evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy and that it is actually unsafe environments that are not compatible with democracy. Hence in the economic climate and unstable border Turkey finds itself in it has lurched away from democracy.

History shows this to be fairly consistent trend regardless of the main religion's.

The safer the environment the more open a religion becomes and adapts.

Sorry Harv I'm not having that the Ottoman Empire which was basically Turkey had waged wars in the name of religion for hundreds of years as well as committing genocide in Armenia. Secular Turkey was an example of how secularism is necessary for a democracy to work. The regression currently taking place will prove that in years to come. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Fairy In Boots said:

Sorry Harv I'm not having that the Ottoman Empire which was basically Turkey had waged wars in the name of religion for hundreds of years as well as committing genocide in Armenia. Secular Turkey was an example of how secularism is necessary for a democracy to work. The regression currently taking place will prove that in years to come. 

But since the fall of the Ottoman Empire up until the Erdogan disaster, Turkey was a secular country that had a Muslim majority. Much like our secular democracies that have a Christian majority.

Personally, I think all religion is a blight on human society. It is simply a holdover from where people didn't know anything and needed stories to come up with explanations of how things happened and to provide morality and a social structure. It has also been the longest cause of "well, I can't prove what I believe... but I believe it, therefore it must be true" -- which is an utterly ridiculous line of thinking.

And I have to concede, of all of the religions to pose the biggest problem to global stability - Islam is the obvious standout. Look at ISIS, for the easiest example. Much of its leadership is former Saddam Hussein advisors, Baathist party members who aren't particularly religious. But they're recruiting in droves with religion, because it's an easy way to manipulate uneducated, desperate, and a hyper-radicalized group of people. Also look at Iran, a former ally and secular Middle Eastern country - but decades of a dictator western puppet and not being able to control things like the price of their own oil exports had them crashing down into a repressive theocratic authoritarian government.

The Middle East is incredibly fucked up, and Islam plays a big part in that. In an ideal world there wouldn't be any religion. After all, religion is probably the historically largest cause of death and human suffering/misery ever. But that's an unrealistic pipe dream because so many people cling to religion, so what we can hope for is that at some point there will be some kind of reformation in Islam, as there was with Christianity and Judaism (which started centuries ago, but is still ongoing and something that will hopefully long continue).

[Spike]

32 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Sorry Harv I'm not having that the Ottoman Empire which was basically Turkey had waged wars in the name of religion for hundreds of years as well as committing genocide in Armenia. Secular Turkey was an example of how secularism is necessary for a democracy to work. The regression currently taking place will prove that in years to come. 

That which you have posted isn't mutually exclusive to democracy. The much lauded political concept of democracy has created as many monsters and tyrants as monarchism, demagoguery, theocratic authoritarianism, and everything in between. Democracy always follows the people's will and if the will of the people is to ethnically cleanse Armenians than that system has succeeded in it's application. Democracy isn't an inherent 'good' it is merely a tool and tools have not use other than what their wielder desires.

[Spike]

On 4/16/2017 at 7:49 PM, Tsubasa said:

Most of the yes-votes came from Turks living in Germany, Holland etc. They should just move to Turkey then, and see if they'd still like it. Let's see if their glorious leader is still so great up-close when you actually have to live in those conditions. 

How much of an issue is Turkish immigration to Germany (if it is at all)? Do the majority assimilate into German culture and life or do they prop up 'ghettos' that act as 'Little Istanbuls'. I can't say I've met too many (if any) Turkish people in Australia or USA.

[Tommy]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

How much of an issue is Turkish immigration to Germany (if it is at all)? Do the majority assimilate into German culture and life or do they prop up 'ghettos' that act as 'Little Istanbuls'. I can't say I've met too many (if any) Turkish people in Australia or USA.

 

Well, there are "getthos" were Turks live that don't want to assimilate. They refuse to learn the language & stick to their own. The younger ones often turn to crime and usually have a very poor education. But then you also got the German-Turks who live just like your regular Germans, go to University etc. I don't know what the percentage is but I'd say it's 60/40 in favour of the "ghettos". 

Here's a famous street in Cologne where you only have Turkish shops and "cafes". 

[Spike]

29 minutes ago, Tsubasa said:

 

Well, there are "getthos" were Turks live that don't want to assimilate. They refuse to learn the language & stick to their own. The younger ones often turn to crime and usually have a very poor education. But then you also got the German-Turks who live just like your regular Germans, go to University etc. I don't know what the percentage is but I'd say it's 60/40 in favour of the "ghettos". 

Here's a famous street in Cologne where you only have Turkish shops and "cafes". 

I hate that. It's almost insulting, 'we want to reap all the benefits of your nation but we don't want to be a part of it'. There is nothing wrong with retaining culture and identity but ultimately immigrants should assimilate to their new home's language and customs. For instance I think that street would be marvelous if it was selling Turkish products to Germans and was welcoming to German influence.

[Honey Honey]

That people carry out bad acts in the name of religion ignores that people also live in peace in the name of religion. 

That very contradiction immediately makes any claim that the religion is the absolute cause of evil or peace to be highly questionable. 

The most plausible theory for the existence of this gap and contradiction to me is human interaction with the environment with a side sprinkling of cultural interaction leading to variances within religions, between religions, away from religions.

Is it not so that authoritarianism thrives in instability but retreats and is worn down in stability regardless of religion? Is it not so that the few individuals left who score highly for authoritarianism in stable western societies also report higher levels of anxiety, paranoia and other unstable world experiences? What if the environment was unstable to the majority and not just a few loose cannons? Is it not then possible that they would lurch towards an authoritarianism that matches the moment within that given culture and religion even within a secular democratic system? As has happened before in Europe.

Beneath the surface of those using religion or any political message as a means for hate is a human to be analysed as a human alongside their message being analysed. If we stay on the surface we can only dehumanize by analysing the message alone, in this case the interpretation of Islam. This causes people to make freeze frame assumptions such as the incompatibility of Islam with democracy despite evidence to the contrary.

[Fairy In Boots]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But since the fall of the Ottoman Empire up until the Erdogan disaster, Turkey was a secular country that had a Muslim majority. Much like our secular democracies that have a Christian majority.

Personally, I think all religion is a blight on human society. It is simply a holdover from where people didn't know anything and needed stories to come up with explanations of how things happened and to provide morality and a social structure. It has also been the longest cause of "well, I can't prove what I believe... but I believe it, therefore it must be true" -- which is an utterly ridiculous line of thinking.

And I have to concede, of all of the religions to pose the biggest problem to global stability - Islam is the obvious standout. Look at ISIS, for the easiest example. Much of its leadership is former Saddam Hussein advisors, Baathist party members who aren't particularly religious. But they're recruiting in droves with religion, because it's an easy way to manipulate uneducated, desperate, and a hyper-radicalized group of people. Also look at Iran, a former ally and secular Middle Eastern country - but decades of a dictator western puppet and not being able to control things like the price of their own oil exports had them crashing down into a repressive theocratic authoritarian government.

The Middle East is incredibly fucked up, and Islam plays a big part in that. In an ideal world there wouldn't be any religion. After all, religion is probably the historically largest cause of death and human suffering/misery ever. But that's an unrealistic pipe dream because so many people cling to religion, so what we can hope for is that at some point there will be some kind of reformation in Islam, as there was with Christianity and Judaism (which started centuries ago, but is still ongoing and something that will hopefully long continue).

I'd agree with that, the only thing I'd add is what makes Islam that bit worse than the others is the sharia system. 

2 hours ago, Spike said:

That which you have posted isn't mutually exclusive to democracy. The much lauded political concept of democracy has created as many monsters and tyrants as monarchism, demagoguery, theocratic authoritarianism, and everything in between. Democracy always follows the people's will and if the will of the people is to ethnically cleanse Armenians than that system has succeeded in it's application. Democracy isn't an inherent 'good' it is merely a tool and tools have not use other than what their wielder desires.

Yeah I'm fairness democracy was probably the wrong word. Secular state would have been better. 

[Fairy In Boots]

1 hour ago, HoneyNUFC said:

That people carry out bad acts in the name of religion ignores that people also live in peace in the name of religion. 

That very contradiction immediately makes any claim that the religion is the absolute cause of evil or peace to be highly questionable. 

The most plausible theory for the existence of this gap and contradiction to me is human interaction with the environment with a side sprinkling of cultural interaction leading to variances within religions, between religions, away from religions.

Is it not so that authoritarianism thrives in instability but retreats and is worn down in stability regardless of religion? Is it not so that the few individuals left who score highly for authoritarianism in stable western societies also report higher levels of anxiety, paranoia and other unstable world experiences? What if the environment was unstable to the majority and not just a few loose cannons? Is it not then possible that they would lurch towards an authoritarianism that matches the moment within that given culture and religion even within a secular democratic system? As has happened before in Europe.

Beneath the surface of those using religion or any political message as a means for hate is a human to be analysed as a human alongside their message being analysed. If we stay on the surface we can only dehumanize by analysing the message alone, in this case the interpretation of Islam. This causes people to make freeze frame assumptions such as the incompatibility of Islam with democracy despite evidence to the contrary.

Have you done some sort of psychology qualification? 

As this is descending into Islam again, my point is simply that of course it's incompatible with western interpretation of democracy because its purpose is to have a state of sharia, a  political system different to the current one we have through our democracy. Or if we're really going to split hairs, it's  an alternative ideal that controls the direction of a democracy. Erdogan is using islamism to determine the direction of democracy no? 

The problem is the vulnerability of democracy when religion with specific ideals become a large enough collective to exert control over the democracy. No doubt all that can be worded much more eloquently but you get my drift. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

58 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I'd agree with that, the only thing I'd add is what makes Islam that bit worse than the others is the sharia system. 

Yeah I'm fairness democracy was probably the wrong word. Secular state would have been better. 

I agree with you that Sharia is a dangerous and awful system. Religion and politics are an awful mix. But while it's not that much of a problem in the UK, I think it's a huge problem in the US. The Bible-belt of America very much would like to do away with the separation of church and state that has existed in the United States. They very much feel US laws should reflect the teachings of Christ. These people are less dangerous than people who are going around committing terrorism around the globe - but they're still dangerous people.

Sharia is only something I think only radical practitioners of the religion believe in, as you'd have to if you wanted to impose a global caliphate (which also is contradictory of Mohammed saying Muslims should let Jews & Christians practice their religion in peace - but there are a lot of fucking contradictions with the Koran and the practice of these radicals; as there are in the Bible & the radicals of the Bible-belt). So the problem the West faces is, how do we deal with this radical practice of the religion?

And it's a very tough problem we face, with no real easy answers. First, we have to look at the history of the region I think to best understand how things are the way they are today. The UK and US have played a big part in making the Middle East the huge colossal mess it is today.

We've propped up the House of Saud & Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an "ally" in the region because we give them money and weapons for oil. Yet they're also big funders of radical clerics and sponsors of terrorism (arguably the biggest sponsors of terrorism). That is well documented. Yet we are okay with them, because of the black gold that makes our cars run.

Saudi Arabia is also where Osama Bin Laden and most of the September 11th hijackers are from. If we look at the 1980s, the United States provided training, equipment, and funding to Osama Bin Laden when he was a leader of the Mujahideen, fighting with the Taliban to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan. While it was the Cold War, there was so much support given to these fighters... despite the fact it was known they were practicing a very extreme form of Islam and had extreme beliefs. You fast forward 2 decades from that, and you've got a well organized terror organization conducting the largest terror attack on American soil... orchestrated by the people America itself had once trained and supported. It's also worth noting that Afghanistan has been dealing with foreign intervention for decades. Fighting out the foreign invaders is something of a national pastime there - and when you consider that, you should consider that people there are distrustful of any foreign intervention there at all. And if you look at what it was like in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion... you wouldn't believe it at all. Massive changes from a secular society to one controlled by the Taliban.

And let's also take Iran. A former British protectorate, had Reza Shah put in power by the UK. We liked him because he was a believer in Ataturk's secular society and we set up the company that would later be BP to extract Iranian oil to feed our empire. World War 2 rolls around, and Reza Shah tries to sell oil to the Nazis. The UK, understandably, cuts the strings of its puppet. Russia and the UK remain the most prominent foreign actors in Iran, with us having more of the balance of power. In the 1950s, Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected P.M. of Iran states it's his intention to nationalise Iranian oil - taking the control away from BP & the UK. He's removed from power and Reza Shah's son, Mohammed Reza Shah comes back into power. He's more secular than the current regime by far. And you can ask any Iranian who lived under both regimes, where they were more free and the answer will universally be under the Shah. But at the time, remember that he had very strict censorship of any criticism against him. And he had SAVAK - a brutal secret police. There were many groups that were part of the 1979 revolution, but the militant groups with the most arms that stole control were the theocratic clerics who now rule Iran even more brutally and repressively than the Shah ever did.

George W Bush & Tony Blair, invaded Iraq and indirectly are the founders of ISIS. I fully blame them for ISIS existing. I'll keep that one short because it's more recent and we know all about it. My point is - what the fuck do we do now? I'd argue that Western intervention in the Middle East has made the place a lot fucking worse than it ever had to be. At the same time, the reality is, we're fully dependent on their oil and we've created some radical enemies for us to worry about. So it's not as though we can just fuck the region off and hope it gets better by itself.

It's really the trickiest situation for anybody who has anything to do with foreign policy to deal with. On the one hand, we need Islam to reform and modernise... but that needs to come from those people, it cannot come from the us. And if it did come from us, considering the history of the region, could you blame them if they didn't think it wasn't worth listening to us. And how the fuck would we manage to do that, other than an occupation that could potentially last a century or more? And on the other hand, we cannot stop intervening in the Middle East because it's a worldwide security issue for us, we rely on oil, and in a global economy they rely on us too.

And going back to the radical religious people in the United States... there are a number of US Evangelicals who believe we need to have a massive holy war in order for Jesus to come down. Jesus is also in Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam), although he's not the Messiah, but he is a prophet. Playing into the idea of a massive global conflict between Islam v. the West plays into the hands of these radicals on both sides... and at the expense of the world's safety and numerous innocent lives on both sides. And that's even without discussing the fucking disaster that is Israel.

The Middle East is truly a fucked up region.

[Honey Honey]

3 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Have you done some sort of psychology qualification? 

As this is descending into Islam again, my point is simply that of course it's incompatible with western interpretation of democracy because its purpose is to have a state of sharia, a  political system different to the current one we have through our democracy. Or if we're really going to split hairs, it's  an alternative ideal that controls the direction of a democracy. Erdogan is using islamism to determine the direction of democracy no? 

The problem is the vulnerability of democracy when religion with specific ideals become a large enough collective to exert control over the democracy. No doubt all that can be worded much more eloquently but you get my drift. 

lol yes, I have a couple of qualifications which influence my posting style, but the content of them wasn't directly related to politics or religion. 

What makes it a large enough collective? Why now? Why not before? Why do people willingly regress from being a more open society? It's the perceived instability of the environment they live in. It shifts people's attitudes and subjective experiences. 

Like all religions, Islam is the conservative value within its culture. The longer a community is stable the more conservatism weakens and interpretation of a religion changes to being more open in this period. When a community is unstable people will turn to the safety of whatever the conservative values of that day are. Where those ideas come from is neither here nor there, they are just the conservative ideas that belong to that communities history at a specific time of instability and fear. 

I reject the idea that Islam is exempt from this, that what Erdogan is doing is inevitable, that people can't change their interpretation of Islam. That is what is being implied by saying Islam isn't compatible with democracy. There are muslims who aren't nutcases, who don't believe in Sharia law, which is evidence that Islam is part of the same process as every other society.

[Vegan Kel]

Muslims that don't want sharia law... the '19 hijackers who did 9/11 even though half of them have been proved to still be alive'... 'reform Islam' which would involve abandoning the example of Muhammad, abandoning sharia law and the belief that the Qur'an is the literal word of God... Making references to passages from the Qur'an that have been abrogated... don't even know where to start with this absolute drivel

[Fairy In Boots]

20 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree with you that Sharia is a dangerous and awful system. Religion and politics are an awful mix. But while it's not that much of a problem in the UK, I think it's a huge problem in the US. The Bible-belt of America very much would like to do away with the separation of church and state that has existed in the United States. They very much feel US laws should reflect the teachings of Christ. These people are less dangerous than people who are going around committing terrorism around the globe - but they're still dangerous people.

Sharia is only something I think only radical practitioners of the religion believe in, as you'd have to if you wanted to impose a global caliphate (which also is contradictory of Mohammed saying Muslims should let Jews & Christians practice their religion in peace - but there are a lot of fucking contradictions with the Koran and the practice of these radicals; as there are in the Bible & the radicals of the Bible-belt). So the problem the West faces is, how do we deal with this radical practice of the religion?

And it's a very tough problem we face, with no real easy answers. First, we have to look at the history of the region I think to best understand how things are the way they are today. The UK and US have played a big part in making the Middle East the huge colossal mess it is today.

We've propped up the House of Saud & Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an "ally" in the region because we give them money and weapons for oil. Yet they're also big funders of radical clerics and sponsors of terrorism (arguably the biggest sponsors of terrorism). That is well documented. Yet we are okay with them, because of the black gold that makes our cars run.

Saudi Arabia is also where Osama Bin Laden and most of the September 11th hijackers are from. If we look at the 1980s, the United States provided training, equipment, and funding to Osama Bin Laden when he was a leader of the Mujahideen, fighting with the Taliban to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan. While it was the Cold War, there was so much support given to these fighters... despite the fact it was known they were practicing a very extreme form of Islam and had extreme beliefs. You fast forward 2 decades from that, and you've got a well organized terror organization conducting the largest terror attack on American soil... orchestrated by the people America itself had once trained and supported. It's also worth noting that Afghanistan has been dealing with foreign intervention for decades. Fighting out the foreign invaders is something of a national pastime there - and when you consider that, you should consider that people there are distrustful of any foreign intervention there at all. And if you look at what it was like in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion... you wouldn't believe it at all. Massive changes from a secular society to one controlled by the Taliban.

And let's also take Iran. A former British protectorate, had Reza Shah put in power by the UK. We liked him because he was a believer in Ataturk's secular society and we set up the company that would later be BP to extract Iranian oil to feed our empire. World War 2 rolls around, and Reza Shah tries to sell oil to the Nazis. The UK, understandably, cuts the strings of its puppet. Russia and the UK remain the most prominent foreign actors in Iran, with us having more of the balance of power. In the 1950s, Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected P.M. of Iran states it's his intention to nationalise Iranian oil - taking the control away from BP & the UK. He's removed from power and Reza Shah's son, Mohammed Reza Shah comes back into power. He's more secular than the current regime by far. And you can ask any Iranian who lived under both regimes, where they were more free and the answer will universally be under the Shah. But at the time, remember that he had very strict censorship of any criticism against him. And he had SAVAK - a brutal secret police. There were many groups that were part of the 1979 revolution, but the militant groups with the most arms that stole control were the theocratic clerics who now rule Iran even more brutally and repressively than the Shah ever did.

George W Bush & Tony Blair, invaded Iraq and indirectly are the founders of ISIS. I fully blame them for ISIS existing. I'll keep that one short because it's more recent and we know all about it. My point is - what the fuck do we do now? I'd argue that Western intervention in the Middle East has made the place a lot fucking worse than it ever had to be. At the same time, the reality is, we're fully dependent on their oil and we've created some radical enemies for us to worry about. So it's not as though we can just fuck the region off and hope it gets better by itself.

It's really the trickiest situation for anybody who has anything to do with foreign policy to deal with. On the one hand, we need Islam to reform and modernise... but that needs to come from those people, it cannot come from the us. And if it did come from us, considering the history of the region, could you blame them if they didn't think it wasn't worth listening to us. And how the fuck would we manage to do that, other than an occupation that could potentially last a century or more? And on the other hand, we cannot stop intervening in the Middle East because it's a worldwide security issue for us, we rely on oil, and in a global economy they rely on us too.

And going back to the radical religious people in the United States... there are a number of US Evangelicals who believe we need to have a massive holy war in order for Jesus to come down. Jesus is also in Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam), although he's not the Messiah, but he is a prophet. Playing into the idea of a massive global conflict between Islam v. the West plays into the hands of these radicals on both sides... and at the expense of the world's safety and numerous innocent lives on both sides. And that's even without discussing the fucking disaster that is Israel.

The Middle East is truly a fucked up region.

I'd agree with you about the house of Saud, and that colonisation and the carving up of the Middle East post WW1 have been disasters for those regions. Also agree on separation of state & religion. 

I'd argue that end of the Ottoman Empire is also something we rarely factor in, all empires fracture and the various splinters fight amongst themselves as the new natural power establishes itself. Because we divided these places with the "mandates" we've often gone over pre-existing sectarian divisions in a very tribal part of the world. 

The Ottoman Empire was effectively the caliphate anyway as it pretty much encompassed the Islamic world at that time. The main form of law was Sharia, and none believers were often second in the eyes of the law coupled with various forms of ethnic cleansing throughout the years. It's why if you look at the history and expansion of Islam on many occasions it's simply because it was economically advantageous to be a Muslim, less tax equal rites with the rest of the populace, less likely to be treated poorly or abused. If you were secular wouldn't you just identify with a faith rather than get potentially violently assaulted? 

19 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

lol yes, I have a couple of qualifications which influence my posting style, but the content of them wasn't directly related to politics or religion. 

What makes it a large enough collective? Why now? Why not before? Why do people willingly regress from being a more open society? It's the perceived instability of the environment they live in. It shifts people's attitudes and subjective experiences. 

Like all religions, Islam is the conservative value within its culture. The longer a community is stable the more conservatism weakens and interpretation of a religion changes to being more open in this period. When a community is unstable people will turn to the safety of whatever the conservative values of that day are. Where those ideas come from is neither here nor there, they are just the conservative ideas that belong to that communities history at a specific time of instability and fear. 

I reject the idea that Islam is exempt from this, that what Erdogan is doing is inevitable, that people can't change their interpretation of Islam. That is what is being implied by saying Islam isn't compatible with democracy. There are muslims who aren't nutcases, who don't believe in Sharia law, which is evidence that Islam is part of the same process as every other society.

I thought you'd done something, just be aware a picture of Dr Frasier Crane will be appearing in the mental image thread. 

I can fully understand the idea that people turn to extreme ideology at times of stress. Although as we're talking about Turkey that surely makes Ataturk all the more incredible, a declining empire, wars on both fronts after the Great War. Yet he succeeded in radical progressive reforms in a relatively short space of time. It can't have been a safe environment yet he succeeded. 

On islam being inevitable I'd say it is simply because the system of Sharia is built into it and it's a duty of religious people to install it wherever they go. This is the main difference between Islam and the other abhramic religions. 

That may not be Islam itself but it's such a good tool for those seaking to suppress others ideals or rites or gain advantage other others that it's always going to be used. People are just stupid, religion takes advantage of this, Islam more so because it's been used to attack culture for years and it's suppressive of conflicting ideals. Just look at polling on moderates that support sharia it's not mainstream but it's significantly more that a few radicals. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

31 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I'd argue that end of the Ottoman Empire is also something we rarely factor in, all empires fracture and the various splinters fight amongst themselves as the new natural power establishes itself. Because we divided these places with the "mandates" we've often gone over pre-existing sectarian divisions in a very tribal part of the world.  

I agree with that. The same sort of thing happened with Africa too. But because the Middle East is so oil rich, they've been of political geo-strategic importance so there's been much more constant meddling since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I also am in agreement with Harvey that the general instability leads to more prevalent extremist views. The thing that I don't quite really understand, particularly as a half-Iranian half-English person who's family fled Iran to come to Britain during the revolution, is how young European immigrants can fall for that same extremist rhetoric while living in the West. What Iran used to be is much closer to the West than what it is now - and I can't see how anyone thinks that Islamic law would be a good thing - having family that's lived under both secular Iran & theocratic Iran. Yet we hear about Pakistani kids leaving England to go join ISIS and we've got shit like our European-born nutters doing terror attacks here. That shite legitimately makes no sense to me at all.

Having said that, there's a reason why my family fled rather than stayed (although my great-aunt was kicked out pre-revolution for being critical of the Shah, but that was because she was against his censorship and the brutality of SAVAK, rather than because she was a religious nutter - she was a cool lady). They came to the UK in the late 70s/80s and assimilated pretty fucking easily, from what I can tell at least. But my family is incredibly un-religious... so my experience is probably much different to some kid who's brought here with parents who are devout believers.

As I've said before, the Middle East has a pretty fascinating history. But it's also a very fucked up history that resulted in it being the colossal mess it is today. I don't think there's any easy answer for what to do about the problem of radical Islam and those who believe in Sharia law and a global caliphate. A shutdown on immigrants/refugees will probably stop some bad people in - but is also likely to force a lot of innocent people to suffer. Bombing them after each attack will likely feed into the us v. them mentality among the extremists and make them more... extreme. Leaving the region alone entirely will likely lead to shitty people taking over and doing shitty things to people in the Middle East, and likely the world. Too much foreign intervention in in the Middle East will likely be met with skepticism though, considering the long history of foreign intervention not ever really helping out any of the people that live there - other than the people who are propped up for the oil they'll give to us.

I just don't understand how stability can ever really be maintained in the region without mass revolutions from the people who live in those countries against repressive theocracies. But realistically, that's not going to happen without help from the West. And realistically help from the West will be met with skepticism and give these shite extremists a propaganda tool to denounce people trying to bring about good and quality change. We saw this sort of propaganda used even when the West isn't getting directly involved - see the protests to the 2009 Iranian Presidential Election - where people protested because of an obviously rigged election.

There's no easy answer or easy solution. I do think too many voices on both sides thinking "it's us vs. them and we can't live with these people" will only end up being awful for everybody. But it's not like democracy and Islam aren't compatible or haven't ever been compatible. We've seen it before Erdogan's "foiled coup" and subsequent election to become a dictator, and we saw it in Iran before the West stifled their democracy and put in their own puppet.