Tweet
Mehmet Ali Birand: Funny game
TDN
Friday, May 27, 2005
OPINIONS
The match between Milan and Liverpool proved those who call football a
funny game right. Can there be any other explanation for winning after
falling behind by three goals? We also were surprised by how no one
swore at each other.
Mehmet Ali BIRAND I heard Cogkun Ã-zarı say it. Ferit
Åahenk also recently repeated it.
Football is a funny game.
The match between Milan and Liverpool proved how correct this
statement is. If a team can salvage a victory after going down by
three goals, we all need to acknowledge there is something funny going
on.
It was a glorious final. It was a night we will never forget. The
Champions League Final in Istanbul will be remembered for years to
come.
I, just like many others, was impressed by the perfect organization of
the affair.
UEFA told the Turkish federation what needed to be done, including the
dimensions of the toilets. Our success was based on our ability to
implement these instructions down to the last detail.
So we now realize when the Turkish people become a part of a system,
they succeed in achieving the most laborious of tasks.
The Italian and British spectators in the stadium taught us a lesson
with their behavior. If we ignore the over-the-top behavior outside
the stadium, we were able to see how civilized the supporters
were. Most of us were very surprised.
For example, the British spectators said nothing about the mother of
Italy's president. Italians did not sing dirty songs about the
British.
No one cared about the sexual preference or mother of the referee.
The exits at the stands were left empty.
In summary, we benefited greatly from this final. We learned how the
system actually works and how to behave.
We should be thankful to all who ensured that this final was played in
Istanbul, starting from Åenes Erzik and not forgetting Sami
Çölgeçen.
Free debate fails the test:
I don't think it was genocide. However, I am also against the
silencing of those who do not agree with my point of view.
What was Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek, who is being
praised for his democratic views, thinking when he made that speech?
His statement about any alternative opinions on this issue being
similar to `back-stabbing' was very unfortunate.
What did these people want to do?
Their aim was to go beyond the official version of events and voice
views we would not have liked. Maybe some of them would have gone as
far as saying, `There was a genocide and we did it.'
What damage would that have done?
Some say, `Such a meeting should not have been held at a university.'
Why not?
Isn't a university a place where even the most absurd and extreme
views can be discussed openly?
The conference only included people who opposed the official view and
no one else. And that was why some people were bothered about it, some
say.
This implies that in all our other conferences, multiple viewpoints
are discussed and a balance is maintained.
This is not the case. If you support the official stance, there will
be no problem. You can talk as much as you like.
If you support a different viewpoint, you are definitely in trouble.
As a result of Bogaziçi University postponing the conference on the
Armenian issue, Turkey now resembles France, Switzerland and Armenia
in its intolerable attitude towards the debate. If you go there, you
can't say, `There was no genocide.' Either you will get beaten up or
you'll face serious charges.
It has now become evident that there are certain issues that cannot be
debated in Turkey.
We are changing the laws to become more democratic but cannot pass a
critical threshold. After a certain point, we fail to tolerate
alternative ideas.
We have been educated in such a way that the red lines we need to
cross are like big obstacles we cannot surmount.
We now know that changing mindsets will be very hard.
It is very unfortunate.
We could have crossed another useless red line.
Çiçek, the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and the
leading members of the country have made a mistake.
Just when we were about to prove that Turkey was a self-confident
nation capable of discussing the genocide allegations, we failed the
test.
We missed a great opportunity to dispute the genocide
allegations. From now on we should discuss these issues amongst
ourselves and praise our official version of events. However, we have
no right to get angry with those who say, `Turkey is incapable of even
discussing these allegations.'
The conference needs to be held. Don't try to lynch those who argue
that these people needed to make their voices heard. One day you may
be in their place, and when that day comes you may be prevented from
voicing your opinions.
We scored an own goal on the genocide issue.
TDN
Friday, May 27, 2005
OPINIONS
The match between Milan and Liverpool proved those who call football a
funny game right. Can there be any other explanation for winning after
falling behind by three goals? We also were surprised by how no one
swore at each other.
Mehmet Ali BIRAND I heard Cogkun Ã-zarı say it. Ferit
Åahenk also recently repeated it.
Football is a funny game.
The match between Milan and Liverpool proved how correct this
statement is. If a team can salvage a victory after going down by
three goals, we all need to acknowledge there is something funny going
on.
It was a glorious final. It was a night we will never forget. The
Champions League Final in Istanbul will be remembered for years to
come.
I, just like many others, was impressed by the perfect organization of
the affair.
UEFA told the Turkish federation what needed to be done, including the
dimensions of the toilets. Our success was based on our ability to
implement these instructions down to the last detail.
So we now realize when the Turkish people become a part of a system,
they succeed in achieving the most laborious of tasks.
The Italian and British spectators in the stadium taught us a lesson
with their behavior. If we ignore the over-the-top behavior outside
the stadium, we were able to see how civilized the supporters
were. Most of us were very surprised.
For example, the British spectators said nothing about the mother of
Italy's president. Italians did not sing dirty songs about the
British.
No one cared about the sexual preference or mother of the referee.
The exits at the stands were left empty.
In summary, we benefited greatly from this final. We learned how the
system actually works and how to behave.
We should be thankful to all who ensured that this final was played in
Istanbul, starting from Åenes Erzik and not forgetting Sami
Çölgeçen.
Free debate fails the test:
I don't think it was genocide. However, I am also against the
silencing of those who do not agree with my point of view.
What was Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek, who is being
praised for his democratic views, thinking when he made that speech?
His statement about any alternative opinions on this issue being
similar to `back-stabbing' was very unfortunate.
What did these people want to do?
Their aim was to go beyond the official version of events and voice
views we would not have liked. Maybe some of them would have gone as
far as saying, `There was a genocide and we did it.'
What damage would that have done?
Some say, `Such a meeting should not have been held at a university.'
Why not?
Isn't a university a place where even the most absurd and extreme
views can be discussed openly?
The conference only included people who opposed the official view and
no one else. And that was why some people were bothered about it, some
say.
This implies that in all our other conferences, multiple viewpoints
are discussed and a balance is maintained.
This is not the case. If you support the official stance, there will
be no problem. You can talk as much as you like.
If you support a different viewpoint, you are definitely in trouble.
As a result of Bogaziçi University postponing the conference on the
Armenian issue, Turkey now resembles France, Switzerland and Armenia
in its intolerable attitude towards the debate. If you go there, you
can't say, `There was no genocide.' Either you will get beaten up or
you'll face serious charges.
It has now become evident that there are certain issues that cannot be
debated in Turkey.
We are changing the laws to become more democratic but cannot pass a
critical threshold. After a certain point, we fail to tolerate
alternative ideas.
We have been educated in such a way that the red lines we need to
cross are like big obstacles we cannot surmount.
We now know that changing mindsets will be very hard.
It is very unfortunate.
We could have crossed another useless red line.
Çiçek, the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and the
leading members of the country have made a mistake.
Just when we were about to prove that Turkey was a self-confident
nation capable of discussing the genocide allegations, we failed the
test.
We missed a great opportunity to dispute the genocide
allegations. From now on we should discuss these issues amongst
ourselves and praise our official version of events. However, we have
no right to get angry with those who say, `Turkey is incapable of even
discussing these allegations.'
The conference needs to be held. Don't try to lynch those who argue
that these people needed to make their voices heard. One day you may
be in their place, and when that day comes you may be prevented from
voicing your opinions.
We scored an own goal on the genocide issue.