>>41096
>You make judgements according to your political culture, so it is normal to be wrong in here.
It's interesting hearing you describe those analogs, thanks. But when I referred to fedora-tippers, sjws and the other "atheists" I meant the autochthonous western kind. I did not intend to say that these denominations can be meaningfully used to refer to Turkish groups.
Anyway even if as you say they are an irrelevant minority in Turkey atm, I'm sure politicians there have taken notice of the many examples of "colour revolutions" around, so I would expect them to simply extrapolate from "atheism", i.e. "liberalism", to "regime change", and therefore danger. This is why I included ngos for example.

>Not co-ed schools
>opposite sex roommate
>We were declared as open targets
Well I suppose any policy can be carried out in "oppressive" manner. I was just pointing out that the particular policy of schools (or dormitories) separated by sex used to be the norm not long ago, has its value, and hardly seems oppressive to me.

>Most "western liberalists" are believing in "moderate islam"
Right. They are the same thing, or at least cognate. The "moderation" of "fundamentalists" is an important part of the process of political "(neo-)liberalization" of religious countries employed by the west. A strong foothold into a territory otherwise well defended by religion.

>Supposedly we are north korean tier according to liboş (turkish liberashka faggots) people.
You seem to be implying the typical western view of best korea ("oppressive, despotic, backward, protectionist, traditionalist, heterosexual, racially aware, ... ;)", or [in ominous voice] "non-democratic"). But is that the kemalist view? The turkish mainstream view? Or are you translating into western view for me?

>No kemalists or anything of that sort asked an intervention from the west. It was moderate islamists doing it.