|
|
Post by nisse on Jun 1, 2007 3:50:33 GMT 3
I wonder if the things that I read under the wikipedia article is true I just read al the info about ataturk in wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrkHe was surely a very good commander. He did so much for the turkish people, its not strange that he is a hero in turkey, but I wonder what you guys think of him, |
|
|
|
Post by balamir on Jun 1, 2007 16:51:53 GMT 3
He is our father.He is our "Ata".
|
|
|
|
Post by tengrikut on Jun 1, 2007 20:06:45 GMT 3
he didnt like being called as "ata"
|
|
|
|
Post by nisse on Jun 1, 2007 21:02:51 GMT 3
I read in wikipedia that he said,
"A ruler who needs religion to help him rule is a weakling. No weakling should rule.."
I like that, I can only agree with him
|
|
|
|
Post by balamir on Jun 2, 2007 13:08:28 GMT 3
he didnt like being called as "ata" But he is our Ata ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2007 14:21:59 GMT 3
I think he was a great leader although I don't agree with some things he did. He was great in organizing us, leading us and kicking all the invaders' assess and he was also great in fixing our economy. But I think he went too far with the "modernization" of Turkish culture. It's as if, deep inside, he didn't like his own culture and now this same mentality is stuck in the Turks of today's Turkey.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 3, 2007 3:06:16 GMT 3
As a historian, I can see many more good things he did. He is my personal hero and I show little tolerance when someone says negative things about him.
However, I find two mistakes among his works:
1) He should have separated the ways of Turks and Kurds. We didn't need to rule th Kurds after we got our independence (but he didn't let them become independence because of strategic reasons).
2) He should have added a few more letters to the alphabet.
|
|
|
|
Post by nisse on Jun 3, 2007 3:38:40 GMT 3
what do you mean , that they should get independent
what do you mean
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 3, 2007 23:19:08 GMT 3
what do you mean , that they should get independent They should have, not now. We should use Hard K, Hard G, Hard L, Long A, Long I, Long E, Long U for proper writing and reading. |
|
|
|
Post by tangriberdi on Jun 4, 2007 2:41:00 GMT 3
As a historian, I can see many more good things he did. He is my personal hero and I show little tolerance when someone says negative things about him. However, I find two mistakes among his works: 1) He should have separated the ways of Turks and Kurds. We didn't need to rule th Kurds after we got our independence (but he didn't let them become independence because of strategic reasons). 2) He should have added a few more letters to the alphabet. Dear tigin. I totally agree with you. But I would like to remind you that when Ottoman empire still existing and possessing the Balkan and Arabian territories, Ataturk was one of those who proposed to redraw the borders to what is mostly Turkish lands. This was called National Oath (Misak-ý Milli) And Misaki Milli also contains Western Thrace, The Twelve Ýslands, Cyprus, Batumi, Musul. In his era, all those teritories had majority Turkish population. That is why Turkish borders of present time also includes the Kurdish inhabited areas like Eastern Anatolia and Musul. In that time they were not more than 6% in Eastern Anatolia and 20%in Musul. They reproduced abnormally, out of traditions and all perceptionms of humanity. So they started to get Majority in Eastern Anatolia. And with the beginning of PKK Kurdish terrorism they murdered and slaughtered thousands of local Turks. Kurds committed a Genocide against local East Anatolian Turks after they had the majority in population. Those who were killed by PKK were mostly local Turks surrounded by increasing Kurds. Except those Turks who Kurds killed , they sent thousands of Turks out of the region towards the Western Turkey.. And Many Turks had to escape from the region. And Under these circumstances I think we should re-think about the borders of Misaki Milli and we should redraw towards not Kurdisifed regions of Turkey. This redrawal should be done in accordance with the ethnic ditribution in 1927 census. I am open to all objections but these are just the reality that we face, if you look carefully through the events you come up with that result. Anatolia is gradually Kurdicized. We will be separated from Kurds or we will become Kurdified within years. That is all. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 4, 2007 23:47:48 GMT 3
My suggestion would be to send away the majority of Kurds from Turkey, not giving away any pieces of land because that would be useful for bloody imperialists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jun 5, 2007 8:50:39 GMT 3
sisin't it ppssible to do some exchance with Turkmens in kerkük?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2007 9:33:31 GMT 3
That's a good idea, but I think the Turkmen in North Iraq would want their land too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2007 9:37:01 GMT 3
Giving the Kurds a chunk of our land for their Kurdistan while we form a Turan isn't as good an idea as you think. It may ease the problems in Turkey and Turan but Kurdistan would just be another nation between Turkey and the Turks in Central Asia. We'll just be pushing ourselves further away, geographically, from them. Plus, a Kurdistan would cause a whole lot of nuts in the Middle East, Turkey and other Turks border the Middle East and a lot of Turks live there too. These problems could fall into our hands as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 5, 2007 18:45:11 GMT 3
Furthermore, they would serve American, British and Israeli imperialism, just like what the Armenians did in the beginning of the last century.
|
|
