- Turkey's place is not in Europe'

ladyteacher wrote:

<quoted text>
I have an idea but I may be wrong.
Again which is which ,I would like to know.
Your protagonist my antagonist and vice versa? Please explain, I'm curious.

Canadian wrote:

Yeah why couldn't they just take up hockey like us!

Apero wrote:

I really don't like the fact that Turks are trying to paint the DEAD Ottoman Empire in such rosy lights. Listen I know it is ok to be proud of your history and all, but you guys take no responsibilty for anything this Empire did.(Not you, a DEAD Empire) There is a universal truth to what happened to all these "millets" and how they suffered under a crumbling Empire that did anything to keep itself from losing more lands.
So let me get this straight, all these ethnicities are wrong in saying how their peoples were massacred by the Turks: Lebanese, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Pontic Greeks, Bulgarians, Anatolian Greeks, Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, etc. And the only ones that are "right" are TURKS? HA!
Sure there were Turks getting killed in the Balkans but Turks were not really spread anywhere else than Central and Western Anatolia and Eastern Europe. Turks in Arabia were Garrisoned Troops with their families. In Yerevan (stop calling it Erivan, thats not its name! or should i start calling Istanbul-Constantinopal) nor Eastern Turkey has there ever been a major Muslim or Turkish population.
Please show me any proof (other than Turkish) that shows a major Muslim-Turkish population.

Apero wrote:

I really don't like the fact that Turks are trying to paint the DEAD Ottoman Empire in such rosy lights. Listen I know it is ok to be proud of your history and all, but you guys take no responsibilty for anything this Empire did.(Not you, a DEAD Empire) There is a universal truth to what happened to all these "millets" and how they suffered under a crumbling Empire that did anything to keep itself from losing more lands.
So let me get this straight, all these ethnicities are wrong in saying how their peoples were massacred by the Turks: Lebanese, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Pontic Greeks, Bulgarians, Anatolian Greeks, Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, etc. And the only ones that are "right" are TURKS? HA!
Sure there were Turks getting killed in the Balkans but Turks were not really spread anywhere else than Central and Western Anatolia and Eastern Europe. Turks in Arabia were Garrisoned Troops with their families. In Yerevan (stop calling it Erivan, thats not its name! or should i start calling Istanbul-Constantinopal) nor Eastern Turkey has there ever been a major Muslim or Turkish population.
Please show me any proof (other than Turkish) that shows a major Muslim-Turkish population.

Apero wrote:

So let me get this straight, all these ethnicities are wrong in saying how their peoples were massacred by the Turks: Lebanese, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Pontic Greeks, Bulgarians, Anatolian Greeks, Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, etc. And the only ones that are "right" are TURKS? HA!
Sure there were Turks getting killed in the Balkans but Turks were not really spread anywhere else than Central and Western Anatolia and Eastern Europe. Turks in Arabia were Garrisoned Troops with their families. In Yerevan (stop calling it Erivan, thats not its name! or should i start calling Istanbul-Constantinopal) nor Eastern Turkey has there ever been a major Muslim or Turkish population.
Please show me any proof (other than Turkish) that shows a major Muslim-Turkish population.

Apero wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah the Canucks lost over time to the Duck 2-3, dam.

Canadian wrote:

Finally a fellow caker! But I really don't like what you have to say about us. We had wars with the U.S. notably war of 1812, fought against the centrals in WW1, nazis in WW2, thereafter the Korean war. There is a fair amount of history there and I'm ashamed to see you don't take note in Canadian honor. Calling it non-existent.
I will never understand? I am understanding one thing, the nations the Turks migrated into no longer exist. Thus making them indigenous to the lands they now live in. Just like how your grand parents migrated here no doubt.
Very keen on bias remarks, and you seem to be on the level of bashing Turks to the farthest extent. In other words, ethnicities were being cleansed throughout Europe. Turks were also cleansed in various parts around asia minor and in Europe. Is it true that there is a 0% population of Turks living in Armenia? And some 70,000+ Armenians living in Turkey? In fact there are Armenians fleeing Armenia to live in Turkey? If they are hated so much why are they running to their arms? Something is very much so amiss here and I'm sure to find out by visiting successor nation of the Ottoman Empire.
By the way, history is something that cannot be stolen.
I asked for an elaboration not a bash fest of an ethnicity. Wars start because of your kind of attitude mister.
Have a wonderful monday on the west coast.

Canadian wrote:

History has neither my friends.
No antagonist nor protagonist. Those a literary terms used to describe bad guys and good guys in fairy tales, stories, and epics.
This is history. It has neither.
Why? Because each side tells a different story with each having it's own antagonist and protagonist.
In order to bridge this gulf, as I've read, is to embrace the teachings of the secularist known as Kemal Ataturk. Who fought against the Greeks, Armenians and other minorities during the Turkish war of independence. However, did establish good relations and restrictions upon racial behavior within the country.
Those beliefs are still in play as I read about Turkish politics today, however are perverted to a degree. But who is to say that racism still does not exist in the most "civilized" countries of the world.
France degrades it's African colonial immigrants. The U.S. "relocated" like the Ottomans their Japanese inhabitants into labor camps. The U.S. still struggles with it's values towards it's black, and Spanish minorities. What makes Turkey far worse is it's critics. Angering a country without need or lousy excuse of losing territory in prehistoric times is rather dogmatic. Expecting a reaction is fairly, how can we say, human?
Which the Turks have sufficiently done in a parallel aspect of it's neighbors. Ignoring the facts of those ethnic minorities united under one flag, the Ottoman flag has come to arisen serious concern of it's subjects. Seeing as though they still exist today, and were not cleansed as the Jews were in WW2. The Armenian genocide is a disputed genocide due to the lack of facts, and how the diaspora of Armenians condemning the Turkish nation for what it is today.
I read a quote by Hrant Dink, rest his soul a man of true valor and honor. Said: "Armenians are doctors to Turks, and Turks are doctors to Turks." This sentiment goes for the same towards Greeks, Bulgars (who if I'm not mistaken were Turkic), Kurds etc.
This is more of a Kemalist reform or idea projected towards the entire region. If it's lived through the entire area, it can set an example as it once did for the world for as a peaceful, prosperous, whole.
Keep it in mind and use the logic of "Kritical" to truly believe it can be achieved.
Farewell everyone.

ladyteacher wrote:

Well said, again.
One thing to elaborate then:
The ignorance of most users of this forum projects itself in evaluating the situation of so-called 'minorities' of the Ottoman Empire.The Ottoman state had sovereign over several ethnic groups called millet, which in fact means nation but has nothing to do with the term 'minority' which is a relatively new concept in which elements of clash, assimilation or resistance to assimilation are embedded. The millets lived within their compartments and rarely had any problems with the state. Rather they had problems among themselves ie the Rum Orthodox with Slavic Orthodox or Armenian Orthodox with Armenian Catholic etc.
Ottoman Empire has provided different ethnicities,namely millets,their own independent nation states at its end and this is what the quarrel is about.
Regards

Canadian wrote:

Yeah why couldn't they just take up hockey like us!

Canadian wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think the country is denying it's civil strife with the rebellions by those ethnicities. It is denying the furthest extent westerners have implied upon civil war, genocide. A word redefined when it comes to Turks, if they have a civil war it means theres genocide involved? No, one needs to gather the reasonable amount of points before even investigating evidence of there being one. Armenians don't have an open archive for one, which ultimately in my book shows a lack of integrity on their part. During the trials at Malta they failed to produce real evidence, and provided forgeries. The suspects of genocide were then released due to lack of evidence. Keep in mind Istanbul was occupied by British forces and the archives were at hand. Despite this they could not find a single shred of evidence not in the dessert nor in the archives.
1.5 million Armenians is the claim, however if you make a Turkish claim, and which I've looked over their demographics in their Empire. Their population of lost citizens abroad extends passed 2 million. Where pockets of them around their mainland were picked off and killed. Another reason why there isn't a major Turkish-Muslim community like you said in Eastern Anatolia, is the Armenian massacres during the Turkish Armenian war. Don't be one sided Apero, you ask for evidence when Armenian archives are closed to prove this genocide once and for all.
State of denial alright, denial of injustices done to them. Despite losing more, it isn't Turks that scream genocide with a closed archive you know..

Canadian wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't worry.

Canadian wrote:

I can't find any form of legitimate document produced from that era. I can only find authors from Armenia and Turkey, which I've read up on Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk, and Taner Akcam. But nothing in reference to authentic documents generated from that time, or actual archived evidence from that time from the Armenians.
I was somewhat alarmed to not be able to read the Armenian archives which are in the U.S. I also don't understand if there was a genocide, why didn't they kill them right there and then? It simply doesn't make sense to move if you're going to exterminate. There were no ghettos constructed, no camps, nothing. Just a line of people marching south with a bunch of abusive soldiers. Which isn't genocide, it's relocation. Pakistanis/Indians suffered the same fate when they had to leave India/Pakistan. I don't see them screaming genocide. And more of those people died than Armenians.

Canadian wrote:

No I like being on the Turkish side, Canadians love the underdog. And to me they seem to been pushed around for being "islamic". Also I've been accused of being a "dirty rotten Turk". So who should I be "polite" towards? The person who insults me? Or the person who ignores me?