What's new

Turkish public believes Turkey has no friends - but Turks

Some people creates an ''Erdoğan'' in their imaginary world to hide their own incapacity and incompetence... How hilarious it is... President Erdoğan would laugh to their face when he see this idiocy.
Remember, Erdogan, who spoke in the Egyptian parliament during the Morsi era, he said that secularism was not an obstacle to the Islamic states, and for that reason he was subjected to severe insults by some circles of ulemas. The same circle of ulema now criticizes it with the opposite claims. This reveals the main rotting point in Islamic societies. Most of the Ulema circles are for sale or bigot.

From Daesh terrorists to a deep-rooted states like Iran; while "holly jihad" word is at everyone's mouths, Blaming turkey as " they bring caliphates" is just could be a dirty propaganda.

Turkey is a country that emphasizes the modern living conditions and people's will at every opportunity. And has no desire for any type of leadership over muslim states. This vision needs dialogue and brotherhood, not leadership. We only work for common and fair vision and wish to come together within common moral values. That's all.
 
Remember, Erdogan, who spoke in the Egyptian parliament during the Morsi era, he said that secularism was not an obstacle to the Islamic states, and for that reason he was subjected to severe insults by some circles of ulemas. The same circle of ulema now criticizes it with the opposite claims. This reveals the main rotting point in Islamic societies. Most of the Ulema circles are for sale or bigot.

From Daesh terrorists to a deep-rooted states like Iran; while "holly jihad" word is at everyone's mouths, Blaming turkey as " they bring caliphates" is just could be a dirty propaganda.

Turkey is a country that emphasizes the modern living conditions and people's will at every opportunity. And has no desire for any type of leadership over muslim states. This vision needs dialogue and brotherhood, not leadership. We only work for common and fair vision and wish to come together within common moral values. That's all.
Yes and here is the most funny part; They created an illusion, a false hope... They want to see a caliph, President Erdoğan or someone else... a strong man who will save them from all of their problems... Because in deep down they believe, it is their only hope. This hopes are false and meaningless... We can be great friends, brothers... but we do not want to be the caliphate they want to see so much. This is not what President Erdoğan wants neither.
 
Turk is the name of ethnicity those people belong to, people, who live there. Instead of playing with words such as Turkic speaking people, etc. Don't be afraid, say it.
Their ethnicity is Kazakhs, Altaics, Kyrgyz and so on. But they belong to Turkic language group. Like Polish, Slovaks, Russians and others belong to Slavic language group or Germans, English, Swedes and so on belong to Germanic language group.
 
Their ethnicity is Kazakhs, Altaics, Kyrgyz and so on. But they belong to Turkic language group. Like Polish, Slovaks, Russians and others belong to Slavic language group or Germans, English, Swedes and so on belong to Germanic language group.

Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Turkmens, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs belong to Turkic ethnicity.
 
Their ethnicity is Kazakhs, Altaics, Kyrgyz and so on. But they belong to Turkic language group. Like Polish, Slovaks, Russians and others belong to Slavic language group or Germans, English, Swedes and so on belong to Germanic language group.
"We are all Turk's." Nursultan Nazarbayev

This was not the first time the Kazakhstani president irritated Moscow with such rhetoric. In Ankara, Nazarbayev addressed a session of the Turkic Council and emphatically reiterated the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, who said, “The time will come when all Turkic people will unite.".
 
Last edited:
NATO is there to support western Christian civilization. Turkey is not part of it. Turkey is roped in just to be make use by Christian NATO members.

looks like you know nothing about Europe or the Nato... turkey is not the only muslim nation in the Nato...

muslim NATO nations
Mazedonian... 34% muslim population
Albania ... ~60% muslim population

there are many NATO nations with more than 10% muslim population

and btw in the "west" religion plays ZERRO rules

so this "wester christian civilsation" is utter nonsens u pulled out of your rear end

NATO defend human values that have nothing to do with religions, like freedom of speach, human rights etc etc...
 
There is no friends or brothers in politics just allies and partners. In the US for example they don’t use the term brothers or friends a lot when they speak about the UK or israel but they use the terms partners and allies.

Please! Trust? Who are we kidding... Turkiye to this day has THE largest NATO base in the region... what contract? Or trust? Proof is in the pudding.

Either way, please do not forget this survey is by Turks about Turks and their opinion about everyone around them ... so, you can take it up with the conductors of this survey.

What Pakistan did or didn't do... All I know is Pakistan is the only country that does not recognize Armenia in favor of Turkiye and Azerbaijan... and among the very few countries who recognize Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. As a poster mentioned earlier Pakistan took a lot of flack for that... it had an excellent relationship going with Greeks... but when it came to choose, it was quite evident they chose their brother, perhaps not reciprocated... but it is there
That’s why your foreign policy is delusional lol.
 
There is no friends or brothers in politics just allies and partners. In the US for example they don’t use the term brothers or friends a lot when they speak about the UK or israel but they use the terms partners and allies.


That’s why your foreign policy is delusional lol.
Care to come again?... and please be a little more specific...
 
"We are all Turk's." Nursultan Nazarbayev

This was not the first time the Kazakhstani president irritated Moscow with such rhetoric. In Ankara, Nazarbayev addressed a session of the Turkic Council and emphatically reiterated the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, who said, “The time will come when all Turkic people will unite.".

Garbage Nationalism does not stand the test of time, Ideology does, which is why Nassers Arabism was a failure against King Faisals Pan Islamism.
 
Care to come again?... and please be a little more specific...
Your foreign relations that based on religion rather nation state interests will but you in awkward situations like your relationship with China and the uyghur issue are you going to choose your Muslim brothers over your country interests and sacrifice your relationship with China or choose China and sacrifice your Uyghur Muslim brothers?!.
 
What I'm understanding is, for Turks it is okay if others come and die for Turkish cause ... but do not expect Turks to reply in kind.

Brother, where does your hate of Turks stem from? I have seen you take other controversial opinions as well.

Do you feel you have to be anti-Turkish because majority of your countrymen are pro-Turkish?

I will be honest there, if you wanna see infinite trust from us, you will never see it. Look at to summit that Imran Khan didn't come just because Saudi's told him not to come... And it is the answer.

Don't take the words of a few Pakistani posters with some issues as representative of the majority of us. We disagree wholeheartedly with the rhetoric being furthered by some obsessive types on this thread.

Pakistanis have a certain mindset based on lost lands and empires to Europeans, we have the Sufi and Ghazi mindset in religion, and we understand the importance of Modernity with Islam. These are due to our great statesmen like Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Philosophers like Allama Muhammad Iqbal.

Although we are more conservative than Turks and have a bit more repulsiveness for vulgar Western culture, we are similar in our way of thinking at the historical and religious scholarly level.

Also, don't call me brother. I don't like Islamists calling me brother, thanks.

This is an interesting statement. Islamist, a word invented by the West to be used against any Muslim involved in politics or seeking the betterment of his/her country, is nothing but a concocted word.

It is interesting because the very state of Pakistan was created on the basis of Muslim exceptionalism and exclusiveness from Non-Muslims. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a reality which needs to be accepted.

All Pakistanis are brothers and sisters, but if your viewpoint is different. I don't know what to say.

Don't try to bully me and suppress the truth.

turkey-flag-600x330.png

How Kemal Ataturk Made Turkey Secular ( anti Islam )
2,391 people read this post.


http://lostislamichistory.com/
The evolution of Turkey in the early 1900s is one of the most baffling cultural and social changes in Islamic history. In a few short years, the Ottoman Empire was brought down from within, stripped of its Islamic history, and devolved into a new secular nation known as Turkey. The consequences of this change are still being felt today throughout the Muslim world, and especially in a very polarized and ideologically segmented Turkey.

What caused this monumental change in Turkish government and society? At the center of it all is Mustafa Kemal, better known as Atatürk. Through his leadership in the 1920s and 1930s, modern secular Turkey was born, and Islam took a backseat in Turkish society.

The Rise of Atatürk
The decision of the Ottoman Empire to enter the First World War in 1914 turned out to be a horrible mistake. The empire was run by a dictatorship led by the “Three Pashas” who unilaterally entered the war on the German side, against the British, French, and Russians. The Ottoman Empire was invaded from the south by the British, from the East by the Russians, and by the Greeks in the West. By 1918 when the war ended, the empire was divided and occupied by the victorious allies, leaving only the central Anatolian highlands under native Turkish control.





It was in central Anatolia where Mustafa Kemal would rise to become a national hero for the Turks. As an Ottoman army officer, he displayed great leadership in battle, especially at Gallipoli, where the Ottomans managed to turn back a British invasion aimed at the capital, Istanbul. After the war, however, Kemal made clear what his priorities were. His main goal was the establishment of Turkish nationalism as the unifying force of the Turkish people. Unlike the multi-ethnic and diverse Ottoman Empire, Kemal aimed to create a monolithic state based on Turkish identity.

In Mustafa Kemal’s own words, he describes the importance of Turkish identity and the insignificance of Islam as he sees it:

“Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs [Islam], the Turks were a great nation. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion, didn’t effect to combine the Arabs, the Persians and Egyptians with the Turks to constitute a nation. (This religion) rather, loosened the national nexus of Turkish nation, got national excitement numb. This was very natural. Because the purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag to an including Arab national politics.”

– Mustafa Kemal, Medenî Bilgiler

Mustafa Kemal’s skewed [and quite frankly, factually incorrect] views of Islamic history helped push his nationalist agenda. Using Turkish identity as a rallying point, he managed to unite former Ottoman officers under his command in the Turkish War of Independence in the early 1920s and expel the occupying forces of the Greeks, British, and French, who had encroached on Turkish land after WWI. By 1922, Kemal managed to completely free the Turks of foreign occupation and used the opportunity to establish the modern Republic of Turkey, led by the Grand National Assembly, the GNA, in Ankara. At the head of the new Turkish government was a president, elected by the GNA. The natural choice was Mustafa Kemal, the hero of the War of Independence, who now took on the title of “Atatürk”, meaning “Father of the Turks”.

Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate and the Caliphate
At first, the new Turkish government seemed to inherit the role of the Ottoman government as the upholder of Islam. A new constitution drawn up by the GNA declared that Islam was the official state religion of Turkey and that all laws had to be vetted by a panel of Islamic law experts, to make sure they do not contradict the Shari’ah.

This new system of government could not work, however, so long as there continued to be a rival government in Istanbul, led by the Ottoman sultan. The Ankara and Istanbul governments both claimed sovereignty over Turkey, and had frankly conflicting goals. Atatürk eliminated this problem on November 1, 1922, when he abolished the Ottoman sultanate, which had existed since 1299, and officially transferred its power to the GNA. He did not immediately abolish the caliphate, however. Although the sultanate was no more, he allowed the Ottoman caliphate to continue to exist, although with no official powers, only as a symbolic figurehead.





Knowing that this move would be very unpopular among the Turkish people, Atatürk justified it by claiming he was simply going back to a traditional Islamic form of government. From the 900s to the 1500s, the Abbasid caliphs were mostly figureheads, with real power being in the hands of viziers or warlords. Atatürk used this example to justify his creation of a powerless caliphate.

The caliphate had existed since the days following the death of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, when Abu Bakr was elected as the first leader of the Muslim world. For Muslims outside of Turkey, Atatürk’s actions clearly put the office of the caliphate itself in danger. In India especially, Muslims expressed outrage at Atatürk’s actions and organized the Khilafat Movement, which sought to protect the caliphate from danger, whether by foreign invaders or the Turkish government itself.

For Atatürk, the expressions of support for the caliphate from Muslims outside Turkey were seen as interference in internal Turkish affairs. Citing this supposed international interference, on March 3rd, 1924, Atatürk and the Grand National Assembly abolished the caliphate itself and sent all remaining members of the Ottoman family into exile.

Attacks on Islam
With the caliphate out of the way, the Turkish government had more freedom to pursue policies that attacked Islamic institutions. Under the guise of “cleansing Islam of political interference”, the educational system was completely overhauled. Islamic education was banned in favor of secular, non-dogmatic schools. Other aspects of religious infrastructure were also torn down. The Shari’ah council to approve laws that the GNA had established just two years earlier was abolished. Religious endowments were seized and put under government control. Sufi lodges were forcefully shut down. All judges of Islamic law in the country were immediately fired, as all Shari’ah courts were closed.

Atatürk’s attacks on Islam were not limited to the government, however. Everyday life for Turks was also dictated by Atatürk’s secular ideas:

  • Traditional Islamic forms of headdress such as turbans and the fez were outlawed in favor of Western-style hats.
  • The hijaab for women was ridiculed as a “ridiculous object” and banned in public buildings.
  • The calendar was officially changed, from the traditional Islamic calendar, based on the hijrah – Prophet Muhammad ﷺ’s flight to Madinah – to the Gregorian calendar, based on the birth of Jesus Christ.
  • In 1932, the adhan – the Muslim call to prayer – was outlawed in Arabic. Instead, it was rewritten using Turkish words and forced upon the country’s thousands of mosques.
  • Friday was no longer considered part of the weekend. Instead, Turkey was forced to follow European norms of Saturday and Sunday being days off from work.
After all of these changes, the GNA gave up the charade in 1928 and deleted the clause in the constitution that declared Islam as the official state religion. Islam had been replaced with Atatürk’s secular ideologies.

Language Reform
Atatürk knew these secular reforms would be futile if the Turkish people could manage to rally together to oppose them. The biggest danger to this new order was the history of the Turks, which since the 900s had been intertwined with Islam. In order to distance the new generations of Turks from their past, Atatürk had to make the past unreadable to them.



.

With the excuse of increasing literacy among Turks (which was indeed very low in the 1920s), Atatürk advocated the replacement of Arabic letters with Latin letters. Much like Persian, Turkish was written in Arabic letters for hundreds of years after the conversion of the Turks to Islam in the 900s. Because Turkish was written in the Arabic script, Turks could read the Qur’an, and other Islamic texts with relative ease, connecting them to an Islamic identity – which Atatürk saw as a threat.

In addition to the introduction of the Latin letters, Atatürk created a commission charged with the replacement of Arabic and Persian loanwords in Turkish. In keeping with his nationalist agenda, Atatürk wanted a language that was purely Turkish, which meant old Turkish words, that had become obsolete during the Ottoman era, came back into use instead of Arabic words. For example, the Turkish War of Independence, formerly know as the Istiklal Harbi, is now known as Kurtuluş Savaşı, because “istiklal” and “harb” are Arabic loanwords in Turkish.

From Atatürk’s perspective, the language reform was wildly successful. Within a few decades, the old Ottoman Turkish was effectively extinct. The newer generations of Turks were completely cut off from the older generations, with whom simple conversations were difficult. With the Turkish people illiterate to their past, the Turkish government was able to feed them a version of history that they deemed acceptable, one that promoted the Turkish nationalistic ideas of Atatürk himself.

Secular Turkey
All of these reforms worked together to effectively erase Islam from the lives of the everyday Turks. Despite the best efforts of religious-minded Turks (such as Said Nursi) to preserve their heritage, language, and religion, the government’s pressure to adopt secular ideas was too much. For over 80 years, Turkish government remained vehemently secular. Attempts to bring back Islamic values into government have been met with resistance by the military, which views itself as the protector of Atatürk’s secularism.

In 1950, Adnan Menderes was democratically elected prime minister of Turkey on a platform of bringing back the Arabic adhan. Although he was successful, he was overthrown by a military coup in 1960 and executed after a hasty trial. More recently, in 1996, Necmettin Erbakan was elected prime minister, while remarkably openly declaring himself an “Islamist”. Once again, the military stepped in, and overthrew him from power after just one year in office.

Modern Turkey’s relations with Islam and its own history are complicated. Portions of the society strongly support Atatürk’s ideology and believe Islam should have no role in public life. Other segments of society envision a return to a more Islam-oriented society and government, and closer relations with the rest of the Muslim world. Most troubling, however, is that the ideological conflict between these two opposing sides shows no signs of subsiding anytime soon.

Bibliography:

Hiro, Dilip. Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Iran. 9. New York: Overlook Duckworth, 2011. Print.

Ochsenwald, William, and Sydney Fisher. The Middle East: A History. 6th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.


https://jamiat.org.za/how-kemal-ataturk-made-turkey-secular-anti-islam/

You are furthering the propaganda of avowed enemies of Muslims and appeasers of non-Muslims, JUI Hind, who have gone very far in criticizing our own independence leaders and even Pakistanis with Takfir.

Ataturk did many good things also for Islam, but most of all he brought pride and honor back to Turkey, otherwise the forces of Non-Muslims would be sitting in Istanbul even today.

It should be noted that not every savior of Islam wears a beard, robe, and turban. Some of the greatest Muslim heroes did not have any of that attire. Allah swt sends the heroes He chooses, not the ones we want.

Where did I insult you or anyone?

I was highlighting the fact that how much damage Atatürk has done to Islam. See his quote.

“Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs [Islam], the Turks were a great nation. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion, didn’t effect to combine the Arabs, the Persians and Egyptians with the Turks to constitute a nation. (This religion) rather, loosened the national nexus of Turkish nation, got national excitement numb. This was very natural. Because the purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag to an including Arab national politics.”

– Mustafa Kemal, Medenî Bilgiler

The Arabs betrayed the Ottoman Khilafat, which itself was an act of Kufr, and they did so with the help of the English and French. No doubt, Ataturk had a lot of contempt for the backwards mindset of Arabs which gave birth to this mindset. Even today the state of Arab nations does not inspire confidence.

Even our own Allama Iqbal said similar things, about Pakistan he said in his Allahabad 1940 address, paraphrased, it can give Islam a new image divorced from the stamp of Arab imperialism (meaning Muawiya, Yazid and their successors' imperial dictatorships.)

Because Soviets used communism as an excuse to occupy Muslim lands from Balkans to Central Asia.

Actually the Czarists had conquered that land in the Russo-Turkish wars, many Muslim Turks were massacred and expelled from their lands by Imperial Russia.

It was because of two stubborn goats, Timur and Beyazid. The Ottoman progression slowed down for 100 years because of this. Timur's state policies created a huge vacuum in Asia. In the north, the Golden Horde state collapsed. The regional dominance of Kipchaks, Uzs and Pechenegs has disappeared. Finally, the Timur state broke up within itself. Thus, the foundations of the appropriate political conditions, in which Moscow could progress step by step for 200 years, were laid.

Interesting persepective here, if we ask Uzbeks and other people from CARs, they revere Emir Timur as a hero, even though he did devestate the Ottoman Empire and also negatively affected ours in coterminous Pakistan.

We are living there for centuries. So it is our lands too. Before Turkich-speaking nations Scythians lived there - does it means Turkich-speaking nations are not natives?


They are Turkich-speaking nations. It is like Slovaks or Slovens say all Slavic speaking nations are belong to them because their ethnicity is called "Slav". Central Asia belongs to people who live there not to Turks from Turkey. I suppose Turks left central Asia in Middle Ages but Russians live there from 16 ct.
Besides, Tajiks are Persian people.

Well the Turks are one racial stock, albiet with great mixing from Mongols and Iranics like Scythians/Saka (like us.) However after the advent of Islam, the Turks became more heavily influenced by Persians than their original nomadic culture. Turkish culture underwent a phenomenal change, and the same happened to the Mongols and other nomads after the collapse of the Mongol empire (and its defeat by the Muslims.)

Yes and here is the most funny part; They created an illusion, a false hope... They want to see a caliph, President Erdoğan or someone else... a strong man who will save them from all of their problems... Because in deep down they believe, it is their only hope. This hopes are false and meaningless... We can be great friends, brothers... but we do not want to be the caliphate they want to see so much. This is not what President Erdoğan wants neither.

Erdogan is only a great leader, pragmatic and like any human, he makes mistakes. We should not put him on a pedestal of which he does not claim. Even saying that, of course defeated and demoralized Muslim people all over the world will look toward any great leader for the salvaging some sort of pride and honor.

I believe firmly that we as Muslims should only depend on Allah swt. We should work hard and do the work we are supposed to do expecting that there will be no savior, except the one in each of us. This is the reason Allama Iqbal always said that the secret of success and freedom of the Muslims resides in each of us. So sick of pessimism and defeatism which he was.

85a87e165934d1767b6be2f05dc425d7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Turkish public believes Turkey has no friends - but Turks

New study indicates that historical grievances and nationalist policies are making Turkey's population feel ever more isolated


By Ragip Soylu in Ankara

For decades, the Turkish state had a strictly nationalist curriculum in its schools, drilling the idea into pupils' minds that Turks have - almost always - been alone when facing an existential crisis in the international arena.
Teachers taught their students a saying that was believed to summarise the idea: “Turks don’t have friends besides other Turks.”
Though the teaching of such a message has been far less robust in recent years, analysts have still observed a similar trend in education.
Now, it appears, the message that Turkey can only rely on its Turkic neighbours and partners has lost its power - with the majority of Turkish citizens now thinking they stand almost completely alone.
According to an annual poll conducted among 1,000 people in December by Istanbul-based Kadir Has University, just one country fits the majority of the public’s definition of a friend or ally: Azerbaijan, a Turkic country that 56.5 of respondents saw favourably.
Second place was taken by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an independent state only recognised by Ankara, with 43.1 percent support. Northern Cyprus saw a 16-percent drop in its approval ratings from last year, largely due to recent policy clashes with Ankara.
The poll also suggests the majority of Turkish citizens believe the remaining countries - including Georgia, Qatar, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, the United States, India and China - are not Turkey’s friends.

Lessons from history

Analysts believe the results aren’t surprising at all, considering the government's nationalist policies over recent decades and Turkey’s increasing military engagement in the region that put Ankara at odds with many neighbours.
Ferhat Kentel, a sociology professor at Istanbul Sehir University, told Middle East Eye that two events largely lie behind this trend: the fall of the Ottoman empire and the Sevres Treaty that followed it, which if enforced would have seen Turkey cede large chunks of Anatolia.
Former colonial powers are always high in the threat list: 64.5 percent of Turkish citizens perceive the US as a threat, 49 percent for the UK and France, while 55.6 percent feel the same about Israel.
Last month, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara’s maritime delimitation deal with the Libyan government had reversed the Sevres Treaty by upending the regional order, a confirmation that memories from the late Ottoman era are still relevant in daily politics.
“The state taught citizens that we have been all alone since the independence war,” Kentel said, referring to the conflict that founded modern Turkey after the First World War.

'Yes, the majority doesn’t like anyone. But no one should ignore the millions of people with different ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds that do perceive other countries as allies'
- Murat Guvenc, study author

“However, now you have the ruling AKP in the last few years also working with nationalist leaders, like Devlet Bahceli and Dogu Perincek, who also assert that Turkey is alone.
"The public is also looking for international organisations or other countries to lean on. And they cannot find anyone else either.”
Others say the Turkish government’s involvement in Libya and Syria's civil wars, and Turkish military presence in Somalia, Qatar, Afghanistan and Bosnia, might have an impact on society as a whole.
Murat Guvenc, a professor at Kadir Has University, one of the study's authors, said that Turkey’s recent Operation Peace Spring in northeastern Syria against Kurdish forces was a good example of how foreign adventures can affect public consciousness.
“You saw both Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump trying to stop the operation. Trump was threatening Ankara with economic sanctions,” he told MEE. "It makes people feel that everyone is against them. I see a similar trend among the most educated, western and secular groups.”
However, Guvenc also pointed out that the results must be examined carefully.
“Yes, the majority doesn’t like anyone. But no one should ignore the millions of people with different ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds that do perceive other countries as allies," he said.
"And there is no monolithic group as Turks.”
On the other hand, Turkish feelings about other countries might be mutual.
For example, 44.4 percent of Turkish citizens believe Germany is a threat to them. And a poll done last year by YouGov indicates that the majority of Germans, 58 percent, believe Turkey should be expelled from Nato over Operation Peace Spring. Only 18 percent were against the idea.
“No one sees Turks as allies. And Turks know that,” Kentel said.
“This is also an international trend: everyone is inclined to go it alone. You have right-wing strongmen as heads of states around the world, which pumps up nationalism."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkish-public-believes-turkey-has-no-friends-but-turks poll-says

Honestly, it is a sad read... Turkish example is of a man who tried to please everyone. They made a modern secular state, changed their clothes, changed their language, alphabet, ideals, joined NATO, tried(ing?) joining EU and let Islam go...
After a century of this experiment they stand alone or at least they feel they do... In this everyone maligned them... Arab nationalism and Western Europe... both for their history and their contemporary needs/demands/aspirations.
They are far more Turks then you are a pakistani. Yes they western cloths but only in capitals like Ankara and Istanbul or other hug cities. In country side people are more modest. They have family system just like us. They speak their own language proudly and don't even litter it with english words. They prefer their own food. They wear their own ethnicity proudly.
And they keep all their old customs still. Their wedding customs are same as 150 years ago.
Surely they find freinds in Pakistan.
This article is I think about bugger economies. Their exports are growing day by day and they have not done anything wrong to their society.
Rich treats poor equal not like us as we treat poor as animals. Their society is much evolved. They don't have these fake norms we have about what and when and how to do things.
They are doing all the right things.
 
Their ethnicity is Kazakhs, Altaics, Kyrgyz and so on. But they belong to Turkic language group. Like Polish, Slovaks, Russians and others belong to Slavic language group or Germans, English, Swedes and so on belong to Germanic language group.
True, never there is anything called "Turk ethnicity".
 
True, never there is anything called "Turk ethnicity".

Considering Chinese and Russians motives, you are the last to be an authority on this subject.

Turan is even mentioned in Shahnameh, a historical epic from ancient Persia.

In addition, Turkish empires like Seljuks, Ghaznavis, Ottomans, Mughals/Baburoguleri, etc. relied on Pan-Turkism as a matter of policy. It is not a coincidence, for example, that most of the ruling class of these empires like Mughals were Turkish or heavily intermarried with Turks.

Sometime around the fall of Banu Abbas, the last Arab empire, Turks became the primary movers, defenders, scholars, and conquerors of the Islamic world.
 
Considering Chinese and Russians motives, you are the last to be an authority on this subject.

Turan is even mentioned in Shahnameh, a historical epic from ancient Persia.

In addition, Turkish empires like Seljuks, Ghaznavis, Ottomans, Mughals/Baburoguleri, etc. relied on Pan-Turkism as a matter of policy. It is not a coincidence, for example, that most of the ruling class of these empires like Mughals were Turkish or heavily intermarried with Turks.

Sometime around the fall of Banu Abbas, the last Arab empire, Turks became the primary movers, defenders, scholars, and conquerors of the Islamic world.
Its amazing how bad the chinese are regarding world history yet have an opinion about everything, happens all the time on PDF, just keep quiet if you dont know about a subject...
 
Back
Top Bottom