Shipwrecks Under Istanbul
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Now if you'll defend those who chop off heads, make genocides, defend past genocides, steal money while looking religious, oppress the minorities, disable education facilities, polarize the people, lie shamelessly for their own benefit, blow-up monuments of our past, force their views on others, commit massacres in the name of their beliefs, disrupt anybody else, homogenate the minorities, kill languages and cultures for national-fascist wills, kill innocent people for political benefits, accept bribes, become corrupt... then I don't know what can I do for you.
The aggressiveness of ignorance never ceased to amaze me.
This is my last reply to you. I will not bother to list and prove all my points here, there's internet, there are books, if it is that important for you, you'll find it out for yourself. Maybe one day you'll visit turkey, and see it for yourself. I'm having enough of it already.
Stop and observe an you might see them as well: Religious, Atheists, Europeans, Africans etc.
Some of them have managed to make more harm than others and Turkey -just like my home country, has a recent history (last 120 years) of killing parts of its own population just being different.
And because I can't edit my comment for who-knows-the-reason, I'll dump it here: I'm sorry that I even referred to Erdogan and that I said the things that I said after, as I caused the thread to lose its focus, which had to be the people that left those footprints here. But then again, I would not have thought that anybody would argue that people who can destroy and disregard high-importance archaeological findings for the increased speed of the construction work were not ignorant, and those who are openly fundamentalist were not so, and that I was elitist and that I had hubris for calling the miserable miserable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism
Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:
Besides, what is the point? Why are we comparing those two again?
It is common for people closest to a subject to have the biggest blind spots.
the wonderful nature of our own biases, perceptive and cognitive, is that it very difficult for us to see them.
But I surely don't want to disqualify the report of a somebody who writes from there only because his report doesn't use what in other environments would be assumed politically correct language.
Pointing out you're replacing all his achievements with the fact that he was a totalitarian. This ignores a whole host of subtly.
Nixon started the EPA. Ghengis Khan raped and murdered uncountable ancients, but kicked off a trade network (hell, global economy) and international dialogue that arguably continues today. There's no black and white at all in history.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...
And we also see how effective in working towards their goals they can be.
That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) - rather they are a bunch of Baathists including intelligence people, who are masquerading as religous fundamentalists and exploiting fundamentalists to get back into power.
But that applies to most of the politicians in my country, too, so I'm not throwing stones, just making an observation.
Leaders are seldom constrained by the ideology they proclaim.
>"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms
Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).
> That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels)
I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks.
> My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious
I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war.
On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).
And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey.
It's here already.
About your argument on not considering fundamentalists ignorant, they are. First, ignorant does not mean idiot, or stupid. Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. It's hard to believe that either a fundamentalist would wish to look at things objectively or one that does so would become anyhow a fundamentalist. There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. All I care is the things that go, monuments, people, peace, the stuff the people are made of. Those are the things that bring tears to my eyes.
I agree.
> There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent.
Don't be. They are the real elitists, the ones accepting the suffering of the millions of people as necessary in achieving their goals.
Moreover, their beliefs are also often based on the ignorant premises (religious myths!). A good example of high levels that believe in religious myths are some US politicians:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans...
I'm sure you can identify the equivalent examples by politicians/activists closer to you.
True, but also read once, if you haven't, 1984, the book, per Wikipedia:
"Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, or "Minitrue", as an editor responsible for historical revisionism. He rewrites records and alters photographs to conform to the state's ever-changing version of the truth"
Then try to find how many people know what the countries did before, like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
Always do your own research, sometimes the things that the leaders like to be ignored as the "conspiracy theories" in the current political moment actually happened and give a very different view to the whole context.
That part is really interesting. For those HN-ers not interested in those times, there is the "Black Sea deluge hypothesis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis) which says something like this:
> The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus strait
Why does it have to take that long to dig up these ships and start the works?