Have you heard about what is going in Turkey right now?

1. 0

   KFushaposted 10 years ago

   
   It's huge.  It all began as a peaceful demonstration against the demolition of Taksim Gezi Park in Instanbul.  The Turkish government intended to replace the park with a shopping mall.  What began as a peaceful demonstration, however, has transformed into the biggest civil uprising in Turkish history.  Unfortunately, I still encounter plenty of people who do not have a clue as to what is happening on the other side of the world, despite the countless solidarity demonstrations that have taken place in many major cities across the United States.
   If you would like to gain further knowledge on the subject and keep up with the updates of the situation as they are unfolding, click on the following links:
   https://twitter.com/youranonnews
   https://twitter.com/globalrevlive
   
   Were you aware of this chain of events?  Do you think the media should have provided better coverage on the subject?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Those links told me nothing except that the owner of the blog is some sort of Greenpeace activist etc.
      Is that you?
      
      Here's what I did find from an article online------------------
      
      
      
      "Turkish citizens are crowdfunding their protests against the government.
      
      Turkish protestors have raised $86,000 on Indiegogo to place a full-page in the New York Times raising awareness about the current political situation in Turkey. The campaign went live yesterday with the goal of $53,800 and according to Forbes is one of Indiegogo’s fastest politics campaigns ever. The campaign has 2,210 funders from around the world.
      
      Protests broke out in Turkey over the weekend after the government attempted to bulldoze a park to build a shopping mall and military barracks. The movement quickly gained momentum and turned into a nationwide demonstration of tens of thousands of people against the government. Citizens are “protesting lack of consultation, police’s use of excessive force, defending freedom of speech and right to assembly, and the resignation of Erdogan’s government.”
      
      Murat Aktihanoglu, Oltac Unsal, and Duygy Atacan set up the campaign to attract attention and support they “push for true democracy in our country.” The three live in New York and are active with the entrepreneur/startup scene there. They watched the protests and violent response by the government but felt the events were not receiving adequate coverage in the Turkish press and turned to social media and Indiegogo to gain a following. They also opened up the drafting of the ad’s proposal to the crowd and allowed  supports to edit and vote for their favorite.
      Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/04/prote … b.99"
      
      
      While I'm interested, yes, in what this is all about (can't imagine why bulldozing a park is such an issue to cause such a "revolution"!)..........
      What I'm wondering right now is why 3 U.S. residents (the article says the campaigners live in New York) are trying to use our News agencies to fund their protest for "their Country" as they say, which is Turkey?     Why is Turkey "their Country" if they live in New York?
      ??

      replyreport
      1. 0

         KFushaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         If you paid attention, those links I provided you with are providing live updates, including pictures, from Turkish protesters themselves. They work as independent news networks all over the world.

         replyreport
   2. 80

      A Little TRUTHposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Regarding any violence that may have taken place, it’s good to keep in mind that it’s not uncommon for infiltrators to be sent in to create violence.  A little violence blamed on the people goes a long way toward helping the government justify its agenda of tighter control.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Sufidreamerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Best of luck to the protesting Turks - this has been brewing for quite some time. I hope that Erdogan actually starts listening to people, for once, instead of continuing his shift towards autocracy and eroding Turkey's secular legal system.
      
      The Greek media has covered the protests pretty well, as you would imagine, and many Greek cities have seen solidarity marches and demonstrations.
      
      Thanks for the links - I will check them out

      replyreport
2. 81

   HollieTposted 10 years ago

   Brenda, the unrest is not about bull dozing a park. It is about how authoritarian the govt. have become. Yes, there was a peaceful demonstration initially, and they were all tear gased etc. including children, for taking part in a peaceful demonstration. The unrest is about state violence against the populace.
   
   @the OP, I believe the media have only only briefly covered the events because of tourism- wouldn't want to upset business, would they?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think you're right about the riots not being about a park being bulldozed.  Local mobs might form over that, but not in dozens of cities.  This is far more about how people view their government.
      
      But peaceful - that depends on who is doing the talking,  From ABC news:
      "In Taksim, protesters overturned an NTV satellite van, smashing its equipment and ripping the doors almost off their hinges."  There are also claims of looting and there are 500 police injured now.
      
      So, as is always the case, the mob claims they're peaceful to vilify govt. actions, the authorities say they're not to vilify mob actions.  And no doubt the truth will lie somewhere in between just as it always does.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         No, I meant the initial protest was a peaceful one, which is where the protesters were tear gased. That was the catalyst for the unrest now, which is far from peaceful.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I understood that, I just don't see the govt. or police agreeing that it was peaceful.  The mob leaders always claim it was, the police and govt. always claim otherwise.  And I always think that both are right, in limited ways.
            
            Because you can't get that many people together in anger and not have some violence.  Between protesters if nothing else.  There is always some looting; such a mob is a haven for crooks that aren't interested in the protest, just in stealing while attention is elsewhere.
            
            In addition, violence has many forms; shutting down a store's business, taking away their income because you're blocking the street, is a form of violence and every protest does that, just as it shuts down a public street to travel.  Every protest of any size will leave a mess behind did; a mess that someone else has to pay to clean up.  And every time a mob of size gathers there is always at least some destruction of property as well.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I saw the footage on ITV (of the initial protest) where the protesters, were doing just that, protesting with placards- that's it. There were children there, too- it was non-violent, then out of the blue the police appeared and tear gased them all. The kids too. 
               
               So, the govt. and police are on a loser with this one, because it was filmed.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Ah.  You mean the footage where the camera man carefully turned the camera away from the thief breaking into the store?  And where the two protestors that got into a fight over the girl was edited out?
                  
                  And particularly from where the protestors refused a lawfully given order to disperse? 
                  
                  You mean the cameras weren't on the police trucks as the extra cops and tear gas was brought to the site?  It didn't follow those trucks down the street?
                  
                  The point is, Hollie, that you are watching film and commentary from people claiming it was peaceful.  You aren't reading the police reports of the violence they claim was there.  Understandable; in this case those reports are going to be difficult to dig out, but I assure you they are there.
                  
                  Now, I'm not saying that the tear gas was justified, even though I have little concern about a mob of people "protesting" as a means of getting laws changed.  From what little I've seen and read the cops were wrong (not individual cops necessarily, but the higher-ups giving the order).  I'm just saying that we're seeing only one side, the side that is manipulating the media the best.  There is another side to the story, but we aren't seeing it and it would seem smart to get both sides before making a final decision.
                  
                  I understand the govt. has issued a formal apology; my reaction is "Who's going to be the scapegoat this time?"  Because, again, that's the way govt. typically operates.  Somebody, somewhere, eventually makes what is probably a perfectly legal call but is hung out to dry for political reasons.  It's more important to retain the Presidents approval rating than the job of a cop somewhere.  Again, time will tell, though - maybe somebody really did make an extremely poor, or illegal, call and sent in the tear gas.  Or maybe some scared cop tightened his finger a little too much on the trigger and set off a conflagration.  We may never know the whole truth.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     KFushaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     wilderness,
                     It seems to me that you are arguing against the protestors and attempting to justify the government's actions, which is pretty disturbing. These police officers you defend were beating women and children. You're sitting here saying things such as:  "The point is, Hollie, that you are watching film and commentary from people claiming it was peaceful.  You aren't reading the police reports of the violence they claim was there."
                     You, on the other hand, have OBVIOUSLY ONLY WATCHED THE VERSION THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS YOU TO WATCH. Practice what you preach. Look for alternate sources of information. Go on YouTube and type in "taksim gezi park police brutality" and you will see things that will make your stomach turn inside out. Shame on you for defending these animals.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        You apparently don't read very thoroughly.  To date I haven't said a single thing about the cops, except that they will declare themselves innocent of wrongdoing.  Just as the mob members will.
                        
                        Read it again - everything I have posted is about not knowing if it was a peaceful demonstration.  Not that it was, not that it wasn't, just that a claim by demonstrators doesn't make it so.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           KFushaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           You apparently are in denial.
                           
                           "But peaceful - that depends on who is doing the talking,  From ABC news:
                           "In Taksim, protesters overturned an NTV satellite van, smashing its equipment and ripping the doors almost off their hinges."  There are also claims of looting and there are 500 police injured now." - This is the only reference you make to any media source.
                           
                           "And particularly from where the protestors refused a lawfully given order to disperse?" - Lawful order to end a demonstration of people standing up against tyranny and injustice?  You should consider moving to North Korea.
                           
                           You've been writing paragraphs among paragraphs, filled with such phrases.  Yet, you end your arguments with things such as "I'm just saying that we're seeing only one side". (Yes, obviously you are only seeing the mainstream media's side.) 
                           What you are doing is similar to using derogatory terms to insult someone and then finishing your insults with "no offense intended".
                           
                           By the way, the mob members are not declaring these to be peaceful protests.  They are not declaring themselves innocent of wrongdoing.  They are taking pride in standing up to an oppressive government and fighting back by all means necessary - as any intelligent group of people ought to do when faced with injustice and tyranny.
                           
                           Oh, and the very first protest was indeed extremely peaceful.  It consisted of a group of no more than 50 environmentalists who opposed the destruction of the park.  These 50 were tear gassed, water-hosed and even beaten.  What would you do if this happened to your wife, children, niece, brother, or anyone else you care about?  I'm sure that following "lawful" orders would be the last thing on your mind.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              This would be comical if not so sad. 
                              
                              "people standing up against tyranny and injustice" 
                              
                              You mean the terrible tyranny of a govt. building a shopping mall?  Providing jobs to the hordes of Turks that can't support themselves as there is no work?  That tyranny?  Or do you just spout what has to be the most common stock phrase of every demonstrator in the world?
                              
                              "By the way, the mob members are not declaring these to be peaceful protests"
                              
                              Really?  It was reported that way in the OP - I took your word that that was the claim.  I apologize if I should not have.
                              
                              "What would you do if this happened to your wife..."
                              
                              Irrelevant to the question of what actually happened or to the lack of balanced "reporting" on your part.  I would not have been there in the first place, nor my wife or other minor children.  I know better, I find such "protests" to be offensive to innocent people they always affect (a lesser form of the terrorism of 911), and I recognize that large protests nearly always turn to violence as a method of attracting media attention.  I won't be there, but if I were, it is still irrelevant to the question of balanced and fair reporting.

                              replyreport
                  2. 81

                     HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Ah.  You mean the footage where the camera man carefully turned the camera away from the thief breaking into the store?  And where the two protestors that got into a fight over the girl was edited out?
                     
                     No, that's the not the footage that I have seen, and even if it were, where do the police get off tear gasing and bullying children?
                     
                     And particularly from where the protestors refused a lawfully given order to disperse? 
                     
                     Protesters also have the legal right to protest!
                     
                     The point is, Hollie, that you are watching film and commentary from people claiming it was peaceful.  You aren't reading the police reports of the violence they claim was there.  Understandable; in this case those reports are going to be difficult to dig out, but I assure you they are there.
                     
                     The point is, Wilderness, that you are watching film and commentary from people claiming it was violent. You aren't  reading the protesters reports of violence they claim was there. Understandable; in this case those reports are going to be difficult to dig out, but I assure you they are there. 
                     
                     This could go on forever, but the fact remains that children were brutalized by the state, as such, the reaction of the rest of the nation is justified.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        "where do the police get off tear gasing and bullying children"
                        
                        Wrong question - the right one is where do parents get off taking children to a large protest where there is likely to be violence?  Because there almost always is, you know - a protest without violence doesn't attract the media and protest leaders know this quite well.  Nor can police simply ignore criminal activity because a child has been brought to the scene for protection of the adults.
                        
                        "Protesters also have the legal right to protest"
                        
                        No proof at all, but I find it very highly doubtful that the police gassed people with have any legal reason to do so.  I don't know Turkish law, but doubt that the actions of the protesters were legal.  Nor do think you do (you haven't indicated such legal knowledge) so any such claim is highly suspect.
                        
                        No, I'm not watching film from people claiming it is violent.  I easily found a single media report of one instance of violence, but that's all.  What I AM asking for is that the people here in this forum, claiming that there was NO violence, do a little research before making the claim.  That single claim pretty well makes a lie of "peaceful" if it is true.  As it is from a US media source rather than a Turkish one (built in prejudice in reporting political activity in your own country) I tend to believe it a little more.  ABC has no political axe to grind here, Turkish media certainly does.
                        
                        I'm sorry, but there is NO justification for a riot and the destruction of public and private property that always accompanies such a thing.  Not "brutalized" children, not the death of protesters or cops and certainly not the screams of rage from a mob of angry people.  Not even the cops gassing your child gives you any right, legal or ethical, to destroy a TV van.  At best there is no result from such an action, at worst the cops begin firing real bullets into the crowd.  It's happened before.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Wilderness, children were playing in the park, it's a park where children play. Some may have been with the protesters, the remainder were absolutely nothing to do with the protesters. You appear to believe that damage to property trumps the safety of children, on this we clearly disagree.
                           
                           Here's Amnesty or Human Rights watch take on how peaceful protesters are treated by Turkish police. Or do you know more about it then them?
                           
                           Article 34 of the 1982 Constitute (as amended on October 17, 2001) states, "Everyone has the right to hold unarmed and peaceful meetings and demonstration marches without prior permission." Restrictions may only be introduced on the grounds of national security, and public order, or prevention of crime commitment, public health and public morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 3 of Law 2911 on demonstrations and meeting provides, "Everybody has the right to hold unarmed and peaceful assembly without prior permission."[77] Nevertheless Amnesty International stated in 2009 that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly was denied, and law enforcement officials used excessive force to disperse demonstrations.[74]
                           Deaths due to excessive police force during demonstrations have a long history in Turkey. They include
                           Taksim Square massacre of 1 May 1977, death toll varies between 34 and 42
                           Further casualties on 1 May Labour Day (all in Istanbul):
                           1989: 1 person killed[78]
                           1996: 3 demonstrators killed.
                           Newroz celebrations; usually on or around 21 March each year
                           Newroz 1991: 31 people shot dead[79] The annual report of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) reported that one demonstrator was killed in Nusaybin.[80]
                           Newroz 1992: The Newroz festivities left at least 91 people dead in three towns of the southeast, Cizre, Sirnak and Nusaybin, and 9 others elsewhere in the region, and according to Helsinki Watch, 'all or nearly all of the casualties resulted from unprovoked, unnecessary and unjustified attacks by Turkish security forces against peaceful Kurdish civilian demonstrators'.[81]
                           Newroz 1993: Three people were killed in Adana and Batman.[82]
                           Different occasions
                           Funeral of Vedat Aydin in Diyarbakir in June 1991, 15 people were shot dead[83] The annual report of the HRFT reported that seven demonstrators were killed.[80]
                           Demonstration in Digor because of the 9th anniversary of the beginning of the armed fight of the PKK on 15 August 1984. 15 demonstrators were killed.[84]
                           20 people died in Gazi and 1 May quarter of Istanbul during an unrest that started with shots on coffee shop frequented by Alevis.[85]
                           Funeral of PKK militants at the end of March 2006: 13 people were killed in Diyarbakir and further places[86]

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Keeping in mind that my comments are directed towards balanced evidence being provided and not whether the cops were right or not, I find that Turkey has signed international treaties preventing certain human rights violations, and that those treaties take priority over Turkish law.  I'm not positive that is true as I'm not a law expert, but for the nonce will take it as factual.  In addition the article 3 of law 2911 appears to be a Turkish law, not international treaty so any treaties become a moot point.
                              
                              Now.  The question in light of your comment becomes "Did the cops follow the law and take action because of "national security, and public order, or prevention of crime commitment, public health and public morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" (quote from your post giving exceptions to the law)?  The obvious answer is a resounding NO if taken from comments from the protesters or sympathizers.  What do the COPS say?  Do they agree that there was no "public order" or "prevention of crime commitment" to be considered?  Or "protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? 
                              
                              So far your every post has come from sympathizers of the protesters, including a long list of incidents where stupid protesters violated the law and paid the price (see how easy it is to spin an otherwise factual account).  How about looking at the other side and trying the find out the cops (govt.) rationale for firing tear gas?  Is there, in the opinion of authorities a legal basis for it? 
                              
                              Going to "right" vs "wrong" as opposed to presenting balanced evidence - the children supposedly gassed.  You're giving me a mental picture of a park with kids playing in it.  A group of protesters moves in, occupying the park and specifically the areas where children are playing (such as playground or soccer field).  Have I got the right picture?
                              
                              So protestors arrive, knowing full well from past Turkish experience that it is very likely there will be violence.  They take up position near children, again knowing full well that IF there is violence the kids WILL be involved.  They have not only occupied a public park that others were enjoying, but have, quite intentionally, put the kids at risk of harm, presumably to use them as a shield.  Have I still got it right?  Is that the picture you have as well?
                              
                              So where's the outrage at the protesters?  Given that firing tear gas at a group including children appears very, very wrong from the picture painted, why are the protesters given a free pass on being wrong, even though they, not the cops, are the root of the wrong?
                              
                              Those kids should not have been within a mile of any protest; that they were makes a very definite statement about their parents AND the protesters.  And not a positive one.
                              
                              That they kids were gassed makes a very definite statement about both the cops AND the protesters, and is also not a positive one.  At least unless the "peaceful" protest had already turned into a riot; we don't really know at this point because all the evidence presented is one sided.  It is just barely possible, I suppose, that the cops were justified in firing even though I don't believe it.  Some nice formal statements from the cops, maybe some video of supposed wrongdoing from protesters could cement that belief.  Or not; the right video just might reverse that belief but without such a video it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where the cops are justified in gassing a small riot including children.

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           KFushaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Hollie, it's pointless to argue with this guy.  He is basing his whole argument on an ABC "news" article.  That is ignorance at its finest.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              And what argument do you think that is?
                              
                              Because you're absolutely right - it's pointless to argue about different things while claiming they are the same.  Calling for a balanced report of something that happened half a world away has nothing to do with police brutality.  They are two separate, unconnected items, and insisting that they are connected is ignorance at best and intentional misrepresentation at worst.

                              replyreport
   2. 87

      Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Dude, Brenda's a Christian. Of course she doesn't see anything wrong with an oppressive authoritarian regime.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         KFushaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Amen.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         That was uncalled for and just plain wrong.
         I see a lot wrong with oppressive regimes.  Including the one that's being set in place in my Country.
         Just because you obviously must be referring to God as an "oppressive regime" is your problem too.   Can you not hold a serious honest discussion without cutting down Christianity?
         I see a LOT wrong with THAT type of behavior, and it feeds the tyranny that's being perpetuated in my Country by an anti-Christian President.   So it would be nice if you didn't make such outlandish remarks about Christians.   We're people too, ya know, and ........lo and behold!..........we have.........civil RIGHTS.    I'm getting pretty tired of people cutting me down.  And I'm getting really tired of having an unChristian President whose rhetoric keeps trickling down to every liberal who's willing to follow his carp.
         
         
         And I did say I was interested in this issue.   But I asked a question that people have ignored.    WHY do "Turkish" people living in my Country call Turkey their Country?  Why do they want Americans to help them with their revolution?   Are they gonna help us Americans get out from under Obama's oppressive hand?   I highly doubt it.   Yet they use our compassion and money for their purposes?
         America,  contrary to what Obama wants to instill here, is not a "global" Nation.  We are a Sovreign Nation.    And he (and anyone else who's an American) should be called to account and made to behave in a  patriotic manner toward THIS Country and protect THIS Country first and foremost.
         
         That being said,  if the issue in Turkey is a legit one (pay attention, though, to wilderness's very informative words).........then I have compassion for their status and their revolution.    But it's really odd that people expect Americans to take their word for it without knowing the whole facts,  and it's really odd that people look to one oppressive leader (Obama) to help them fight against another oppressive regime.    It's messed up.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            KFushaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            We are all human beings! What is wrong with you people...
            Stop dividing humanity with this pointless "Liberal V's Conservative" talk, or this nation V's that nation.  No one even mentioned Obama until you did.  There are only two kinds of people in this world:  the oppressed and the ones doing the oppression.
            
            And your whole statement, including "wilderness's very informative words" proves that you are a self-centered, ignorant and cold-hearted person.  Women and children are being beaten in Turkey.  Over 25 people have died from wounds caused by Police brutality. 
            So much for your "Christianity"...

            replyreport
            1. 81

               HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I'm an atheist, TF!

               replyreport
         2. 77

            Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            There have actually been quite a few "unChristian" US Presidents. Some of our
            greatest, most effective and most beloved among them.
            
            http://www.theamateurthinker.com/2011/1 … residents/

            replyreport
3. 66

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   The MSM is not interested in this revolution because the West has no interest in invading Turkey at this moment. No mystery really.
   
   Turkey is an oppressive government that is buddy-buddy with NATO, so that makes it OK.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Very, very well said!

      replyreport
4. 60

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 10 years ago

   ...ah yup....i watch world news every morning....citizens are not happy......there's a big problem.....it has nothing to do with a park.......

   replyreport
5. 64

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   The people are bothered because they will demolish a park and on the other hand their government is participating in the killing of civilians in Syria and suddenly they become quiet! What if I become as indifferent as they are?

   replyreport