TR Casual Discussion Çay Bahçesi

[Philips]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421545835167424517

What a surprise. The Emirates shot themselves in the foot.

 

[Ryder]

This job does not look like "showing their muscles when going to war". All major intelligence organizations of the Earth are engaged in playing games in the region. A vise that is not that end. People are tired of waiting to die with their lamb likes loved ones. Even though they will fight with Turkey, they have to stay connected to Turkey's agreements. Even if they will fight again, the West targets them specifically.

Geopolitics is ruthless. The common man is sacrificed for interests.

So many screwed up countries on this planet. Turkiye is a paradise if you compared them. Not to say Turkey is perfect or doing well but its 100 times better than a lot of countries like south sudan, somalia, moldova, afghanistan, drc, mali, burkina faso, syria, iraq and others.

I can see why many stay in Turkey nobody wants live in a place where bombs go off daily.

 

[Okan]

Allah kimseyi bu duruma düşürmesin. Siyasilere ve onların süslü sözlerine innamayın. Hepsi için geçerli bu. Tek gerçek var o da ülkenin çıkarlarıdır.

 

[Anastasius]

Man I really feel bad. I know i can be a bit harsh at times. But I really do feel sorry for these people what an awful thing. I can see why so many dont want to come back to Syria because the country no longer has a future.

I voted for Barack Obama back in the day. Not that the Republicans would've been much better but every day I wish I could go back in time and punch myself in the face for being so stupid.

May they all die of the worst form of cancer imaginable and suffer every second for a year until they expire.

 

[Ryder]

Anybody notice this every time we vote for a politician or a political party we get buck broken in the process?

 

[Ryder]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421147641493311492

#BuckBreaking

 

[Nilgiri]

Hi, Nilgiri.

for being neutral here.
Appreciated & respected.

Thank you for your kind words. I might as well give my core thoughts on my overall perspective/philosophy (as it pertains to fair discussion/debate and systems/people that seek to have it) here as this seems a better (tea-room) place for it...

Readers can click quote chain for context of original thread posts if they want.

Certain folks may also fill in some blanks they may still have about where I stand with them and my deep grievance with their disingenuous, cloak and dagger approach here.

Let me say firstly, I don't exactly know if I would call it "neutral".

I understand what you mean, I would call it "principled"...I feel there is a distinction.

It (my approach to media and other avenues of political theatre) is very much a stance+position I have taken on certain principles I hold dear... given evidence I have seen over the last 20+ years at least (when I developed the aptitude to make informed decision on these matters).

i.e I know very well my fair share of people that have taken the opposite stance (on these issues) to mine....and have confronted them on numerous occasions if it is of especially intolerable degree and/or urgency. i.e I feel I am very much not neutral on this subject. Neutrality suggests I don't take or express a position at all etc.

Maybe if more creeps up later for me to explain more of this, I will do so....if such is merited here or another thread.

Broadly speaking though, members here will find if they are open/honest/consistent about whom they are and what positions they hold (as long as its principled one...my agreement/disagreement is of lower importance)...there is lot of common ground to be found if good-faith discussion is engaged.

For example lot of folks might not know it....but take @Yankeestani 's presence here on this forum. There are maybe dozen or so posts between us in total so far here? People may assume easily that's an absolute sum total...or assume we are on total different wavelengths given respective responses/likes in the (AFG war) thread etc.

But they'd be wrong in that first glance assumption.

I notice he is lately hitting the likes but saying little. He leaves us poorer for it as he is quite interesting fellow, with interesting background, with lot of positions I sympathise with and even share....and others I disagree with.
He is after all one I have extended convo on such matters (both on and off the record) in earlier years preceding this one.

@Kaptaan is a similar story. Though he sees merit to sharing/voicing a lot lately compared to Yankeestani. I suppose the time/interest is more consistent in Kaptaan's case.

But in both cases, my dialogue with them only happened because they were always pretty frank about who and what they are, they put PK flag as origin for starters. I've grown to expect the same from everyone as basic good faith basis.

When that is done, I always give full benefit of doubt to people with what I see as foibles and whichever passing sparring that arises from it (everyone has these, we are imperfect beings in a seemingly imperfect world)....as long as their character is sound (and they make it easy to gauge that) .

That is they are honest and principled actors with clarity on deep root issues.
i.e on things that go deeper than the influence of various individual circumstances and inherited contexts.

i.e Would you be glad to have them on your side if fate and circumstance turned out differently?

Similarly are there those on "your side" that you would rather (due to their degraded character) have been on the opponents? *chuckles*

Any differences (and they can be deep and wide indeed) end up being just a side note for me if people cut the (esp easy to sniff) unprincipled and cowardly games (of which I have seen some in this forum) so to speak.

Principled people after all tend to grab my attention and retain it.... worthies among them often end up (for me) being a landscape of mountains and canyons that I like to know more of if picturesque and interesting (this often needs them to be quite different to my own landscape if you will).

But with unprincipled people, they do not let me see their landscape at all as fog and smoke obscures greatly (disguise, stealth, bad faith approach, unprincipled greyness)...yet I put everything for them to see from my end.

See the problem of unequal approach from beginning?

It is this (fog, smoke, petty games that insult the basic intelligence and common sense) that I am against.

Left to itself, it promotes misunderstanding (given what is enshrouded), hate (given we fear what we cannot see) and strife (as we blindly fight what we hate to no end)....that too only for the sake of promoting these three vicious fates of humankind.

I therefore find (as time goes on) I have to defer to my judgement of character more and more to be willing to engage in any real dialogue (that actually has some potential to benefit both parties) when it pops up.

I have simply wasted enough time with too many lost causes already (sometimes I am astonished looking back at the foul temper that lurks within me that I foolishly let slip)...the only silver lining maybe being that I have grown more alert to the common signs they all show early.

I give warnings to rest as well as I see fit about this.

My conclusion is it is best spending time and discussion with those that merit it or have earned it in principled way, put plainly.

After all principles are one's clear weapons and shield they have for all to see....unlike cloak and dagger. Most can see for themselves whom I refer to in AFG thread and elsewhere by "cloak and dagger".

My stance is we simply don't have much else to go upon (past open and consistent identity and principles) in the online environment especially.

Thus I strongly feel, if you are opponent or even enemy, fight me on an open and level battleground. Show me what you got and I'll show you what I got...and may the best prevail.

Have courage to face the other and face yourself. We abhor cowardice do we not?

With courage and principles, you may after all find after battle...there is other worth you did not see or know before...and can depart as worthy adversaries...friends even...though we will inevitably fight again another day.

"Come, let us give each other gifts, unforgettable gifts,
so any man may say, Trojan soldier or Argive,
'First they fought with heart-devouring hatred,
then they parted, bound by pacts of friendship.' "

(Hector to Ajax at nightfall after first combat)
- Illiad, Book VII

@Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 @VCheng


===========================

TL;DR and especially to @Vag the stalwart Greek (to see if he, @Foulgrim @Dante80 or anyone else can read + understand this without google):

ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύληισιν
ὅς χ᾽ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθηι ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπηι.

Spoiler: Meaning

Hateful to me as the gates of Hell is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another - (Achilles to ???)

W.r.t the ambiguity (???)...I stand very much on the side that

Spoiler: Pyrisous

Achilles

refers to

Spoiler: ???

King Agamemnon

here, not

Spoiler: ???

Odysseus

his emissary.

@RAMPAGE (if you do check in here + reply old friend)

 

[guest_07]

Thank you for your kind words. I might as well give my core thoughts on my overall perspective/philosophy (as it pertains to fair discussion/debate and systems/people that seek to have it) here as this seems a better (tea-room) place for it...

Readers can click quote chain for context of original thread posts if they want.

Certain folks may also fill in some blanks they may still have about where I stand with them and my deep grievance with their disingenuous, cloak and dagger approach here.

Let me say firstly, I don't exactly know if I would call it "neutral".

I understand what you mean, I would call it "principled"...I feel there is a distinction.

It (my approach to media and other avenues of political theatre) is very much a stance+position I have taken on certain principles I hold dear... given evidence I have seen over the last 20+ years at least (when I developed the aptitude to make informed decision on these matters).

i.e I know very well my fair share of people that have taken the opposite stance (on these issues) to mine....and have confronted them on numerous occasions if it is of especially intolerable degree and/or urgency. i.e I feel I am very much not neutral on this subject. Neutrality suggests I don't take or express a position at all etc.

Maybe if more creeps up later for me to explain more of this, I will do so....if such is merited here or another thread.

Broadly speaking though, members here will find if they are open/honest/consistent about whom they are and what positions they hold (as long as its principled one...my agreement/disagreement is of lower importance)...there is lot of common ground to be found if good-faith discussion is engaged.

For example lot of folks might not know it....but take @Yankeestani 's presence here on this forum. There are maybe dozen or so posts between us in total so far here? People may assume easily that's an absolute sum total...or assume we are on total different wavelengths given respective responses/likes in the (AFG war) thread etc.

But they'd be wrong in that first glance assumption.

I notice he is lately hitting the likes but saying little. He leaves us poorer for it as he is quite interesting fellow, with interesting background, with lot of positions I sympathise with and even share....and others I disagree with.
He is after all one I have extended convo on such matters (both on and off the record) in earlier years preceding this one.

@Kaptaan is a similar story. Though he sees merit to sharing/voicing a lot lately compared to Yankeestani. I suppose the time/interest is more consistent in Kaptaan's case.

But in both cases, my dialogue with them only happened because they were always pretty frank about who and what they are, they put PK flag as origin for starters. I've grown to expect the same from everyone as basic good faith basis.

When that is done, I always give full benefit of doubt to people with what I see as foibles and whichever passing sparring that arises from it (everyone has these, we are imperfect beings in a seemingly imperfect world)....as long as their character is sound (and they make it easy to gauge that) .

That is they are honest and principled actors with clarity on deep root issues.
i.e on things that go deeper than the influence of various individual circumstances and inherited contexts.

i.e Would you be glad to have them on your side if fate and circumstance turned out differently?

Similarly are there those on "your side" that you would rather (due to their degraded character) have been on the opponents? *chuckles*

Any differences (and they can be deep and wide indeed) end up being just a side note for me if people cut the (esp easy to sniff) unprincipled and cowardly games (of which I have seen some in this forum) so to speak.

Principled people after all tend to grab my attention and retain it.... worthies among them often end up (for me) being a landscape of mountains and canyons that I like to know more of if picturesque and interesting (this often needs them to be quite different to my own landscape if you will).

But with unprincipled people, they do not let me see their landscape at all as fog and smoke obscures greatly (disguise, stealth, bad faith approach, unprincipled greyness)...yet I put everything for them to see from my end.

See the problem of unequal approach from beginning?

It is this (fog, smoke, petty games that insult the basic intelligence and common sense) that I am against.

Left to itself, it promotes misunderstanding (given what is enshrouded), hate (given we fear what we cannot see) and strife (as we blindly fight what we hate to no end)....that too only for the sake of promoting these three vicious fates of humankind.

I therefore find (as time goes on) I have to defer to my judgement of character more and more to be willing to engage in any real dialogue (that actually has some potential to benefit both parties) when it pops up.

I have simply wasted enough time with too many lost causes already (sometimes I am astonished looking back at the foul temper that lurks within me that I foolishly let slip)...the only silver lining maybe being that I have grown more alert to the common signs they all show early.

I give warnings to rest as well as I see fit about this.

My conclusion is it is best spending time and discussion with those that merit it or have earned it in principled way, put plainly.

After all principles are one's clear weapons and shield they have for all to see....unlike cloak and dagger. Most can see for themselves whom I refer to in AFG thread and elsewhere by "cloak and dagger".

My stance is we simply don't have much else to go upon (past open and consistent identity and principles) in the online environment especially.

Thus I strongly feel, if you are opponent or even enemy, fight me on an open and level battleground. Show me what you got and I'll show you what I got...and may the best prevail.

Have courage to face the other and face yourself. We abhor cowardice do we not?

With courage and principles, you may after all find after battle...there is other worth you did not see or know before...and can depart as worthy adversaries...friends even...though we will inevitably fight again another day.

"Come, let us give each other gifts, unforgettable gifts,
so any man may say, Trojan soldier or Argive,
'First they fought with heart-devouring hatred,
then they parted, bound by pacts of friendship.' "

(Hector to Ajax at nightfall after first combat)
- Illiad, Book VII

@Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 @VCheng


===========================

TL;DR and especially to @Vag the stalwart Greek (to see if he, @Foulgrim @Dante80 or anyone else can read + understand this without google):

ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύληισιν
ὅς χ᾽ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθηι ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπηι.

Spoiler: Meaning

Hateful to me as the gates of Hell is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another - (Achilles to ???)

W.r.t the ambiguity (???)...I stand very much on the side that

Spoiler: Pyrisous

Achilles

refers to

Spoiler: ???

King Agamemnon

here, not

Spoiler: ???

Odysseus

his emissary.

@RAMPAGE (if you do check in here + reply old friend)

Great principle in you, my friend, Nilgiri.

As a respected friend,
I want to doa to you,
may Allah give you guidance.
Insha Allah.

 

[Vaggos]

Thank you for your kind words. I might as well give my core thoughts on my overall perspective/philosophy (as it pertains to fair discussion/debate and systems/people that seek to have it) here as this seems a better (tea-room) place for it...

Readers can click quote chain for context of original thread posts if they want.

Certain folks may also fill in some blanks they may still have about where I stand with them and my deep grievance with their disingenuous, cloak and dagger approach here.

Let me say firstly, I don't exactly know if I would call it "neutral".

I understand what you mean, I would call it "principled"...I feel there is a distinction.

It (my approach to media and other avenues of political theatre) is very much a stance+position I have taken on certain principles I hold dear... given evidence I have seen over the last 20+ years at least (when I developed the aptitude to make informed decision on these matters).

i.e I know very well my fair share of people that have taken the opposite stance (on these issues) to mine....and have confronted them on numerous occasions if it is of especially intolerable degree and/or urgency. i.e I feel I am very much not neutral on this subject. Neutrality suggests I don't take or express a position at all etc.

Maybe if more creeps up later for me to explain more of this, I will do so....if such is merited here or another thread.

Broadly speaking though, members here will find if they are open/honest/consistent about whom they are and what positions they hold (as long as its principled one...my agreement/disagreement is of lower importance)...there is lot of common ground to be found if good-faith discussion is engaged.

For example lot of folks might not know it....but take @Yankeestani 's presence here on this forum. There are maybe dozen or so posts between us in total so far here? People may assume easily that's an absolute sum total...or assume we are on total different wavelengths given respective responses/likes in the (AFG war) thread etc.

But they'd be wrong in that first glance assumption.

I notice he is lately hitting the likes but saying little. He leaves us poorer for it as he is quite interesting fellow, with interesting background, with lot of positions I sympathise with and even share....and others I disagree with.
He is after all one I have extended convo on such matters (both on and off the record) in earlier years preceding this one.

@Kaptaan is a similar story. Though he sees merit to sharing/voicing a lot lately compared to Yankeestani. I suppose the time/interest is more consistent in Kaptaan's case.

But in both cases, my dialogue with them only happened because they were always pretty frank about who and what they are, they put PK flag as origin for starters. I've grown to expect the same from everyone as basic good faith basis.

When that is done, I always give full benefit of doubt to people with what I see as foibles and whichever passing sparring that arises from it (everyone has these, we are imperfect beings in a seemingly imperfect world)....as long as their character is sound (and they make it easy to gauge that) .

That is they are honest and principled actors with clarity on deep root issues.
i.e on things that go deeper than the influence of various individual circumstances and inherited contexts.

i.e Would you be glad to have them on your side if fate and circumstance turned out differently?

Similarly are there those on "your side" that you would rather (due to their degraded character) have been on the opponents? *chuckles*

Any differences (and they can be deep and wide indeed) end up being just a side note for me if people cut the (esp easy to sniff) unprincipled and cowardly games (of which I have seen some in this forum) so to speak.

Principled people after all tend to grab my attention and retain it.... worthies among them often end up (for me) being a landscape of mountains and canyons that I like to know more of if picturesque and interesting (this often needs them to be quite different to my own landscape if you will).

But with unprincipled people, they do not let me see their landscape at all as fog and smoke obscures greatly (disguise, stealth, bad faith approach, unprincipled greyness)...yet I put everything for them to see from my end.

See the problem of unequal approach from beginning?

It is this (fog, smoke, petty games that insult the basic intelligence and common sense) that I am against.

Left to itself, it promotes misunderstanding (given what is enshrouded), hate (given we fear what we cannot see) and strife (as we blindly fight what we hate to no end)....that too only for the sake of promoting these three vicious fates of humankind.

I therefore find (as time goes on) I have to defer to my judgement of character more and more to be willing to engage in any real dialogue (that actually has some potential to benefit both parties) when it pops up.

I have simply wasted enough time with too many lost causes already (sometimes I am astonished looking back at the foul temper that lurks within me that I foolishly let slip)...the only silver lining maybe being that I have grown more alert to the common signs they all show early.

I give warnings to rest as well as I see fit about this.

My conclusion is it is best spending time and discussion with those that merit it or have earned it in principled way, put plainly.

After all principles are one's clear weapons and shield they have for all to see....unlike cloak and dagger. Most can see for themselves whom I refer to in AFG thread and elsewhere by "cloak and dagger".

My stance is we simply don't have much else to go upon (past open and consistent identity and principles) in the online environment especially.

Thus I strongly feel, if you are opponent or even enemy, fight me on an open and level battleground. Show me what you got and I'll show you what I got...and may the best prevail.

Have courage to face the other and face yourself. We abhor cowardice do we not?

With courage and principles, you may after all find after battle...there is other worth you did not see or know before...and can depart as worthy adversaries...friends even...though we will inevitably fight again another day.

"Come, let us give each other gifts, unforgettable gifts,
so any man may say, Trojan soldier or Argive,
'First they fought with heart-devouring hatred,
then they parted, bound by pacts of friendship.' "

(Hector to Ajax at nightfall after first combat)
- Illiad, Book VII

@Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 @VCheng


===========================

TL;DR and especially to @Vag the stalwart Greek (to see if he, @Foulgrim @Dante80 or anyone else can read + understand this without google):

ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύληισιν
ὅς χ᾽ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθηι ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπηι.

Spoiler: Meaning

Hateful to me as the gates of Hell is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another - (Achilles to ???)

W.r.t the ambiguity (???)...I stand very much on the side that

Spoiler: Pyrisous

Achilles

refers to

Spoiler: ???

King Agamemnon

here, not

Spoiler: ???

Odysseus

his emissary.

@RAMPAGE (if you do check in here + reply old friend)

Homer in Rhapsody I of the Iliad, describes the gathering of the Greeks after the unfortunate outcome in the beginning of the war against the Trojans and the attempt to persuade Achilles to enter the battle in which he did not participate in the beginning, because he was so angry with Agamemnon that he wanted to kill him. Agamemnon dishonored a priest and he captured his daughter Chrysiida.

Some Greeks wanted to go back, others to attack, others to ask Achilles to help. To many of them, the fear of a horrible escape brought them unbearable sorrow and some spoke of a foolish decision. Others shouted to stay and fight until they conquered Troy. The issue was important and everyone was concerned. In these moments the "personal beef" comes second and the most prudent comes forward to lead in dialogues and decisions for all. It seemed that they had to talk to Achilles and then all together had to make a decision. In order to appease Achilles, they chose special men, like the worthy Odysseus, to go and do the talking.

When they went to Achilles he welcomed them calling them friends. Odysseus picks up a glass of wine to greet Achilles and then urges him to get up and save the Achaeans from the enemy in battle. He also told him that Agamemnon regretted everything and that he would offer him a lot of treasures and he would be honored as a god. Achilles, calling Odysseus a craftsman, cut him off by saying that he doesn't accept gifts and he insisted on abstaining from war, then he said: "Hateful to me as the gates of Hell is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another" ("ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύλῃσιν ὅς χ᾽ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπῃ").

The lessons from this rhapsody are that unity and teamwork are required to deal with adversaries and that many times it matters a lot who represents someone and what knowledge or prestige he has in front of the opponent and competitor, in national affairs but also in unions, political parties, etc...

Achilles eventually entered the war.

 

[Ryder]

I found this from the countryball archives.

 

[CAN_TR]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425363637858971649

 

[Tonyukuk]

 

[mulj]

Is death sentence still in law in turkey?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425058350639812608

 

[Ryder]

Is death sentence still in law in turkey?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425058350639812608

No Turkey no longer has the death penalty.

 

[mulj]

No Turkey no longer has the death penalty.

You need to reinstate it asap, it is kind of reward for such crimes but still better then let those to breath air and spend peoples money on them.

 

[Ryder]

You need to reinstate it asap, it is kind of reward for such crimes but still better then let those to breath air and spend peoples momey on them.

You know Turkey had laws punishing adultery.

We took it out just to become a candidate of Europe. We also have laws regarding Turkishness that also got taken out hence why people are free to insult Turkiye and the Turkish people.

A lot of laws were undone just to get closer to the EU.

 

[mulj]

You know Turkey had laws punishing adultery.

We took it out just to become a candidate of Europe. We also have laws regarding Turkishness that also got taken out hence why people are free to insult Turkiye and the Turkish people.

A lot of laws were undone just to get closer to the EU.

Apparantly it was shortsighted, with examples like above and similar it is clear that they had justified purpose.
I see no reason to not put back those laws in legal system now when it is 100% fact that Turkey will never be EU member.

 

[TR_123456]

 

[Anastasius]

Armenians wave their flags in our country. Greeks wave their flags inside the Hagia sophia. While the Syrians wave their flags. Circassians wave their flags in Turkey while the Kurds wave their Kurdistan flag.

So disrespectful ama Turks dont say shit because its considered racist to oppose this.

Turks are too soft man how can they tolerate another flag being waved in their own country. Now imagine me going to some Australian beach or Uluru and start waving the Turkish flag??

Honestly man Turks are too saf. We help everybody after that they spit on our faces when we oppose it they play the race card.

Nobody should talk about the Ummah or Humanism to me.

I don't think there's anything wrong with hoisting a, for example, Circassian flag if you're doing it on your own property (especially since for Circassians it's more of a cultural throwback to their old heritage as many of them are well-integrated Turkish citizens). Like, for example, a Greek who lives in Istanbul and wants to honor both his new home and his old home hangs the Turkish and Greek flags side by side outside his home. Or maybe some British expats hang the British flag outside their summer home by the beach. I mean, immigrants do it in other countries. I don't think it's as big of an issue.

However, these dudes just blatantly went up to a public beach, took down one flag and hoisted an Afghan one. This is disrespectful. In a functioning country, they would've been taken in for questioning. In a North-Korean-style dictatorship, they would've been shot on the spot. I have heard of very few instances anywhere where such behavior is at all tolerated.

EDIT: Oh and about the death of the young man, this will end badly. People in Turkey have a much shorter fuse than, for example, people in Sweden, so Afghans will definitely start being killed now. Some might even take the opportunity to stab a Syrian or an Arab migrant.

Watch yourselves over there.

 

[Mis_TR_Like]

View attachment 27683