How is speaking facts hatred? If there's anything I hate, it's hypocrisy. How many secularists spoke up in defense of religious rights and freedom when they were in power?
KRMcN, You just hit a button. You called two Zaman journalists "highly respected," which considering that the perspective of Zaman is always slanted unless they have nothing to lose by it, well, as I said, you hit a button.
A democracy needs to listen to the voices of all groups: secular, religious, and so on. But to juxtapose "secular" with "modern" suggests that the religious are not modern, but belong to some ignorant past. And although all voices must be part of a democracy, I don't have much sympathy for the secular voices, often fanatically secular, who since Ataturk have oppressed religious freedom and expression.
Unless you have Turkish friends from the various groups, it gives you a highly biased perspective. This is an overgeneralization and, yes, it's stereotyping, but my personal experience has been that most Turks can't see, don't want to see any valid points in the opposition. It's either, You're with me or you're against me. Loyalty trumps truth. I imagine this is true of most people, not just Turks, but I have noticed it with Turks quite a lot.
For a specific example of Today's Zaman not disclosing conflicts of interest, an article cites "Dr. Doğan Koç of the University of Houston." Googling that name, I see that Koç is a "research fellow at the Gulen Institute at the University of Houston" and elsewhere the "Executive Director of the Gulen Institute."
Just came across Michael Rubin's article on Fethullah Gulen not being a savior, which makes this comment about the Zaman newspaper:
"Gülen’s followers dominate the security forces which Erdoğan wielded without mercy against his political opposition and the press. Gülen professes tolerance, but his own past is checkered. And while he has his own media network with the daily Zaman at is head, there is a disturbing difference in tone between Zaman and its English version, Today’s Zaman. Diplomats who only read the latter may not be aware that anti-Semitic conspiracies infect if not Gülen, then those around him and his top supporters." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/01/02/no-fethullah-gulen-isnt-a-savior/
In another Wikileaks cable, we read that the Gulen network has considered Erdogan "unreliable." So, Gulen's undermining has been going on for some time. So, while AKP needed Gulen, it worked with the Gulen network. But it eventually had to stop because it is a shadow government that answers to Gulen, not elected leaders. Is there "very real corruption of AKP" or is there a frame-up as many Turks believe?
Ithe wikileaks cables, the US ambassador stated that the Gulen network had infiltrated the police institutions, and it's believed that this is widespread also among judges. One can't have an unelected shadow government that goes against elected leaders. It's no wonder that Erdogan has finally moved against the Gulen network.
Yes, I realize that many religious folks are hypocrites, too.
How is speaking facts hatred? If there's anything I hate, it's hypocrisy. How many secularists spoke up in defense of religious rights and freedom when they were in power?
KRMcN, You just hit a button. You called two Zaman journalists "highly respected," which considering that the perspective of Zaman is always slanted unless they have nothing to lose by it, well, as I said, you hit a button.
A democracy needs to listen to the voices of all groups: secular, religious, and so on. But to juxtapose "secular" with "modern" suggests that the religious are not modern, but belong to some ignorant past. And although all voices must be part of a democracy, I don't have much sympathy for the secular voices, often fanatically secular, who since Ataturk have oppressed religious freedom and expression.
Unless you have Turkish friends from the various groups, it gives you a highly biased perspective. This is an overgeneralization and, yes, it's stereotyping, but my personal experience has been that most Turks can't see, don't want to see any valid points in the opposition. It's either, You're with me or you're against me. Loyalty trumps truth. I imagine this is true of most people, not just Turks, but I have noticed it with Turks quite a lot.
For more on Gulenist infiltration into the military, police, and other government offices in Turkey and abroad, read Sharon-Krespin's article in the Middle East Quarterly. http://www.meforum.org/2045/fethullah-gulens-grand-ambition
Here's the link to the article of "Today's Zaman": http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists/ihsan-yilmaz_333954-strategic-defamation-of-fethullah-gulen-english-vs-turkish.html
For a specific example of Today's Zaman not disclosing conflicts of interest, an article cites "Dr. Doğan Koç of the University of Houston." Googling that name, I see that Koç is a "research fellow at the Gulen Institute at the University of Houston" and elsewhere the "Executive Director of the Gulen Institute."
Just came across Michael Rubin's article on Fethullah Gulen not being a savior, which makes this comment about the Zaman newspaper:
"Gülen’s followers dominate the security forces which Erdoğan wielded without mercy against his political opposition and the press. Gülen professes tolerance, but his own past is checkered. And while he has his own media network with the daily Zaman at is head, there is a disturbing difference in tone between Zaman and its English version, Today’s Zaman. Diplomats who only read the latter may not be aware that anti-Semitic conspiracies infect if not Gülen, then those around him and his top supporters." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/01/02/no-fethullah-gulen-isnt-a-savior/
Zaman is a Gulenist newspaper. It's highly biased.
In another Wikileaks cable, we read that the Gulen network has considered Erdogan "unreliable." So, Gulen's undermining has been going on for some time. So, while AKP needed Gulen, it worked with the Gulen network. But it eventually had to stop because it is a shadow government that answers to Gulen, not elected leaders. Is there "very real corruption of AKP" or is there a frame-up as many Turks believe?
Ithe wikileaks cables, the US ambassador stated that the Gulen network had infiltrated the police institutions, and it's believed that this is widespread also among judges. One can't have an unelected shadow government that goes against elected leaders. It's no wonder that Erdogan has finally moved against the Gulen network.