Are Islam and democracy compatible really

The complexity of the hyper-power situation differs from the situation of a State serving the hyper power interests.

Edited by Spartakus - 09-Jun-2006 at 15:02

The British,the occupational force? How pathetic !Of course the British would say they were terrorists,since they were fighting against them!What do you expect them to say?"Oh sorry,you have right,EOKA is right,and we should leave immidietly from Cyprus!"Oh God! Turkish-Cypriots killed too,they are not victims in this situation.

Turkish-Cypriots killed too,they are not victims in this situation.

well, EOKA and EOKA B(also If you prefer to call EOKA C), is same. They have same members, they have same aims, and they used same terrorist tactics against their enemy

Damn, everybody is ashamed of Eoka and the Greek Junta today, what is this Spartakus a die-hard attempt to save some face, their actions were discracefull and what is worse is that you proclaim to be a Leftish Greek while at the same time supporting the Eoka, do you know how many Greeks they killed?

Do i need to mention the Turk Mukavemet Teskilati (TMT) ,a very "brave" Turkish paramilitary organization responsible for bomb attacks,loots,assasinations?

Edited by Spartakus - 09-Jun-2006 at 16:48

Originally posted by Digenis How could Turkey,and other states with muslim majorities, have under control and minimize islamic extremism,without any militarist involvment in politics as well as� harassing of basic human rights.

Very good question.

I don't know about other countries, but in Turkey, it is not that hard.

Firstly I think the way of presidential election must be changed.

The president is supposed to be apolitical and objective.

But how can you expect this if you select the president among the politicians?

He or she must be a member of constitutional court, so he or she can maintain the basic fundamentals of the state through law.
    

Originally posted by barish Firstly I think the way of presidential election must be changed. The president is supposed to be apolitical and objective. But how can you expect this if you select the president among the politicians? He or she must be a member of constitutional court, so he or she can maintain the basic fundamentals of the state through law.

In virtually all countries the presidential office in part of the executive branch and the president is almost always elected from among the politicians.

I think it is unwise to elect the president from the constitutional court. It is very important to ensure the strict speration between the executive, legislative and judiciary offices. By giving a member of the constitutional court which is part of the judiciary branch presidential previliges (executive branch) you are going to mix the judiciary and executive powers and thus will inadvertantly concentrate too much power in the hands of the president.

I personally do not think that there is anything wrong with the current presidential system in Turkey. The president has just enough power to postpone laws that he does not like, but not enough to block or veto them completely (correct me if i am wrong).

@Spartakus,Cyprus is not the topic,dont follow huge counter-posts ,based on a single remark of yours.

Originally posted by Spartakus In the reply you quoted,i said a little after the words  their Party.I highly doubt that the Turkish military or the Islamists or the Kemalists would ever allow a Communist Party to enter Parliament.Even if it found it's way to the Parliament ,it's power would be simply really small to be considered as serious.Concerning legality,that's another issue.The Turkish State is a Police State,meaning that it's policies are usually,if not always,rightist.

Edited by Kapikulu - 09-Jun-2006 at 20:25