PTM Now Has Problem with "Kalias" Watching Turkish TV Serials

[Naofumi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashf-e_hijab

Western historians often state that this would have been a progressive step if women had indeed chosen to do it themselves, but instead, this ban humiliated and alienated many Iranian women,[3][9][10][13] since its effect was comparable to a hypothetical situation in which European women were suddenly ordered to go out topless into the street.[6][7][8][9] Historians often point that Reza Shah's ban on veiling and his policies are unseen even in Atatürk's Turkey,[9][10] and some scholars state that it is very difficult to imagine that even Hitler's or Stalin's regime would do something similar.[6][7][8] The arbitrary decree by Reza Shah was criticized even by British consul in Tehran:[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goharshad_Mosque_rebellion

Not as well as Ataturk. He did it in a Central Asian despotic leader kind of way.

Ataturk was great, agreed but you can't ignore the work his predecessors did which was absent in Shah's case.

Bonus : Why do you think that Ataturk chose democracy but Shah chose to establish a dynasty?​

 

[Cliftonite]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashf-e_hijab

Western historians often state that this would have been a progressive step if women had indeed chosen to do it themselves, but instead, this ban humiliated and alienated many Iranian women,[3][9][10][13] since its effect was comparable to a hypothetical situation in which European women were suddenly ordered to go out topless into the street.[6][7][8][9] Historians often point that Reza Shah's ban on veiling and his policies are unseen even in Atatürk's Turkey,[9][10] and some scholars state that it is very difficult to imagine that even Hitler's or Stalin's regime would do something similar.[6][7][8] The arbitrary decree by Reza Shah was criticized even by British consul in Tehran:[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goharshad_Mosque_rebellion

Ataturk did the same thing. Sad that his legacy seems to be dying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashf-e_hijab

Western historians often state that this would have been a progressive step if women had indeed chosen to do it themselves, but instead, this ban humiliated and alienated many Iranian women,[3][9][10][13] since its effect was comparable to a hypothetical situation in which European women were suddenly ordered to go out topless into the street.[6][7][8][9] Historians often point that Reza Shah's ban on veiling and his policies are unseen even in Atatürk's Turkey,[9][10] and some scholars state that it is very difficult to imagine that even Hitler's or Stalin's regime would do something similar.[6][7][8] The arbitrary decree by Reza Shah was criticized even by British consul in Tehran:[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goharshad_Mosque_rebellion

Ataturk was great, agreed but you can't ignore the work his predecessors did which was absent in Shah's case.

Bonus : Why do you think that Ataturk chose democracy but Shah chose to establish a dynasty?​

Ataturk had genuine love for the Turkish nation. Shah was a corrupt western puppet.

 

[Naofumi]

Ataturk did the same thing. Sad that his legacy seems to be dying.

Ataturk had genuine love for the Turkish nation. Shah was a corrupt western puppet.

Ataturk was more deliberate, learned and lucky, he had a Tanzimat-Young Ototmans-Young Turk intellectual legacy to build upon, his society had seen these revolutions beforehand and was penetrated by western ideals already, he fought an existential war for his country, he negotiated every piece of land he could (if not the west backed Islamist Sheikh Said rebellion he would have some oil too) - he cared for it because he literally earned it.
An average Istanbuli was much more concerned about modernization in 1910 than a Tehrani, I believe that's the crux.

 

[Cliftonite]

Ataturk was more deliberate, learned and lucky, he had a Tanzimat-Young Ototmans-Young Turk intellectual legacy to build upon, his society had seen these revolutions beforehand and was penetrated by western ideals already, he fought an existential war for his country, he negotiated every piece of land he could (if not the west backed Islamist Sheikh Said rebellion he would have some oil too) - he cared for it because he literally earned it.
An average Istanbuli was much more concerned about modernization in 1910 than a Tehrani, I believe that's the crux.

I agree.

 

[PakFactor]

Lol should I be honest? Sach karwa lagay ga. Ataturk while promoting nationalism also really clamped down on the religious brigade. The Shah didn't. Now I'm not defending that corrupt mofo but all I'm saying is the religious elements took advantage of that vacuum in Iran. Same is the case in Pakistan. Believe it or not, Pakistan was quite a secular country in the 60s. There was no question of sectarianism and religious violence even being a problem.

What you say isn't, Karwa, it's the truth my view is yes religion should be upheld within the nation and regulated you can't have various molvi's going around preaching and break national laws (such as in Pakistan case). There has to be a balance, his basic principle was to keep religion in house and out of nation policy making. Overall, he was a interesting figure, their are things I don't like about him, but same their are good things about him as well.

 

[Cliftonite]

What you say isn't, Karwa, it's the truth my view is yes religion should be upheld within the nation and regulated you can't have various molvi's going around preaching and break national laws (such as in Pakistan case). There has to be a balance, his basic principle was to keep religion in house and out of nation policy making. Overall, he was a interesting figure, their are things I don't like about him, but same their are good things about him as well.

Sad we couldn't have leaders like him. Had Quaid lived longer he would have taken the country to a similar path.

 

[PakFactor]

Sad we couldn't have leaders like him. Had Quaid lived longer he would have taken the country to a similar path.

Exactly, its one gaping hole we've not been able to recover from Allah (swt) took him away to early from us.

 

[-SINAN-]

Lol should I be honest? Sach karwa lagay ga. Ataturk while promoting nationalism also really clamped down on the religious brigade. The Shah didn't. Now I'm not defending that corrupt mofo but all I'm saying is the religious elements took advantage of that vacuum in Iran. Same is the case in Pakistan. Believe it or not, Pakistan was quite a secular country in the 60s. There was no question of sectarianism and religious violence even being a problem.

Actually, Ataturk didn't went over the religious mullahs from the start. But after the decleration of the republic some religous mullahs revolted in Izmir, they marched to governorate, a young officer named Kubilay stand against them in front of the building. Mullahs cut his head while shouting "we want sharia". They mounted his head on a pike and paraded....

After learning the incident. Ataturk left non of those fuckers alive. Nobody revolted again.

 

[Cliftonite]

Actually, Ataturk didn't went over the religious mullahs from the start. But after the decleration of the republic some religous mullahs revolted in Izmir, they marched to governorate a young officer named Kubilay stand against them in front of the building. Mullahs cut his head while shouting "we want sharia". They mounted his head on a pike and paraded....

After learning the incident. Ataturk left non of those fuckers alive. Nobody revolted again.

That's how it should be. You give them an inch they take a foot.

 

[HRK]

And where was his rant when dozens of Afghans were drowned by the Iranians?

In free world everyone is free to choose his 'Master' ....

 

[-SINAN-]

That's how it should be. You give them an inch they take a foot.

Yeah, Ataturk was some thing else. During the WW1 he was an Ottoman Officer. During the war, he disobeyed his superiors on several occasions and take initiative against the orders he has given and his decisions always changed the course of the battle. So, he was never court marshalled. He received more than 15 medals as an Ottoman officer.

So, when somebody compares him with another historical figure...i don't know. It's almost like he never made a wrong decision in his entire life. It is hard to compare him somebody else. Ataturk was so out of this world.

 

[Cliftonite]

Yeah, Ataturk was some thing else. During the WW1 he was an Ottoman Officer. During the war, he disobeyed his superiors on several occasions and take initiative against the orders he has given and his decisions always changed the course of the battle. So, he was never court marshalled. He received more than 15 medals as an Ottoman officer.

So, when somebody compares him with another historical figure...i don't know. It's almost like he never made a wrong decision in his entire life. It is hard to compare him somebody else. Ataturk was so out of this world.

I agree 100% but the current leaders seem to be eroding his legacy.

 

[-SINAN-]

I agree 100% but the current leaders seem to be eroding his legacy.

From my point of view Turkey is still a secular democratic republic, so i can say his legacy still goes on.

As for Erdoğan, i think he did good in his first 2 terms from 2002 to 2010. Then he began to corrupt. Turkey is not in a good shape today but everything can be repaired when Erdogan leaves the office.

 

[Indos]

From my point of view Turkey is still a secular democratic republic, so i can say his legacy still goes on.

As for Erdoğan, i think he did good in his first 2 terms from 2002 to 2010. Then he began to corrupt. Turkey is not in a good shape today but everything can be repaired when Erdogan leaves the office.

I think you need to limit the term just like US/Indonesia and some other democracy do.

 

[Naofumi]

Yeah, Ataturk was some thing else. During the WW1 he was an Ottoman Officer. During the war, he disobeyed his superiors on several occasions and take initiative against the orders he has given and his decisions always changed the course of the battle. So, he was never court marshalled. He received more than 15 medals as an Ottoman officer.

So, when somebody compares him with another historical figure...i don't know. It's almost like he never made a wrong decision in his entire life. It is hard to compare him somebody else. Ataturk was so out of this world.

I agree with all of this but his aggressive Turkification (especially on Kurds) seems to be the historical focal point that fueled Kurdish insurgency in later decades.