No sooner does Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan get the green light for Turkey to begin talks about entering the EU that he starts dictating terms to the dhimmis. Here is a man who knows what this is really all about. From EUObserver.com, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
Speaking in Strasbourg yesterday (6 October), Mr Erdogan said, "For the moment, something like a referendum is out of the question. The principles and conditions to become a member of the EU or to start the negotiation processes are clear", according to Le Monde."Up until now, a referendum hasn't been applied to any country who wanted to become a member", he continued.
Up until now, no country has entered that had a past history of making war against Europe and Christendom, and which still harbors significant numbers of people who would pick up such a war again immediately, given the chance.
"If people are talking about a referendum only for Turkey, this means there are double standards. This is all the more sad because there are already members of the EU that are less developed than Turkey"French President Jacques Chirac has called for a referendum on future enlargements of the EU, although he has made clear that this does not refer to Bulgaria and Romania.
And he has been backed by incoming Commission President José Manuel Durão Barroso, who said this week, "The Turkish question is a very serious one. It is therefore very important that a decision is made only with the support of European citizens".
Durão Barroso is - unlike most politicians - not only a devout Catholic, but someone from the centre-right. I am pretty sure that he won't make things easier for Turkey.
Furthermore, I hail Chirac's idea of a referendum. As the French president, he can't say "I am against Turkey's entry" as that would damage France's relations with the Turks. By saying "Let the people decide", he is washing his hands and then he can simply say that he did what he could, but that the people's will is sovereign.
I honestly don't think that Turkey will join the EU. The problem is that the EU will fool and trick them for the next 10-15 years. It would be more ethical to say "You will never get a full membership, but we will give you a special relationship status with trade benefits".
turkey also says (in the same euobserver issue) that they won't agree to any special conditions. if their tone is like that now, what will it be once turkey actually is a member?
and if turkey gets really tough and eu suspends the negotiations, will that be the "building of bridges" that they are talking about? rejecting turkey, once they are given hope, will give the best possible excuse for the muslim world to hate europe and act accordingly. would be more honest, and safer, and more sensible, to talk about special relationship and partnership. entering the membership negotiations is dangerous, even if membership never becomes true.
And in ten years, with perhaps 20-25% population of the EU Muslim, imagine an 'Islamist' politician calling an EU policy or decision 'out of the question'. Imagine lingering, unspoken threats of fatwas, lingering threats of the 'radicalized' population, which will grow, not diminish, with Turkish EU membership.
And what will 'they' do if 'we' do not talk with them? What will 'they' do?
Like the Koran itself, the grinding effects of good cop, bad cop on thinking and decisions, with one end in mind: domination of the individual and society. A la larga, a la larga...
for they shall not cling one to another
In France also the left like the right are agree with the referendum and the socialist party wants that Turkey asked for apologies for the yihad with armenians, there are a lot of armenians in France and USA, remember Agassi and Aznavour are armenians, I think and hope that Turkey don´t go in in Europe.
Again, I think you're reaching for things against Turkey, as with the adultery law (which was hardly specific to Islam). The issue with the Armenian Genocide, that's a real issue. In this, what has Edrogan done except ask for the same thing every other nation has received? That's hardly asking for dhimmitude. And as for attacking Europe and Christendom, isn't Germany a member?
If Germany had a neo-Nazi for PM, an influential neo-Nazi political party that required constant pressure by the military to stay in line, a party ideologically affiliated with millions of neo-Nazis living throughout Europe and the world, many engaged in a 'war' (some considering it a 'total war' that included destruction of the United States and Israel...then we might be getting close to a reasonable analogy.
But we would also have to add centuries of neo-Nazi traditions of violence and domination towards other peoples and a scriptural base shared by literally hundreds of millions worldwide...OK, we're getting close.
Context, context, that is the difference.