Israel at 19% positive. That is rather bizarre.

USA and Israel is best friends, thats why.

No wait turns out I was reading this incorrectly. The 19% figure makes perfect sense then.

wow, a world of nazi's

wow, a fake account that's retarded to boot.

wow, quality orthography by soro's

I wa's think ing the sa'me

nazi's what?

its philosophy.

Statistics like those mean nothink.

don't be silly!

hello friends :)

israel likes japan the most, japan hates israel the most.. lol

*nice, everyone seems to like the EU.. except libanon, turkey and egypt :p

Can anyone tell my why Turkey doesn't like France? And why Israel has the overall rating of Iran? Why does Libanon like France but not the EU? Why does Egypt love Russia (and China)?

Might have something to do with France being totally opposed to Turkey joining the EU just because they can.

Turkey seems to be the country that most consistently manages to dislike other nations it seems ;D

Oh yeah and most of these countries say that Turkey commited genocide. That's why France is way higher than that of say Germany. France are very public about how Turkey need to admit to it but of course Turkey deny it.

Also Turkey are in quite a unique position being an in a nation in between Europe and the Middle East, being a largely Muslim nation but having strong secular beliefs (Explains why they are anti-middle east nations). However they get hostility from Europe over things such as joining the EU, Cyprus, the genocide thing etc.

So they see the bad sides of both.

I like how they (And everyone else it seems) loves Japan though.

Hehe.. Well Turkey does have that paragraph about "Do not offend Turkishness" :p

South-Korea seems to have issues with Japan, what's that about? South-Korea seems like a nice place.. :o

Probably constantly arguing over fishing/economic stuff.

Also could stem back to imperial Japan (old feelings die hard?)

I'm guessing the latter; they nev0r forget.

Another question; why does Germany hate the US as much as Turkey?

too many turkish people in Germany :P

Nah, really. Turkey is not that bad overall they haven't started a war lately! And it's not like there wasn't a genocide in North America.

And North America is in Europe?

Oh and LMAO@"France being totally opposed to Turkey joining the EU just because they can." Yea man, there is no reason whatever to be opposed to that! Sheesh.

P.S. Sorry, couldn't be bothered to make two comments.

the US as much as Turkey


wanted to point out that both countries were involved in a genocide and always try to play it down.

difference is, in the us it's a hot topic, in turkey it's a topic that gets you thrown in jail

it's not a hot topic in the us

could be^2

i don't know where you got that information m8 but noone got thrown in jail because of speaking of genocide in Turkey. the point you are right is that one of our law entries(famous 301) is seen to be quite open to interpretation. and yes, ppl are sued by the law entry 301 but the point you were disinformed is NOONE is jailed, noone found guilty.

*one thing i should add is, imo this being open to interpretation about 301 cost a life of the most precious bridge between Turkey and diaspora, Hrant Dink. he was symbolized by some radical nationalist(also with religious roots) media and he is killed. i feel deeply sorry for that. i never ignore this, neither do i want you to think that Turkish law jails ppl if they say genocide happened. *

and you know what, there are countries which JAILED historians because of their academic views in eu.

today this issue is highly political. academicians supporting both claims are exposed to smear campaigns, it's sad.

if you really want to have an objective idea about what happened, you may read the document i gave below along with armenian claims.

The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independant Armenian Republic

Translated from the Original by Matthew A. Callender
Edited by John Roy Carlson (Arthur A. Derounian)

SEARCH ON NET (this book is strictly banned by armenian diaspora)

well what about this guy? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4205708.stm

One of Turkey's best-known novelists faces three years in jail for making controversial comments on his country's killing of Armenians and Kurds.

that guy has never ever been jailed mate, but as i said he is sued from 301, found not guilty.

this 301 you talk about

A person who, being a Turk, explicitly insults the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months to three years."

True, after his prosecution, he wasn't found guilty, he wasn't found not-guilty either. The case was dismissed on a technicality, perhaps because the matter drew huge international(western) attention, and the charges were dropped in the same week EU begun reviewing turkeys application, I have no idea.

I do agree with some things in that article you linked me to, namely that germans/austrians are hypocrits advocating free speech. And I do believe history should be left to the historians, and it is, but failure by governments to acknowledge genocide they committed is unaccaptable, outright denying it and prosecuting people for speaking what is widely known as truth(by historians) is also unaccaptable if an islam and asian nation wants EU acceptance.

imo this is such a deep issue that has a long history besides its being a historical issue either.
it is highly political and historians from both sides are accused of lying, also they accuse each other.
there is also a great number of historians that say 1915 was not a genocide. also it is not scientific to say that what is widely known is the truth. furthermore, when talking about history it is harder to conclude to truths.
imo it is a little egocentric that you think eu is the reason the case is dropped and the 'if asian and islam...' . objectively thought, there is no such standard as 'asian and islam', it is such a huge scope that can hardly have a common, apart from the topic itself.

You say there are great number of historians that are in disagreement. I don't pretend to be expert on the subject, but what I do know from history i learned at school and articles on the internet is that most all historians agree on this subject, much like all historians agree that the holocaust actually happened. You make it sound like there's a controversy amongst historians outside of Turkey? You'll need to elaborate on that.

How is it egocentrical of me to assume that he was released due to EU appliance and western attention of the case? This case was a big factor regarding the general public perception of your country, and good perception is a big part of what Turkey needs to get accepted. Much like western media getting hold of Turkeys youtube restrictment, and the countless other free-speech violations hurts your country.
So maybe it's more the case of you being naive to think they don't think that way? Yes, asia and islam is a huge scope, but what part that scope is currently part of the European Union?

Why'd you wanna be part of EU anyway? It strips countries of their independence and make them small fish in a big pond. :>

my point was, you tend to think that things happen around eu about the trial but that misses some part of the concept. Turkey is strictly a state of law as you can deduct from the things happening today and imo any country shall be strictly a state of law. on the contrary, for politics, eu is one of the main sources that can affect Turkey's politics.
as you learned in school, i learned the things which say the opposite of you but i didn't find that enough and searched on internet to listen both sides and to have a more objective idea.
for the youtube issue, i think it is silly to ban an internet site which is impossible. just nonsense. but this is also a result of following strictly the laws. i also think that 301 should be less open to interpretation and they should learn that no internet site can be banned, there is always solutions if that country doesn't have an intranet like iran has. and free-speech violations certainly occur but at the same time a political party is speaking freely in our national assembly which never denies its connections with a terrorist organization which is also recognized as terrorist org. by eu.

for the elaboration, that really needs time, just start with this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4

finally, i also think that it is early for Turkey to join EU, besides i'm not sure that it has to.

may be you'd like to read this.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/1030turkey_gordon.aspx

Ok sorry, I was wrong if it is true what you say. What I had in mind, and what fueled my reply was that I heard - and a Turkish friend I have on msn told me personally - that Turkey had banned youtube for a period of time due to some video on there offending Ataturk.

Even considering the fact that the law does not throw people in jail, suing people and banning webpages is bad enough. Turkey are set to such high standards because people compare it to europe rather than the middle-east. My mom has an apartment in Turkey so I very much wish that they get rid of that paragraph and whatever else might cause dissonance with the eu.

I've not got time to go into the reason the law is there and the context ect. right now. Too much to do. Maybe some other time.

I guess it's just the same thing as in Germany/Austria though.

We have our fair share of silly laws too. No one seems to be perfect; even Norway has a few silly laws (that luckily no one bothers to enforce, but unfortunately no one bothers to remove). So although there may be silly laws across Europe, I can't quite imagine that e.g. Austria or Germany would do something as retarded as banning Youtube (??). It's another league of silliness, and Turkey has shown its commitment to it.

did you know that france and switzerland jailed historians for their academic views?

For denying the Holocaust.

for denying so-called armenian genocide

denying the holocaust is not an academic view but rather the opposite.

if you are intrested in what the legitimation for such laws is at least in Germany, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend is part of it.
The government wanted to have a tool for stopping history repeat itself with the holocaust.

as i heard from news, same neo-nazis burn turkish ppl alive in their home. 9 or more died recently.

yes, well you should not believe everything in the media, or rather wait until details are known.

Some more years ago some nazis were at fault.

However this time the witnesses who said they had seen some men in the dark were too young girls under shock. They later took that back.
The they were nazis was simply assumed by German and Turkish media, cause it would habe been likely in a case of arsony.

Yes, we definately have some problems with racist idiots, but this time it seems they were not involved. Accidents can happen even to immigrants!

/edit

to make it clearer, so far it is not solved how the fire happened. However, printing a Swastika on the front page was hardly well-founded journalism.

It wasn't a technical issue nor a attack. -> spiegel

thanks, wasn't sure and couldn't find it through a quick google.

Well, I know now. And it sounds retarded. I guess the US are just better than the EU when it comes to free speech. You'll have me fully convinced if any EU country bans youtube e.g. for the hundreds of pro-nazi, holocaust-denying videos out there.

Actually, a much better way to do this is to just post this link;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reporte...edom_index

Mmm, Taiwan is as good as South Korea and Japan - awesome trio \o/

France, Germany, Canada and the US getting very steadily worse..

lol@poland

muha, always second to us :þ

Haha, norway pwned hdi 01-06 before tying 07, but still raping in gpi ^^ we tripped up here in 2006 it seems :\ must've been our pussy mentality about the muhammed drawings or something :p how did you guys react to it?

hmm one newspaper showed it i think. Personally i thought it was just the danish being stubborn and immature as usual ;)

denmark own greenland mate

you lose!

well they dont own us no more, we baststabbed those bitches while they were captive by the germans ;)

we'll get you back

heheh no way, we own half of köben already :)

the fishing docks maybe! :)

Well, that's more than we did. I think we officially apologized on behalf of Denmark or something. which is pretty retarded.

wtf

(2nd time was immature yes :D)

Youre all a bunch of xenophobic racists tbh. Like all of you are more hardcore on foreigners than Jamerio!

Thanks to Dansk Folkeparti 8(

what's the point of freedom of speech if noone's there to listen?
;P

HEY!

You call forbidding ppl to deny the holocaust a 'silly' law? I know it's limiting the freedom of speech but come on.....

I can see that it is of a type, "you can't have this opinion". I don't think that is a good idea. Laws have complex psychological consequences. People will always try to extrapolate the principle behind a law to suit their own interests, so one needs to be real careful on what basis one makes laws. Mere short termed consideration of consequences might lead one to make a law currently that you cannot insult Islam. Free speech is in a sense an irreducible value that is very hard to justify when pressed on individual issues. Its power comes from what it represents, the underlying principle, the generality etc. People have yet to come to realize that our ideals of science, freedom and progress cannot be deduced from logic and rationality.

I don't know the current conditions in Germany atm, so I can't really say whether the law is in fact justified or not. If the law is justified, as would be the case if there is a kind of war internally in Germany with nazi's, then you have problems far worse than silly laws.

Anyhow, didn't Germany ban games like GTA etc? That's pretty much inexcusably retarded.

"I can see that it is of a type, "you can't have this opinion"."

I expected exactly that kind of response. Well, this is the standard patronising response you get If you state something in a way like I did. First of all I hope, that I don't have to discuss the 'credibility' of these theories here.

1. I'll try to explain why this isn't really limiting freedom of speech in the way you seem to think. I think you are familiar with anti-defamation laws. Those laws are common in every country I can think of. They limit the freedom of speech by definition. I think you are ok with being able to denounce someone who talks unfounded bullshit in public about you ? Well the §130 StGB (section of german criminal law concerning this) is very familiar with those standard defamation prohibitions. The §130 is there to prevent disturbance of the public freedom, prevent hatred against minorities etc. Just like with any other anti-defmation law it is forbidden to spread your opinion if it has a serious (negative) impact on others. ( What impact has holocaust denial on the victims, or their relatives ?) And btw, germany or austria arent the only countries with this kind of criminal prosecution: CAN,FRA,BEL,NL,PL etc. The penalties only vary in harshness.

The theory behind all this is, that your freedom ends where another one's begins. That's very basic to a societey imo :P. This has absolutely nothing to do with unfounded limitation of freedom of speech imo.

2. No, Germany didn't ban games like GTA. In Germany as an adult (>=18) you can buy all the games you want. If those games are extremely violent it is not allowed to advertise them in media. That's all. There was an ultimately stupid proposal from the bavarian interior minister (to (really) ban them), which will never pass. Because that would indeed affect people's fundamental rights.

Add: I'm not saying that germany is the paradise to fundamental rights. Like any other country the legal system has it's flaws. I just wanted to explain why the ban of holocaust denial isn't really flaw or 'silly'.

Sure there is a limit to free speech, but i'd draw it way longer back than this fear of hurting people's feelings by insults and untruth. As i said, this same argument could stifle religious criticism in a heartbeat (what impact has denouncing muhammed on billions of muslims?). In addition, jailing people for their opinions would just draw them further underground. There's enough conformity and consensus as it is, with the media selecting only what will please customers etc. anyways.

Good to hear that they didn't bad GTA etc. Remembered there were some problems with painkiller over there because and a cpl event got canceled etc. probably due to the commercial nature of it then.

And yes, besides my faulty knowledge of german law, this is all a matter of degree and i seem to favor slightly less restrictions on free speech than you do and that's pretty much it. ;)

Afiar, the CPL would have had to meet certain restictions like only allwing adults to the venue both to play and spectate. (Also there might have been some restrictions to advetising for the event (?))

And I would say that does make sense. If you agree with nota llowing the game for minors, letting the play and spectate in public would be kinda weird.

Basically what Loop said, but I want to make clear that not having the opinion that is illegal. But openly trying influence other into sharing them.

Of course, that isn't a complete justication either, but imo it makes it somewhat more understandable.

Honestly. What do you think would happen if those laws weren't in place? You think all hell would break loose? You think newspapers would start printing articles about how the holocaust never happened? You think parents would let their children play those violent games anyway? You think people on the street would start shouting racist comments to each other?

Did you think about what will happen when that mentality will try to control the internet? On the internet children can do all three things quite easily; play violent games, read holocaust-denying comments and racist comments. Well then, the logical thing must be to restrict access to these things by law?

What happened to adults able to see the difference between genuine critique and trolling, and ability to ignore trolling? What happened to people choosing for themselves what shit to "drink" and what not to? What happened to parents being able to teach their kids these abilities of discrimination (a word rarely used for this purpose these days, obviously)?

I wonder, if there were a law against cheating on your partner.. or even better and more general, a law against hurting a persons feelings in a relationship.. perhaps a law against having kids when you're low on cash, job and education.. or what about a law against opining that people who don't believe what you do, or live the way you do (although legal) will go to hell?

i'm still only trying the limits of free speech a litte more back, i know there has to be certain limits (e.g. because speaking and acting overlap)..

No, of course that would not happen, but that is not the purpose of the law, is it? It's not meant to prevent idiots from having idiotic opinions and trying to spread them.

It's about having the possibility to do something against it if it happens.
Without such a law all you can do is print and tell the truth and hope the people will believe it. And that failed miserably once!

so, let me ask you this. If a law like this would have had a 20% (or 50% or 100%) chance to prevent the second world war, would that not have been worth the limitations on free speech?
Or more drastically, is there a bigger limitation to free speech than death?


What happened to parents teacing their children these abilities of discrimination you ask.

Well, i think my parents did a good job with that, and I know many others where it's the same. But when I worked as a tutor, I got to know some kids who were less fortunate and let's just say their opinions weren't always healthy or sound. I am not saying those people should not have children, or even that they are doing a bad job altogether. But that only relying on parents to perfectly educate their children is wishful thinking.



The basic principle of laws is to smaller peoples freedom by forbidding them to things that would or could (!) hurt someone else freedom more.
The difficult part is evaluating what limitation is worth more.
Also, there are a few exceptions, for example euthanasia.

"Without such a law all you can do is print and tell the truth and hope the people will believe it. And that failed miserably once!"

what failed miserably was people's ability to discriminate between reasonable arguments and unreasonable ones. your law does nothing to prevent stupid opinion, which is by far the worst problem we face. if anything, the little act of arguing publicly against the holocaust deniers without the state throwing them in jail should work as a practice for a future occasion.

you are vastly estimating the power of propaganda!

/edit

and the stupidity of masses.

underestimating you mean?

a set of laws will never suffice to prevent a future bottom-up takeover. diversity of opinions of all kinds promote critical thinking and better judgment on the part of the whole. i think it was nietzsche who said something along the lines that whenever/wherever religions blossom left and right, that's when/where things are working out for the best. would speak for the awesomeness of southkorea where there were around 400 new religions in the late 80s or something. ^^

so do not be afraid of dogmatic and seemingly evil cults if they are one in many, rather be afraid of conformity, dominant dogma etc. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -mark twain ;D

yes, underestimating.

That is a bold statement cause laws have time and again been used to prevent uprisings. If you meant to say that eventually one will succeed that is true, but I tihnkg that is the wrong way to look at it.

If you see the many weird churches in the US I wouldn't be too sure of what you say...

You have to quit seeing yourself orf philisophers as the basis for evaluating the majority of people. Many simply do not care enough to sharpen their minds against fraud and lies and such. Things never worked like that.
People can be influenced much easier than you seem to think.
Just look at the average TV programs that people watch. Not too much critical thinking there...

I don't set myself as template. I know how people are.. It wouldn't matter, the intellectuals seem just as often to be swept up in upheavals or political correctness or whatever the current social mood is. The important thing is having free-speech laws that are not amenable to manipulation to suit whatever the current (powerful and dogmatic) mood is.

From Europe Index:

"Among the 25 EU member-countries, Poland (58th) remains in lowest position because of an increase in censorship. Prison sentences and fines for defamation and insults to a person’s dignity or religious feelings are common. An attempt to punish the newspaper Tageszeitung for “publicly insulting a state institution” after it printed a satirical article about President Lech Kaczynski is typical of the efforts to control the media by the Catholic/conservative coalition that came to power in November 2005.Poland shared 58th place with Romania, whose rise in the Index shows that present or future membership of the EU is having a good effect on freedom of expression in Eastern Europe.
Romania decriminalised defamation in June 2006."

People have an innate justice sense, "if i can't say that, how come they can say", "i guess it's only fair that he can't say that since others can't say this" or as a habit, "it's has to be this way or all hell would break lose" (hint; you can see this in the chinese)..

ok, now I think I finally see where you are coming from.

But first I think I should add that of course I am not against educating people and having a healhy discussion! In fact I am not even 100% if I am for or against the law we are talking about. I do however see some points to it.
It simply is a very difficult matter.


I am not sur how familiar you are with the use of the law. Because so far it has only been used when people try to spread their beliefs e.g. via books or websites. Nor for having that opinion per se.


I agree that people have an innate sense of justice, but doesn't that also appliy if someone publishes a book saying that your ancestors were never murdered?
Also if people are set to start uprisings or something similar because they cannot publish their opinions, why would they not do it if they can voice it but everybody keeps disagreeing and calling them idiots?

I agree it's a very difficult matter; where does one draw the line..

I agree that people have an innate sense of justice, but doesn't that also appliy if someone publishes a book saying that your ancestors were never murdered?

If you criminalize it, innate justice thinks "yes. it should not be allowed to offend people to such a degree" (which they then generalize, and 'such a degree' becomes subjectivized). if you do not criminalize it people will learn to cope with opinions they don't agree with, and innate justice would be "well, since everyone can say what they want i guess i need to cope with being insulted every now and then"

Also if people are set to start uprisings or something similar because they cannot publish their opinions, why would they not do it if they can voice it but everybody keeps disagreeing and calling them idiots?

They can do it either way. What you should be afraid of is people who loooook clean and lawful, manage to get in control and slowly start manipulating from the top. The point is then that they should be, and people should have a sense of free speech so strong, that it would be impossible for them to impose any restrictions on what kind of critique you can launch at them. The closer you are to laws such that "offending" or "insulting" is illegal, the easier it is for the mood or people in charge to silence outsiders.

and innate justice would be "well, since everyone can say what they want i guess i need to cope with being insulted every now and then"

I highly doubt that that would ever happen. I mean even on this site where you have to either get used to high amounts of trolling and insults or leave you still the rare posts that make you a little anger.
Now, replace some random I-Net debate with a rl discussion about a topic you care very much about. There will always be emotions involved.

They can do it either way. What you should be afraid of is people who loooook clean and lawful, manage to get in control and slowly start manipulating from the top. The point is then that they should be, and people should have a sense of free speech so strong, that it would be impossible for them to impose any restrictions on what kind of critique you can launch at them.

I agree, that sounds great ... in theory. But from experience I would say the ones with the weirdest opinions shout the loudest and try the hardest to get their point across. While people who have sensible views tend to think "oh well, we are so many I'll let someone else deal with that weirdo"

It's a matter of degree here too; people would have more respect for free speech in the sense of accepting insults - taking one for the team.. there would still be limits, only pushed back a little, emotions suppressed a little.

Of course, if you think it's pushed back as far as it can go already, this then is the crux of our disagreement. I just draw the line a little lighter back, for reasons only temperament knows ;)

Well, it has been an interesting discussion. however, I'm afraid it will have to end here.
In other words:

brb skiing \o/

Ah, I love skiing. Have fun!

..meanwhile i'll just go to the store, stack up on supplies and start my three evil assignments due in threety days ;\\

Sorry then, just sounded to me like a two-wrong-make-a-right argument to support Turkey joining the EU.

haha, no.


Though I'm not completely certain if that alone is a valid reason to deny an entry I am very much against letting them get away with a lie.

You expect me to type out every reason or something?

You are [W]ikipedia! You need to!

And don't forget the sources!

You expect me to be right?

You are always right! ALWAYS!

Oh so there are reasons after all? Why say that France opposes that "just because they can" then?

And I don't "expect" anything from you, especially not a sensible answer, so don't bother.

Because I couldn't be bothered to state any reasons, especially since my knowledge of French politics is quite small.

I expect from Turkeys pov it does look like France are just against them for no reason.

Tbh, I personally don't know why France doesn't want Turkey.

Then again I am all business and no politics these days (except for the stuff that could affect my business) so I am not a good source.

i think its because most people see turkey as outside the natural boundaries of europe; ie, the sea to the west and south, the dardanelles in the south east, and the urals in the north east. Once you open the EU to turkey, what stops countries like marocco also gaining membership??? (they have applied for it too, but get rejected on the same grounds as turkey)

Whilst i have no real objection to turkey harmonising economic and social standards with europe, in order to trade with us more effectively etc I dont think we could ever allow them full membership without compromising the identity of the EU.

Trukey do have some things going for them in comparison to Morocco though.

Some of the country is in Europe and historically it is closer to Europe than to the middle east/etc.

even when there were close ties between traditional europe and turkey, their identity was still very middle eastern. The part of their country in Europe is tiny, and isnt really indicative of ethnic ties with that part of europe, but rather control of the dardanelles for economic and military reasons.

Turkeys arguments for admission are weak, whereas arguments against their admission are more numerable and also stronger.

I know

yes, 97% of turkey is in Asia. That and their non-responsibility in regard to the armenian genocide is enough to DENY them entry, imo.

well, we dont blame the german people for the holocaust, we blame the nazis. It would be fair to give Turkey the same leniency in that regard. Afterall, the Armenian Massacre occurred in 1917 under the Ottoman Empire, whereas the modern turkish nation that we are talking about today, was founded shortly after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, circa 1923 i think. I think therefore to deny them entry on that alone would be a little bit silly, although they should at least admit it happened, reopen diplomatic relations with Armenia and apologize... but then again, that would open the door to claims for compensation etc etc..

that's not the point, the point is they refuse to recognize it and take responsibility. they refuse it took place!! that IS outrageous and plenty reason not to let that barbaric (also asian) nation into the EU. that's entirely different from the germans and americans who have apologized and accepted full responsibility for their genocides.

americans who have apologized and accepted full responsibility for their genocide?

they haven't?

noup, they taboo the subject

at least they let them gamble

i guess thats like allowing jews to make loans with interest right ?

yeaps, or dropping jews in a land far away from where the conflict did occur. based partly on a 3000 year old saga.

the zionist movement dates back to the early 20th century. it was just after wwii that the brits split palestine and made part of it israe.

yeah ..

"Europe" is just western asia.

DO NOT ASSOCIATE US CIVILIZED PEOPLES OF EUROPE WITH THE BARBARIANS FROM THE EAST PLZ...

LMAO :D this is an obsessed narcissism

it was sarcasm if you hadnt noticed...

:D i certainly didn't .
but i'm really used to such ideas, they never surprise me.

furthermore, i'm surprised to see ppl who have quite significant knowledge about Turkey apart from the demonized image. Seeing only one such person makes me feel good.

ty lawenforcer and ini, i really respect your views.

I try to be careful with the genocide stuff because I really don't know either side of it in any real depth. The stuff I've read on both sides seems convincing but I've no idea who to trust as they both have very biased points of view in the first place.

A little poem about the armenian genocide. Just for you.

• Results

Elimination, Elimination, Elimination

Die, Why, Walk Down, Walk Down

A whole race Genocide,
Taken away all of our pride,
A whole race Genocide,
Taken away, watch them all fall down.

Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

Recognition, Restoration, Reparation,
Recognition, Restoration, Reparation,
Watch them all fall down.

Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

The plan was mastered and called Genocide (Never want to see you around)
Took all the children and then we died, (Never want to see you around)
The few that remained were never found, (Never want to see you around)
All in a system of Down......Down.....Down.......Down........Walk Down...........

Btw.: I'm not trying to say anyhting with that. The song just popped into my mind.

that's a vital wisdom when to be sure that someone is right. that prevents brainwashing. best is to invest time into what you want to learn about before having an idea.

i'm not trying to convince anyone but there is a great amount of politics in the issue which creates their own truths for both sides. they create a world of hatred around themselves and this becomes their source of energy. so the products reflect this clearly.

finally, i used to like to listen to soad.(actually after years i preferred more calm and relax genres) tho imo soad is not a part of(it's more like a kind of pop music in metal), armenians are so talented in arts. Turkey's most known, famous and succesful photographer Ara Güler.

they don't play gigs in turkey. sucks for you. :(

who are you and what have you done with andrew?

whoring out their women during WW2 & then refusing to admit it might be a problem. then generic land/sea ownership disputes

or for lulz: Due to the use of both "Corea" and "Korea" in 19th century English publications, some Koreans believe that during the Japanese occupation, Japan intentionally standardized the spelling on "Korea", so that "Japan" would appear first alphabetically.

Libanon probably likes France because of that power plant deal that Sarkozy initiated.

I think you are confusing Libya with Libanon?

whoops you're right.

Turkey had a crush on some girl, but then France went & married her because Turkey was too indecisive. They haven't been friends since.

EXACTLY, HATE THAT SLUT NOW!!!!11!!

i think you should direct comments such as "anneni sikeyim" towards french users. especially punee

hahahaha.

It's always the hotheaded idiots that rush around the internet trying to "defend" Turkey, and a Turkish hot head is ever so loud and immature to top it off :/

So yeah. Turkey has a nice group of people that manage to stain the image of the entire nation sometimes.

what's your view on the topic that apparently plenty/many/most turkish people in Germany don't really even want to integrate, they enjoy our system but rather keep all their cultural stuff and build more like a 2nd Turkey within Germany? is that a common view in Turkey, too? or just a minority with the loudest voices?

not trying to insult or anything, i'm really curious as this seems to be the case at least for some of the turkish people over here

to give a general idea on the stance in Turkey towards the Turks in Germany, most people are not really connected with the affairs/culture of Turks in Germany. Newspapers and television channels will report good or bad news, accomplishments or failures that happen in Germany regarding Turks (which applies for all countries actually), but the culture differences or how they integrate is never an in-depth discussion subject.

My personal thoughts would be like this: The phenomen of not integrating with German culture is not completely true. Most Turkish visitors to Turkey that were born in Germany (or any other country for that matter) will have peculiar differences in morals, ethics, etc. They will still uphold most principals stuff of the Turkish culture but will stand out as different as well.

Then again, this subject does not apply to only Turkish people. America is a very good example for this. Most groups from the same country will stick together in schools (saw it plenty when I studied over there), work, etc. An even more specific example would be Chinatown and little Italy in New york. So I would say its a general human trait rather then just a special case in Germany.

Who would have thought that we would once rule the world in BEING NICE towards others :PPP

*psssst* didnt you get the memo? that was the plan ...

"interviewed more than 17,000 people in 34 countries."
WOA there

Do you like calm evenings with some sweets and a novel game the best?

sounds good to me :>

<:

What a fuckingly lame poll - France and Germany are not parts of EU anymore?

Overall, the only thing this poll demonstrates is perfect work of anti-Iran propaganda in all those "34 countries".

what does it matter is France and Germany are a part of the EU?

read: the question is not "who do you like best" but "who has the most positive influence" and in that respect France and Germany do differ from the EU.

And yeah it's also propagangda but I haven't seen that mayn good things coming from either Iran or Israel...

In the end it always comes down to a popularity contest.

not really my point but nevermind.

I see. I promise to read your next post entirely :P

simply put:

a popularity contest between Germany, France and all the European countries

does not make as much sense as

a popularity contest between Germany, France and the EU with regard to their influence as political entitities.

Sorry man, this was purely unintentional.

Where is unplus button? $)

if i knew I wouldn't tell you :]

also I call freuded!

This time you deserve it :))))

Interesting results in India. The only country they actually have an opinion about is their own. This probably makes them the most honest people in the world, unlike all the other uninformed assholes(Americans) who have a strong opinion about anyone and anything while knowing fuck all about the subject.

Yeah I love the shit that comes from them about Iran. Like how they have to invade Iran and topple that evil dictator Ahmadinejad. Apparently waiting next year until his term is up is too hard.

or he gets reelected?

eitherway, seeing the vetting of candidates that takes place in Iranian elections, its quite likely that whoever gets elected, he will probably be fairly close to Ahmadinejad in terms of policy, but perhaps not as prone to using inflammatory rhetoric as MA

He's extremely unpopular at the moment and even the Ayatollah seems to have had enough of him. His reelection is not likely.

perhaps he is unpopular with the section of the population that supports the reformers, but the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians do not let them participate in elections, at least, the vast majority of them. A conservative will be elected, and he will largely follow the same agenda as MA. Khamenei probably disapproves of the way MA has handled himself vis a vis the West. His behavior has inflamed public opinion which in turn has created a threat to the Islamic revolution in Iran. On matters of policy, its seems that MA has the approval of the SL.

What? Follow the news. The Ayatollah has not been supporting MA's agenda as of late and in fact overriding him on some matters. MA is also very unpopular with pretty much everybody.. Anyway it's not like the guy matters. MA doesn't control the military nor foreign policy. It's amazing how much of a boogeyman he has become.

im just saying that it would be naive to think that were MA not reelected, Iran would suddenly drop its Nuclear Weapons program or drop its aspirations of regional domination. Those are the real points of contention that the West has with Iran. Im not aware of what the SL has challenged MA on, but if its to do with domestic policy, its not of much interest or of much relevance to what im saying, so if youd enlighten me on those id be very grateful.

MA has very little to do with the nuclear policy. It's the Ayatollah that has control over it. Like I said MA has no control over such things. Domestic policy is the only thing he does and angering the west.

http://news.scotsman.com/iran/Ayatollah-humil...3695602.jp

well then, what good will waiting for MA to go do then? There will still be a need for action (in what form i dont know) with regards to their weapons program. In your first post you make it seem like that with the departure of MA, there will no longer by any problems with Iran.

No I didn't say that. That post clearly went about a million miles over your head.

right, your just too clever for a pleb like me...

yup

There are only uninformed assholes in America, nowhere else!

Or perhaps you're a retarded hypocrite

you saying the average swede is as brainwashed and uninformed as the average american?

both are countries in europe and use the same educational system so it should be about the same

lol

Max Mosley is into German culture, I heard.

I like asian's with big tits.

http://tinyurl.com/3yh64w

hotness

i like asians with medium sized tits.

Medium relative to the west or asia? x)

lies