View Full Version : Looks like Turkey won't be joining the EU after all...
The French parliament has adopted a bill making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered "genocide" at the hands of the Turks, infuriating Turkey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6043730.stm
:book:
Well that's that then. Really really really going to annoy the Turkish government.
Banquo's Ghost
10-12-2006, 12:07
This quote amused me no end:
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said on Wednesday: "If this bill is passed, Turkey will not lose anything but France will lose Turkey. [France] will turn into a country that jails people who express their views."
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: What, like Turkey?
Having had a decent laugh however, I think the French are off-base here. Legislating what people should think about history is a very slippery slope. I'm not even convinced we should have the laws that penalise Holocaust deniers.
In almost all cases, they are far better dealt with through reasoned argument and evidence, rather than legislation. In the latter case of the Holocaust deniers, ridicule also helps.
It is true to say however, that most modern democracies suffer from populations that are unwilling to listen to reasoned arguments, and therefore lend themselves to being told what to think on pain of imprisonment.
Having had a decent laugh however, I think the French are off-base here. Legislating what people should think about history is a very slippery slope. I'm not even convinced we should have the laws that penalise Holocaust deniers.
I agree.
This is a purely demagogic law whose only effect will be to prevent dialog and strengthen turkey’s denial of the facts.
The French politicians have done that just to make their Armenian voters happy. Meanwhile they have struck yet another blow to Turkish-Armenian relations. Unless everybody manages to keep this issue outside of politics it will continue to be a bloodfeud between Turks and Armenians.
Watchman
10-12-2006, 13:51
Methinks it's help even more if the Turks stopped playing total denial about it. Kinda like it wouldn't take all that much to stop half Asia being pissed at the Japanese over certain past incidents in general and their attitude about it in particular.
I mean, come on. Bad conscience about the colonial past is de rigeur in the European countries concerned, and the Germans have self-flagellation down to an art form. It's called being honest and suitably embarassed about nasty stuff one's forebears did.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2006, 14:37
I agree.
This is a purely demagogic law whose only effect will be to prevent dialog and strengthen turkey’s denial of the facts.
I concur. In any society that practices a reasonable degree of freedom of speech, you should not have laws that prevent people from expressing their own repugnant, asinine stupidity -- as long as they do no physical harm to others. Nor should there be any law that prevents the listeners from commenting about the insipid nature of the views they've just heard expressed -- as long as the listeners do no physical harm to others.
Kralizec
10-12-2006, 15:29
Some Turkish parlementarians are now working on a law, making it illegal to deny the "Algerian genocide" by the French, punishable by jail. How mature :dizzy2:
Watchman
10-12-2006, 15:47
For real ?
rory_20_uk
10-12-2006, 15:51
In Germany and Austria there are laws concerning denial of the Holocaust. I imagine that Israel has the same. So others a a lot further down the slippery slope already.
That some facts are viewed as historially accurate, and that to say others are should already fall foul of Slander / Liabel laws, and no further ones are required.
~:smoking:
While I do appreciate the fact that the French government has taken pains to officially recognize the Armenian genocide I think it is both disgusting and alarming to see modern democracies feel perfectly justified in curbing free speech so as not to offend individuals or groups that happen to champion a historically and/or politically charged issue.
I hope this law will be contested in front of the European Court of Human Rights.
I wonder if it will pass the test of article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights...
ARTICLE 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 10 is vaguely worded ... this law can be crammed in under the protection of morals.
Oh, and ... that's weird, what the hell has France got to do with the Armenian holcaust that makes them put it up? :inquisitive:
King Henry V
10-12-2006, 16:31
I must say that the BBC wasn't very quick off the mark there. I read this story last Mondy I think, in the free paper that I picked up when I was on the bus to school.
Article 10 is vaguely worded ... this law can be crammed in under the protection of morals.
Oh, and ... that's weird, what the hell has France got to do with the Armenian holcaust that makes them put it up? :inquisitive:
It might be because there are elements within the French government that do not wish to see Turkey become a member of the EU. Legislation like this is a nice way of saying, "You're not welcome here!"
lancelot
10-12-2006, 16:44
Good, the French have finally done something right...so Turkey doesnt join the EU...boo hoo.
Turkey is hardly european anyways, especially considering like 98% of its landmass is not on the European plate, its about as European as Algeria or Tunisia or Mongolia. Maybe the Congo would like to join the EU...?
And we dont have to be burdened with yet another load of job seekers who are already driving down wages (and workers rights) so Fat Cats can avoid paying someone a decent wage when they can employ a boat-load of immigrants.
And even at the EU level, what exactly are the current members getting out of the deal?...anything?
No offence to any Turks, I know & like many Turkish people but lets be real, Turkey isnt European.
Watchman
10-12-2006, 16:48
The definition of "European" is vague -and in most instances reeking of tendentiousness anyway- beyond absurdity.
And all that "what's the EU good for" whining always kind of reminds me of the brilliant "what have the Romans ever done for us?" piece by Monty Python. If it wasn't good for something you'd imagine countries wouldn't be queueing up for membership, right...?
It might be because there are elements within the French government that do not wish to see Turkey become a member of the EU. Legislation like this is a nice way of saying, "You're not welcome here!"
This has nothing to do with France or with the french government.
Many French citizens have Armenian ancestors.
In some places, a significant number of voters can be of Armenian origin.
Some members of parliament think they can buy those votes by making inept laws about the genocide of the Armenians.
This law was proposed by the minority – the opposition - in parliament.
The majority, fearing the loss of the supposed Armenian vote, did not take part to the vote of this law, so it passed.
What motivated this law has nothing to do with turkey, Armenia or the defence of the memory of the victims of this genocide, it is just a political manoeuvre to try to gain some votes.
Crappy local politics, nothing more.
Proletariat
10-12-2006, 17:16
And all that "what's the EU good for" whining always kind of reminds me of the brilliant "what have the Romans ever done for us?" piece by Monty Python. If it wasn't good for something you'd imagine countries wouldn't be queueing up for membership, right...?
Maybe it's not good for certain countries? Kinda obvious why countries like Turkey want in and countries like UK are revolted by it. You're maybe one of the last people on this board I'dve expected to drastically oversimplify such a complicated subject.
Seems most people are against this legislation for the Armenian Genocide, yet don't have near as much of a problem with similar laws for Holocaust denial. Quite interesting, wonder why that is.
Duke Malcolm
10-12-2006, 17:23
And all that "what's the EU good for" whining always kind of reminds me of the brilliant "what have the Romans ever done for us?" piece by Monty Python. If it wasn't good for something you'd imagine countries wouldn't be queueing up for membership, right...?
Except that "What's the EU good for?" results in the sole answer of "nothing comes to mind".
Edit:
Maybe it's not good for certain countries? Kinda obvious why countries like Turkey want in and countries like England are revolted by it. You're maybe one of the last people on this board I'dve expected to drastically oversimplify such a complicated subject.
The United Kingdom...
Seems most people are against this legislation for the Armenian Genocide, yet don't have near as much of a problem with similar laws for Holocaust denial. Quite interesting, wonder why that is.
Because the lobby promoting one is larger and more powerful than the lobby promoting the other. Much like the marketplace the key to selling any idea in a democratic governing body is aggressive and selective advertising.
I concur. In any society that practices a reasonable degree of freedom of speech, you should not have laws that prevent people from expressing their own repugnant, asinine stupidity -- as long as they do no physical harm to others. Nor should there be any law that prevents the listeners from commenting about the insipid nature of the views they've just heard expressed -- as long as the listeners do no physical harm to others.
Then who will protect the masses from themselves?
Besides the government continuously manipulates the media.
Small doses and behind locked doors but it happens surely.
Illegitimate control of freedom of speech or better yet illegitimate control of freedom of hearing/seeing
Anyhow, if turkey got their acted together I couldn't see any reason to not let them join the EU.
Provided that’s the will of the local population ofcours.
This has nothing to do with France or with the french government.
Many French citizens have Armenian ancestors.
In some places, a significant number of voters can be of Armenian origin.
Some members of parliament think they can buy those votes by making inept laws about the genocide of the Armenians.
This law was proposed by the minority – the opposition - in parliament.
The majority, fearing the loss of the supposed Armenian vote, did not take part to the vote of this law, so it passed.
What motivated this law has nothing to do with turkey, Armenia or the defence of the memory of the victims of this genocide, it is just a political manoeuvre to try to gain some votes.
Crappy local politics, nothing more.
I fail to see how this has nothing to do with France or the French government. Armenians may be an ethnic minority in France but the ethnic French majority in parliament, through its abstention in the voting process, enabled the law to pass. Whether the majority actively supported the legislation or not they clearly knew their inaction would allow it to pass, thus ruffling Turkey's feathers. It does not matter one bit whether the French government actively supported the law or not because when it comes to human psychology, silence is often mistaken for acceptance.
King Henry V
10-12-2006, 17:51
Then who will protect the masses from themselves?
Besides the government continuously manipulates the media.
Small doses and behind locked doors but it happens surely.
Illegitimate control of freedom of speech or better yet illegitimate control of freedom of hearing/seeing
Anyhow, if turkey got their acted together I couldn't see any reason to not let them join the EU.
Provided that’s the will of the local population ofcours.
Would that be the will of the European population or that of the Turkish one?
Duke Malcolm
10-12-2006, 17:56
So, let's be clear now...
Is it the France's direct snub to Turkey?
Is it the France pandering to the Armenian minority?
Is it the France's Armenian minority in a direct snub to Turkey?
Is it the France's indirect snub to Turkey by inaction after the France's Armenian minority in a direct snub to Turkey?
It is not liked by the Government of the Fifth Republic. Surely the President and/or Senate thereof shall simply reject it and sweep the matter under the carpet?
Justiciar
10-12-2006, 17:57
Would that be the will of the European population or that of the Turkish one?
The Turkish one, I'd imagine.
I'd happily let Turkey join the EU, but I get the impression that most of it's people don't really want to.
Duke Malcolm
10-12-2006, 18:00
Would that be the will of the European population or that of the Turkish one?
Don't you know the European population don't get a say in anything? Such as the wonders of modern democracy in the EU. Except in Switzerland, but that isn't in the EU, and has such sense it may never be.
King Henry V
10-12-2006, 18:07
Seems most people are against this legislation for the Armenian Genocide, yet don't have near as much of a problem with similar laws for Holocaust denial. Quite interesting, wonder why that is.
I think you'll find that those who argue against Holocaust denial legislation here are the same who do not support the Armenian genocide bill.
Would that be the will of the European population or that of the Turkish one?
Turkish one.
It still is likely that the Turkish people consider themselves part of the more Islamic communities rather then the western democracy's.
Don't you know the European population don't get a say in anything?
Depends if you get out of bed and go to that little vote booth I suppose.
Such as the wonders of modern democracy in the EU. Except in Switzerland, but that isn't in the EU, and has such sense it may never be.
Yes that little paradise Switzerland.
Part from the fact they passed a law recently that lets them severe human rights in order to keep "unwanted" immigrants out.
That’s what the liberal democrats had in mind when they revolted from their Ancient Regimes 230 years ago.
Different times I guess, who needs human rights anyway now we got nukes?
King Henry V
10-12-2006, 19:13
Depends if you get out of bed and go to that little vote booth I suppose.
I suppose you are alluding to the right to elect politicians, for no one apart from a few government appointed officials have a say in decisions in the EU. You forget that politicians are more out of touch with the will of the people than practically any other profession or group of people.
Hush hush, Next thing Turkey's going to complain about the the millions of Turkey's we execute every November
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-13-2006, 00:44
1. No law should ever be passed that makes a particular opinion illegal. It infers that the opposite opinion does not stand up on its own merits. By legislating against holocaust denial you are invalidate the holocaust arguement. The same thing applies here.
2. How are modern Turks responsible for the genocide, or modern Germans responsible for the holocaust? Why are Europeans still vilanised as imperialists and slavers?
The sins of the father do not reflect on the son and all the fathers are dead, or at best senile.
3. What is it that makes Turkey un-European? I was talking to a Turk about this just yesterday. He asked my why Northern Europeans looked back to Greece. It got me thinking, "European" really means "Northern European." How European is Macedonia or Greece?
Of course Turkey will be joining the EU, let's not pretend it hasn't be decided already.
King Henry V
10-13-2006, 15:03
3. What is it that makes Turkey un-European? I was talking to a Turk about this just yesterday. He asked my why Northern Europeans looked back to Greece. It got me thinking, "European" really means "Northern European." How European is Macedonia or Greece?
Well Greece and Macedonia is on this side of the Bosphorus, unlike 95% of Turkey.
Reenk Roink
10-13-2006, 16:19
Well Greece and Macedonia is on this side of the Bosphorus, unlike 95% of Turkey.
Then this begs the question. Why is Europe even its own "continent". Why is a division made at the Bosphorus? Europe is an anomaly given the other continents. North and South America are essentially distinct landmasses connected by a very small strip of land. Same with Africa and Asia. Australia and Antartica are on their own. But Europe... Europe shares such a large border with Asia. It's very odd that it got to be its own continent...
doc_bean
10-13-2006, 16:29
:sigh: this discussion is pointless.
I'll tell you what, we'll annex Turkey if you make Mexico a state :laugh4:
Reenk Roink
10-13-2006, 16:30
I'll tell you what, we'll annex Turkey if you make Mexico a state :laugh4:
I wouldn't mind. It would be a foolproof method for stopping illegal immigration! :2thumbsup: :laugh4:
Now STFS on the other hand...
Duke Malcolm
10-13-2006, 16:35
Then this begs the question. Why is Europe even its own "continent". Why is a division made at the Bosphorus? Europe is an anomaly given the other continents. North and South America are essentially distinct landmasses connected by a very small strip of land. Same with Africa and Asia. Australia and Antartica are on their own. But Europe... Europe shares such a large border with Asia. It's very odd that it got to be its own continent...
Something to do with Tectonic Plates and that sort of thing with which I am only vaguely acquainted. It is why India is a Sub-continent... If it all goes by borders, then the UK ought to be an entirely separate continent...
I fail to see how this has nothing to do with France or the French government. Armenians may be an ethnic minority in France but the ethnic French majority in parliament, through its abstention in the voting process, enabled the law to pass. Whether the majority actively supported the legislation or not they clearly knew their inaction would allow it to pass, thus ruffling Turkey's feathers. It does not matter one bit whether the French government actively supported the law or not because when it comes to human psychology, silence is often mistaken for acceptance.
What i (try to) mean is that this law is pointless and that it does not reflect a french political objective.
If the promoters of this law thought some persons love to paint their face in green, they would have prepared a law requiring a green paint seller in every street, free green paint for the poor and you would have seen them in tv shows claiming with shining eyes the inalterable right of every human being to have its face painted in green and the necessity to have a law to protect green painted face persons.
This is demagogy and self promotion, this is not a political trend.
Reenk Roink
10-13-2006, 16:46
Something to do with Tectonic Plates and that sort of thing with which I am only vaguely acquainted. It is why India is a Sub-continent... If it all goes by borders, then the UK ought to be an entirely separate continent...
Europe and Asia both belong on the Eurasian plate. It's odd that India and Arabia are distinct plates, and yet considered part of Asia, while Europe is considered seperate from Asia though they are on the same plate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tectonic_plates.png
InsaneApache
10-13-2006, 17:13
It's summat to do with a bull, a bird called Europa, Zeus and Crete. IIRC. :inquisitive:
King Henry V
10-13-2006, 18:01
Europe and Asia both belong on the Eurasian plate. It's odd that India and Arabia are distinct plates, and yet considered part of Asia, while Europe is considered seperate from Asia though they are on the same plate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tectonic_plates.png
Europe is a peninsula of the Eurasia, inside of whose boundaires reside a relatively ethinically and culturally homogenous group of people.
Sorry, but allow me to get back to the topic for one brief sec (or two if you’re a slow reader).
The senate hasn’t even approved the law that parliament voted.
And it’s very unlikely that will happen.
“what the hell has France got to do with the Armenian holcaust that makes them put it up?”. A lot of French from Armenian origin who will vote next elections. The law has still to be voted by the Senate.
“Legislation like this is a nice way of saying, "You're not welcome here!". It is exactly the point. The so-called Christian Democrats don’t want Turkey in, and because they can’t tell it, they find another way…:idea2:
“the French have finally done something right”: You mean the French did something right AGAIN…:2thumbsup:
“Seems most people are against this legislation for the Armenian Genocide, yet don't have near as much of a problem with similar laws for Holocaust denial. Quite interesting, wonder why that is”: Because the Holocaust against the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs is undeniable… The massacre of the Armenians, even if it presents similarity, had still to be proved to be planned (a Turkish Wannsee Conference kind of). Apparently, a lot of deportee or displaced were killed by the local population during the deportation (Kurds, Cherkessk etc), some converted to Islam and some even sold as slaves. That makes Turkey responsible for all that, but to be genocide, it should be a deliberate and planned operation.
I didn’t study in detail this, so I still have no opinion.
“Except that "What's the EU good for?" results in the sole answer of "nothing comes to mind".” 60 years without war. Never happened before. Wonder why?:balloon2:
Duke Malcolm
10-13-2006, 20:17
“Except that "What's the EU good for?" results in the sole answer of "nothing comes to mind".” 60 years without war. Never happened before. Wonder why?:balloon2:
The United Nations and the Threat of Nuclear War.
“The United Nations and the Threat of Nuclear War.” :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I completely forgot this two… Silly me… :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Work so well in Israel, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Eritrea, Sudan, Argentina, euh, I stop here, sorry too long…:dizzy2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-13-2006, 23:22
Europe is a peninsula of the Eurasia, inside of whose boundaires reside a relatively ethinically and culturally homogenous group of people.
Actually there at least two very distinct cultures in Europe, Latin and Germanic. We're far from homogenous, look at the relations between the different countries in the EU. Actually, the Biospheres is the division which has been employed ever since the times of the ancient Greeks and Herodotus. The Hellespont was considered the division between Europe and Asia because there was no land route.
If you think about it Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and all those Mediterranean countries share a cultural similarity with Greece and Italy, except that it is filtered through a Muslim rather than Christian prism.
King Henry V
10-14-2006, 00:05
Notice the word relatively.
Duke Malcolm
10-14-2006, 10:41
“The United Nations and the Threat of Nuclear War.” :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I completely forgot this two… Silly me… :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Work so well in Israel, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Eritrea, Sudan, Argentina, euh, I stop here, sorry too long…:dizzy2:
Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Eritrea, the Sudan, and Argentina do not have nuclear weapons, do they?
Only France and Britain have them in Europe ... the rest of us have been good, not fighting any major wars, aside from the Yugoslav incident, things have actually been peaceful.
Only France and Britain have them in Europe ... the rest of us have been good, not fighting any major wars, aside from the Yugoslav incident, things have actually been peaceful.
They are here as well, and I am sure we are not the only ones.
King Henry V
10-14-2006, 13:04
“Except that "What's the EU good for?" results in the sole answer of "nothing comes to mind".” 60 years without war. Never happened before. Wonder why?:balloon2:
Probably because Europe had to be united to face the Soviet to the east, and it wwas in no one's interest to declare war with their neighbour.
“Argentina” VS UK. UK has nuclear bomb. Did it stop Falkland / Malvinas war? Nope. So apparently it is NOT a deterrent.
Vietnam VS USA: US has nuclear bomb…
Israel has nuclear bomb…
Sorry guy, if we had peace in Europe it isn’t because Franc could Nuke Germany or Italy, it is because EU. European nations decided it was better to negotiate than to go to war. If Germans or English want to live in France, no need of invasion, just a good cash…:sweatdrop:
“Probably because Europe had to be united to face the Soviet to the east, and it was in no one's interest to declare war with their neighbour.” It was roughly the same situation in 1939,and it wasn’t enough to stop Hitler and wars… Again, I think you have to admit EU construction has something to do with peace in Europe…:sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-14-2006, 14:15
“Argentina” VS UK. UK has nuclear bomb. Did it stop Falkland / Malvinas war? Nope. So apparently it is NOT a deterrent.
Vietnam VS USA: US has nuclear bomb…
Israel has nuclear bomb…
Sorry guy, if we had peace in Europe it isn’t because Franc could Nuke Germany or Italy, it is because EU. European nations decided it was better to negotiate than to go to war. If Germans or English want to live in France, no need of invasion, just a good cash…:sweatdrop:
“Probably because Europe had to be united to face the Soviet to the east, and it was in no one's interest to declare war with their neighbour.” It was roughly the same situation in 1939,and it wasn’t enough to stop Hitler and wars… Again, I think you have to admit EU construction has something to do with peace in Europe…:sweatdrop:
Nuclear deterrence only works if the potential opponent truly believes that you will use those weapons. For political reasons, neither North Vietnam nor Argentina had any concerns about a nuclear response. Nuclear deterrence has, so far, only been effective at deterring the use of WMD's against a nuclear-armed nation. As more nations enter the nuclear club, however, the game may well change.
I wouldn't underestimate the threat of the CCCP as a unifying element for Europe, Brenus, at least through the 1960's. With the Berlin embargo of 1948, Soviet support for North Korea, the squelching of Hungary, the building of the Berlin Wall, the squelching of Chzechoslovakia, and support for various pro-soviet revolutionary/guerilla movements in the 1960's, the sense of the CCCP as an "enemy" to be faced was very much one of the unifying elements. The foundation of NATO and the re-armament of Germany stand as proof of this.
However, following the conclusion of the Vietnam War, things did seem to change. I suspect that your comments about the EU are far more telling from this period forward than during the 1946-1976 time frame.
King Henry V
10-14-2006, 14:39
“Probably because Europe had to be united to face the Soviet to the east, and it was in no one's interest to declare war with their neighbour.” It was roughly the same situation in 1939,and it wasn’t enough to stop Hitler and wars… Again, I think you have to admit EU construction has something to do with peace in Europe…:sweatdrop:
I don't remember the fact that many were worried about the Soviets being poised to invade the Western Europe during the '30s, or that they were going to nuke them back to the stone age, as was the case during the post war period.
“However, following the conclusion of the Vietnam War, things did seem to change. I suspect that your comments about the EU are far more telling from this period forward than during the 1946-1976 time frame.”
No, it was just an example as possession a Nuclear weapons as only deterrent against CCCP. The discussion is about EU (useful or un-useful) (“Except that "What's the EU good for?" from Duke Malcom) and my answer “60 years of peace in Europe” then his claim that this peace was due to “The United Nations :laugh4: and the Threat of Nuclear War”. He rapidly abandoned the United Nations to focus on Nuclear Power. So I gave few examples of wars, so he pinpointed that this countries didn’t possessed nuclear weapons. So I pointed out few examples when countries with nuclear weapons were involved in war. I could have added the “borders incidents” between USSR and China (in the 60's) (both having nuclear weapons) as well.
In doing that, he, with quite success, diverted the topic. EU was NOT built against USSR but to prevent a 4th war between France and Germany, because each time this two fight each others the like to share with others… 3 wars during less than 70 years which 2 were world wars.
“I wouldn't underestimate the threat of the CCCP as a unifying element for Europe”. I don’t but the presence of Turkey in NATO is more likely to have played an important role in the face to face with CCCP. EU and NATO are different with country like Franco’s Spain belonging to NATO and not to EU.
“I don't remember the fact that many were worried about the Soviets being poised to invade the Western Europe during the '30s”. Are you kidding? The Red man with a knife between his teeth, the invasion of Poland by the Red Army, all Unions presented as Bolshevik etc… The 30’s were obsessed by USSR: The Free Corps in the Baltic wars (Ernst von Salmon, excellent book), Hitler using this fear to win elections etc.
Duke Malcolm
10-14-2006, 18:54
“However, following the conclusion of the Vietnam War, things did seem to change. I suspect that your comments about the EU are far more telling from this period forward than during the 1946-1976 time frame.”
No, it was just an example as possession a Nuclear weapons as only deterrent against CCCP. The discussion is about EU (useful or un-useful) (“Except that "What's the EU good for?" from Duke Malcom) and my answer “60 years of peace in Europe” then his claim that this peace was due to “The United Nations :laugh4: and the Threat of Nuclear War”. He rapidly abandoned the United Nations to focus on Nuclear Power. So I gave few examples of wars, so he pinpointed that this countries didn’t possessed nuclear weapons. So I pointed out few examples when countries with nuclear weapons were involved in war. I could have added the “borders incidents” between USSR and China (in the 60's) (both having nuclear weapons) as well.
In doing that, he, with quite success, diverted the topic. EU was NOT built against USSR but to prevent a 4th war between France and Germany, because each time this two fight each others the like to share with others… 3 wars during less than 70 years which 2 were world wars.
“I wouldn't underestimate the threat of the CCCP as a unifying element for Europe”. I don’t but the presence of Turkey in NATO is more likely to have played an important role in the face to face with CCCP. EU and NATO are different with country like Franco’s Spain belonging to NATO and not to EU.
“I don't remember the fact that many were worried about the Soviets being poised to invade the Western Europe during the '30s”. Are you kidding? The Red man with a knife between his teeth, the invasion of Poland by the Red Army, all Unions presented as Bolshevik etc… The 30’s were obsessed by USSR: The Free Corps in the Baltic wars (Ernst von Salmon, excellent book), Hitler using this fear to win elections etc.
Alright, mentioning the UN was a bit misguided... but NATO has been key in preventing war. A military alliance between the countries formerly at war. Not the EU. The EU merely exploited the peace.
King Henry V
10-14-2006, 19:05
“I don't remember the fact that many were worried about the Soviets being poised to invade the Western Europe during the '30s”. Are you kidding? The Red man with a knife between his teeth, the invasion of Poland by the Red Army, all Unions presented as Bolshevik etc… The 30’s were obsessed by USSR: The Free Corps in the Baltic wars (Ernst von Salmon, excellent book), Hitler using this fear to win elections etc.
The threat of the communist ideology yes, but not a Soviet invasion. You can't argue that the inter war years were the same as the post war years. There was a reason why the time was called the Trente Glorieuses, i.e unparalleled economic growth supported mainly by heavy American investment in Western Europe under the Marshall Plan.
“but NATO has been key in preventing war. A military alliance between the countries formerly at war. Not the EU. The EU merely exploited the peace.”
I partially agree. NATO was the peace keeping against USSR. But the EU was the peace building within Europe. Why do you thing Germany and France/UK didn’t fought each others during the Balkans Crisis, again. Because thank to EU. Germany recognised Croatia Independence against the others opinion, they rebuilt the Croatian army in providing the former East Germany Army material, etc, and we didn’t start a war. Why? Because thanks to EU, we now prefer to speak and exchange diplomatic views than bullets. French President Francois Mitterrand said one day “me alive France will never fight Serbs” had to agree, or at least accept German’s Coup de Force.
“The threat of the communist ideology yes, but not a Soviet invasion. You can't argue that the inter war years were the same as the post war years.” I won't argue. The possibility of a Soviet invasion was certainly more accurate in the 30’s than in the 70’s or 80’s (again invasion of Poland, Spartakist movment in Germany, strong communist parties in France, Italy, Spain).
Kralizec
10-14-2006, 21:19
“Argentina” VS UK. UK has nuclear bomb. Did it stop Falkland / Malvinas war? Nope. So apparently it is NOT a deterrent.
Vietnam VS USA: US has nuclear bomb…
Israel has nuclear bomb...
According to Mitterand (RIP), Thatcher threatened him to use atomics against Argentinia- unless France supplied the codes required to sabotage the (French made) Exocet missiles Argentinia was using :dizzy2:
Actually there at least two very distinct cultures in Europe, Latin and Germanic. We're far from homogenous, look at the relations between the different countries in the EU. Actually, the Biospheres is the division which has been employed ever since the times of the ancient Greeks and Herodotus. The Hellespont was considered the division between Europe and Asia because there was no land rout
I don't think that France (for example) is more different from England, then it is from Italians or Portugese. I'd say that the north vs the Mediteranean south constitutes a more measurable overall difference.
Also, you forgot the Slavs! There's more of them in Europe then german or romanic speaking people.
Glad to see Turkey getting screwed out of membership seeing as they have already sold their soul for the almighty dollar by agreeing to make adultery not be illegal due to EU's demands. Those who sell their soul deserve to be screwed out of getting what they sold their soul for.
Strike For The South
10-14-2006, 22:12
you need a hobby
Incongruous
10-15-2006, 07:47
Also, you forgot the Slavs! There's more of them in Europe then german or romanic speaking people.
I somehow doubt that.
Anyway, I find it rather frightening that a govt. might be able to pass a law which takes away freedom of speech and thought. It's rather backwards.
King Henry V
10-15-2006, 08:18
“The threat of the communist ideology yes, but not a Soviet invasion. You can't argue that the inter war years were the same as the post war years.” I won't argue. The possibility of a Soviet invasion was certainly more accurate in the 30’s than in the 70’s or 80’s (again invasion of Poland, Spartakist movment in Germany, strong communist parties in France, Italy, Spain).
Not, in the '70s and '80s when the Cold War was already beginning to defrost, but during the '50s and '60s, when the Soviet threat was very strong. As Malcom said, Nato was the key factor in uniting western Europe, and I think the peace of the last 60 years can be attributed to it, not the Eu, as the former was founded in 1947, eight years before the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957.
Well Greece and Macedonia is on this side of the Bosphorus, unlike 95% of Turkey.
Then this begs the question. Why is Europe even its own "continent". Why is a division made at the Bosphorus? Europe is an anomaly given the other continents. North and South America are essentially distinct landmasses connected by a very small strip of land. Same with Africa and Asia. Australia and Antartica are on their own. But Europe... Europe shares such a large border with Asia. It's very odd that it got to be its own continent...
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-9/1217097/tectonic.gif
Turkey is part of Eurasia. The reason Europe and Asia are seperate even though there is no distinct seperation of them on land and they share the same tectonic plate is that. The europeans were the ones who made the maps. Europe wanted to remain seperate, and special. Nothin wrong there either, history is written by winners. In all actuality the correct name of the continent is Eurasia.
Back to the topic, what in the world is France thinking this time. First with the holocuast next viels and now you no longer have the right to voice your personal opinion on history? This is a very, well its a vertical drop, you do not defend its validity by making it a law to deny it, if anything you make it more popular. Quite honestly you heard very little about the conspiracy theories of how the holocuast didn't happen, but now that everyone seems it neccesary to outlaw the denial of it the theories are becoming more and more popular. You can't defend history by force of law, it will only bite you in the arse.
“Except that "What's the EU good for?" results in the sole answer of "nothing comes to mind".” 60 years without war. Never happened before. Wonder why?
The EU has little to do with the fact that europe hasnt been at war in the past 60 years. Infact it has very little to do with europe, it has to do with the fact that the 2 world superpowers sphere's of influence split europe in half and MAD kept any war from occuring between the 2. With the threat of Europe being turned into a pile of nuclear dust, no war would have been risked.
_____________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
In Germany and Austria there are laws concerning denial of the Holocaust. I imagine that Israel has the same. So others a a lot further down the slippery slope already.
That some facts are viewed as historially accurate, and that to say others are should already fall foul of Slander / Liabel laws, and no further ones are required.
~:smoking:
Ditto in Switzerland. However, the law is restricted insofar that only denials in public (i.e. open denials on radio, newspapers, tv etc.) are punishable.
Quid
Meneldil
10-15-2006, 09:51
Unhappilly, that's not the first time such a crappy law is being voted. We had the one about the Holocaust (we can't deny the holocaust), a first one about the armenian genocide, one about 16-17th century slavery, and a few months ago, one about the positive effects of colonization in northern africa (which Chirac veto'ed, seeing how it was going to lead to a civil war).
one about the positive effects of colonization in northern africa (which Chirac veto'ed, seeing how it was going to lead to a civil war).
Kebab anyone? Such an enrichment :laugh4:
Glad to see Turkey getting screwed out of membership seeing as they have already sold their soul for the almighty dollar by agreeing to make adultery not be illegal due to EU's demands. Those who sell their soul deserve to be screwed out of getting what they sold their soul for.
ok...you had your fun....back to the padded room now please.
one about the positive effects of colonization in northern africa (which Chirac veto'ed, seeing how it was going to lead to a civil war).
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I've not heard about that law, what exactly does it say. Because last I checked there was very little in the way of positive footnotes in the colonialization of Africa. I guess I'd better be careful if I ever go to europe. They may not take to kindly to ya speakin your mind.
___________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
Kralizec
10-16-2006, 06:00
That law stated that school textbooks should emphasize on the good effects of French colonialism.
The EU has little to do with the fact that europe hasnt been at war in the past 60 years. Infact it has very little to do with europe, it has to do with the fact that the 2 world superpowers sphere's of influence split europe in half and MAD kept any war from occuring between the 2. With the threat of Europe being turned into a pile of nuclear dust, no war would have been risked.
I agree that the EC's hand in this matter is generally overstated (something of the scale of WW1 or WW2 would certainly not have happened), but it did have some influence. Invading your neighbours land simply isn't worth it when economies are so thoroughly intertwined...
Which was the reason of EU. And again, EU wasn't built to prevent war between USSR and USA / Europe BUT within Europe. To deny the fact that it worked is futile and incorrect. The only reason you can deniy it is because we had no new European civil war the last 60 years. But again look in the past and tell me the last time it's happened...
1. No law should ever be passed that makes a particular opinion illegal. It infers that the opposite opinion does not stand up on its own merits.
Don't the Turks like locking journalists up for expressing opinions about Turkey.
Kralizec
10-16-2006, 14:06
Yeah, hilariously ironic/hypocritical. Turkish parlementarians lament the idea that with this law you could be jailed in France for expressing certain opinions, while in their own country you can be jailed for saying that the Armenian incident possibly was a genocide, or suggesting that Mustafa Ataturk had a funny nose :ahh:
New about this: Chirac apologised for this, so the law won’t go further. What happened is some deputies using late hours when nobody else is there and pass a law like that, to make noise, knowing it will be rejected in the other chamber. It cost nothing (except small unpleasant apologise from the President) and win votes.
IrishArmenian
10-24-2006, 01:16
Even as an incredibly overzealous Armenian Nationalist, I have to say: what the hell is this? You are curbing free speech, and one thing will lead to another...boom, the government hits you in the head with the censorship stick while you are not looking!
I am aware of the high Armenian population in France (I have many relatives there and big AGBU sect there) but this just hurts us. It hurts the gradual agreement on what happened, maybe a few solemn words, the acceptance of what happened and then everyone moving on. This honestly hurts our cause.
I was also under the assimption that Turkey did not want to be part of the EU, something about being the only Islamic nation there.
EDIT: Forgot about the censorship thing in Turkey too. Many Turkish writers and historians were jailed/executed for that.
The bottom line is: END CENSORSHIP!
LeftEyeNine
10-24-2006, 01:58
Even as an incredibly overzealous Armenian Nationalist, I have to say: what the hell is this? You are curbing free speech, and one thing will lead to another...boom, the government hits you in the head with the censorship stick while you are not looking!
I am aware of the high Armenian population in France (I have many relatives there and big AGBU sect there) but this just hurts us. It hurts the gradual agreement on what happened, maybe a few solemn words, the acceptance of what happened and then everyone moving on. This honestly hurts our cause.
I was also under the assimption that Turkey did not want to be part of the EU, something about being the only Islamic nation there.
EDIT: Forgot about the censorship thing in Turkey too. Many Turkish writers and historians were jailed/executed for that.
The bottom line is: END CENSORSHIP!
Shhhh, the annoying Turk is lurking around here, should you know. So that you should put your lies of execution back into your pack where you made up that Armenian Lie from.
P.S. We may have jailed some, yes. I'm not sure about whom they were if any. But execution is an obvious and ill-mannered intentional accusation.
IrishArmenian
10-24-2006, 15:07
I'm saying censorship is everywhere. Especially the American FCC. They go way over the top. LEN, I mean not insult to you, I just mean to critisise (spelling?) the French and Turkish censorship, nothing more. You are kind of contorting my post. That was an add on and meant to accompany the French censorship statement. I DO NOT insult the Turkish people every chance I get, yet it seems as if you interpret my posts this way.
Also, I thought that in the 1920's a few critics were killed. If not, all the better. I am not accusing your government or you of anything.
[IMG]
The EU has little to do with the fact that europe hasnt been at war in the past 60 years. Infact it has very little to do with europe, it has to do with the fact that the 2 world superpowers sphere's of influence split europe in half and MAD kept any war from occuring between the 2. With the threat of Europe being turned into a pile of nuclear dust, no war would have been risked.
I seriously doubt that our years of peace have nothing to do with the EU.
But recently we have indeed been nothing more then a pawn of the more powerful, and this is the precise reason why there should be a unified Europe.
If we want any part at all in future world politics we need to unite and fast!
Even our larger nations Like Britain,France,Germany,... would have little or no authority if they choose to speak with an isolated voice and/or army.
Also fellow Europeans, don’t worry too much about immigration, taxes, or loosing your identity when uniting.
Much of these problems are blown way out of proportion and could ironically enough only improve with an unified Europe.
Kralizec
10-26-2006, 19:34
But recently we have indeed been nothing more then a pawn of the more powerful, and this is the precise reason why there should be a unified Europe.
If we want any part at all in future world politics we need to unite and fast!
Even our larger nations Like Britain,France,Germany,... would have little or no authority if they choose to speak with an isolated voice and/or army.
We could do that now. Most European countries don't spend their fair share when it comes to the defense budget. How can we expect more powerful countries like the USA to take us seriously if we can't even organise humanitarian expeditions on our own due to logistical problems?
LeftEyeNine,
What are your views on Europe, and do you think the people of turkey would want to unite with it?
Idomeneas
10-29-2006, 03:45
I find that french law really repulsive. Nobody can legislate opinions. Instead of having forbidding laws the state should set a good historical foundation through education system how the actual facts were. From that point each one is responsible to continue or not his research for the truth. If somebody denies armenian or jewish holocaust by forbidding his right to speak only strengthens his arguement. He should be able to express himself and then being proven wrong by arguements not pain of imprisoment or fines.
I understand why this is happening. To be honest most armenians hate the guts of Turkey and frankly they are not to blame of it. Another characteristic which i have noticed is that after jews Armenians present some of the stronger communities in every country they immigrated. They have so close ties that soem time present that effect that i personally call society in society. So when a direction is given most will follow. And here the vote factor gets in and all make sense.
As for Turkey imo it should stop those mass hysteria tactics of people running amok with various issues and pose threats that basically are empty. Same things with the Pope issue, same with france now and before and italy also (remember when they were throwing pasta in the streets and threatened with embargo of italian products?:laugh4: ). History is history. Being in denial wont change anything especially when the rest of the world already has an opinion on issues. Germany had its share of great historic mistakes (or should i say attrocities?). They faced it and decided to make everything possible to prove to the world they changed. Now, even if during the WWII their presence in Greece was most barbaric, people really welcomes German tourits and we have a great time without thinking the past. Turkey did genocide the Pontics, Armenians and Greeks of Asia Minor. Turkey did exiled the remaining Constantinople greek population and seized their fortuned during '54 and admited it. turkey did never returned any of the greek and cypriot prisoners of war during the '74 events. while many officials admited that a great deal was executed. Turkey do have organisations like ''grey wolves'' that are involved in violent actions and even dare to threat religious leaders as the Patriarch is. If they wanna prove to the world that they are a legitimate state they should take steps to change alot.
The basic problem is that Turkey is like 2 countries in one. The cities along the asia minor coasts are tend to be modernised and in the deapths its basically 3rd world. There is a hybridic goverment model where on the cover there is an elected goverment and in the core a group of generals. There is a cast of people who want to be close to europe and another that have traditional islamic ideals. that is the reason why there cannot be a solid agreement on diplomatic field. Cause for example Greek goverment makes talks with goverment officials while the generals make all the strategic decisions. Its always ending to a mess.
The Greek goverment endorses the Turkish EU case cause it sees a way to restrain for once Turkey in a frame of both accepted rules of conduct. Greece spends a vast amount of money in military funds just because of Turkish stance through the years. Almost daily thre are air space intrusions and engagements thank god without fires. Every once and while we are on brink of heat. Every man loses a period of his life in army service which could be used creativelly just because we have to be ready in case of a war with Turkey. If you want my opinion we are tottaly bored of this situation.
The other european countries on the other hand have many reasons to not accept Turkey. And propably the most important is immigration. Since there is a huge economic gap they expect a horde of people who want a better life to arrive and they are most reluctant to receive them.
Thats the case as i see it from my perspective.
Zalmoxis
10-29-2006, 04:41
Also fellow Europeans, don’t worry too much about immigration, taxes, or loosing your identity when uniting.
Much of these problems are blown way out of proportion and could ironically enough only improve with an unified Europe.
That's not it with me, the main reason I don't want a united Europe is the possibility that foreign (European) investors would quickly buy up all businesses, companies, etc. in Romania at cheap prices, preventing Romanians from doing so themselves. In this case, all of the natives would be working for a foreign owned company they could be considered slaves or Romania itself could be controlled by whichever nation the investor belongs to, because such a person would want to advance the interests of his own country.
AntiochusIII
10-29-2006, 04:47
because such a person would want to advance the interests of his own country.Not when you consider how many American corporations are out there in the world, and how much they actually contribute to the government and the country itself.
Businessmen aren't exactly the most nationalistic of groups.
Idomeneas
10-29-2006, 12:59
I think that Zalmoxis has a point. Not that much on the nationalistic issues as business are business but on the factor that the economic growing tense for natives will be crippled and most part of population will end up working for others.
This problem can be solved only if all EU countries get to a unified economic level so that there is not cheaper labour and only factors of distance or even expertise will be important.
I was under the impression that most governments actively encourage foreign companies to invest in their own industires/econony, a large multi-national can have a knock on effect, providing jobs and a boost to the economy - in Romania the people would benefit from jobs and inproved infrastructure, and the economy would certainly stabalize - Romania would still be controlled by Romanians - yes the business has no care about Romania - but neither does it greatly care about anywhere - business's make profits for themselves.
LeftEyeNine
10-30-2006, 02:28
I see Greek and Armenian friends dropped by -as usual-, however, later than I expected. So that I owe you an answer, but not now. I'll answer your question as well Upxl, though most friends here who remember about similar former discussions know how I admire and worship the mighty European Union and the European way of life I crave for.
How pathetic it is that we are obliged to obey the rules of nations we have repelled just 80 years ago from our very own lands. Damn shameful and pathetic. Even gold fish have a bigger capacity of memory than we, the Turks have.
Anyways, this will be tomorrow's issue, good night. (3.30 AM here)
Idomeneas
10-31-2006, 01:00
Well that replay says it all and most people here can understand why people that share views as the one you openly state here have long way to go till reach the lands of civilization.
In Greece even if people disagree with you you would be able to make statements as the ones you make in the biggest national tv channel and then walk home without anybody touch a hair from your head. I wonder if a greek could do the same in your country. If i judge from the reactions nice groups like grey wolves which have a tendency to beat people to death, writers that try to escape with their lives and a policy of handdling and poisoning the masses against enemies and dreams of empires in order to not think that they live in absolute poverty, i think not. Propably he would have to be searched in city morgue.
So give all the answers you want. Write even a book with science fiction. Its all the same to the world.
And for the end. EU never asked Turkey to join. Turkey did asked to be let in so how can it impose rules that is the most irrational thing and it is becomming boring too. Alot have to change till then...
Papewaio
10-31-2006, 04:07
How pathetic it is that we are obliged to obey the rules of nations we have repelled just 80 years ago from our very own lands. Damn shameful and pathetic. Even gold fish have a bigger capacity of memory than we, the Turks have.
Why not make friends? Australia and Turkey seem to be on speaking terms and they are on opposite sides of the globe. Yet it was Aussies and Kiwis along with Brits landing on the beaches of Turkey and charging up the cliffs to meet Attaturk.
I think the EU has a lot of good points (along with quite a few I disagree with such as the lack of directly elected reps). Why would it be such a bad thing to be under the same rules? Germany and Italy were at war with the rest after the Turkish debacle, yet the countries Germany and Italy were at war with have healed wounds and all their economies are doing fairly well on a world scale.
IrishArmenian
10-31-2006, 07:07
I agree with Pape. I mean this in the least critical way possible, LEN, but you have to stop thinking about the past and how to fix the past. One has to focus on healing all wounds, foreign and domestic so that one may unite with the people that feel (not I said feel, I am, as the party you seem to think is your enemy, trying to look from your point of view) offended and acheive great things for all your respective nations. I assume your a history interested person, so I assume you have read about the pre 19th-20th century Islamic/Turkic--Armenian relations were great (Greeks, not so much, but that side is for a Greek to post about). You were looking for merceneries, and would prefer people of the book, and for a little less than 100 years we answered your call. We were treated well too. That is how things should be, minus the war on Europe (in Borat voice) that...not so much.
Turkey did genocide the Pontics, Armenians and Greeks of Asia Minor.
That is very good; after Armenians now people claims Turks did genocide Greeks too.
I am not the kind of Turk, who stubbornly refuses the Turks committed any crimes. But this is becoming absurd. Every civilian death during the war is trying to be shown as proof of a genocide. If that is true, we must also consider Turkish civilians who died during the war. How did millions of Turks die? Do you think all of them were soldiers dying in battle maybe? Anyone claiming the Turks did genocide Greeks should accept that Greeks did genocide Turks too. I think neither of these statements is true. There is a distinction between a genocide and civilian casualties during a war.
Everyone should criticise his own nation, before looking at others.
Why not make friends? Australia and Turkey seem to be on speaking terms and they are on opposite sides of the globe. Yet it was Aussies and Kiwis along with Brits landing on the beaches of Turkey and charging up the cliffs to meet Attaturk
Do you think that is likely to happen, when historical bloodfeuds are brought to modern political platforms?
Unlike LEN, I am a supporter of EU. But every time something like the Armenian issue is brought up, it is the conservatives in Turkey who gain, not the liberals.
Why bring up events from before most the population were even born? Not like anything can be done about it, and nothing people who weren't even alive yet could have done.
IrishArmenian
11-01-2006, 01:49
BDC, the insult is still being added to the injury indefinitely.
Blodrast
11-01-2006, 02:25
Why bring up events from before most the population were even born? Not like anything can be done about it, and nothing people who weren't even alive yet could have done.
Unless this was a rhetorical question, I'll try to answer it. I think the issue is one of historical accuracy. You know, did a certain thing happen or not ?
I've always found it extremely interesting to confront the history I've learnt 20 years ago, with the history people from other countries learnt, and the history that people are learning nowadays.
More or less each country is re-writing their history: some only slightly rephrase things, other completely omit or invent events.
It is obviously a matter of national pride to have things one way or another, i.e. to have it known by everybody that certain events took place or they did not take place.
I think that's the gist of the matter, and of course nothing can be done about it now.
Incongruous
11-01-2006, 04:43
I belive most people find the non-acceptance of proven fact most insulting most of the time.
Thus I see no end to this until Turkey deos accept the fact.
LeftEyeNine
11-01-2006, 15:58
Well that replay says it all and most people here can understand why people that share views as the one you openly state here have long way to go till reach the lands of civilization.
In Greece even if people disagree with you you would be able to make statements as the ones you make in the biggest national tv channel and then walk home without anybody touch a hair from your head. I wonder if a greek could do the same in your country. If i judge from the reactions nice groups like grey wolves which have a tendency to beat people to death, writers that try to escape with their lives and a policy of handdling and poisoning the masses against enemies and dreams of empires in order to not think that they live in absolute poverty, i think not. Propably he would have to be searched in city morgue.
I now know how civilized you are after making generalizations. Sorry, this is typical ByzantinePrince approach -I don't want to generalize it over all Greeks, you know you don't like it -you are civilized.
Grey wolves are grey wolves. You don't know that grey wolves are not the sole power raging the streets of Turkey, nor that they have any political power or something anymore. I'm not one of them, actually hating them. Poor choice to debate with me. Press 9 now.
So give all the answers you want. Write even a book with science fiction. Its all the same to the world.
Armenian fiction is science fiction if you really want to know.. Why do I need to write a book as long as you have a mind like the Grey Wolves. I've seen copies like these statements of yours times before. yours is not something new -so is not worth an answer. But here is how you are similar to the Grey Wolves. See your weakness? Get over it.
And for the end. EU never asked Turkey to join. Turkey did asked to be let in so how can it impose rules that is the most irrational thing and it is becomming boring too. Alot have to change till then...
I did not ask for it. More than the half of this country did not ask for it. So before treating like the landlords of your puny mansion with those high noses, get civilized, Mr. Civilization.
Why not make friends? Australia and Turkey seem to be on speaking terms and they are on opposite sides of the globe. Yet it was Aussies and Kiwis along with Brits landing on the beaches of Turkey and charging up the cliffs to meet Attaturk.
Sorry, all Anzacs were tools exploited from the Imperialistic Great Britain's colonies. Please try differentiating the apples from pears, dear Pape. Those big daddies are apples but I don't see Aussies or other Anzacs as apples as well. Maybe it's my fault to be looking as if I hate it all out there.
I agree with Pape. I mean this in the least critical way possible, LEN, but you have to stop thinking about the past and how to fix the past. One has to focus on healing all wounds, foreign and domestic so that one may unite with the people that feel (not I said feel, I am, as the party you seem to think is your enemy, trying to look from your point of view) offended and acheive great things for all your respective nations. I assume your a history interested person, so I assume you have read about the pre 19th-20th century Islamic/Turkic--Armenian relations were great (Greeks, not so much, but that side is for a Greek to post about). You were looking for merceneries, and would prefer people of the book, and for a little less than 100 years we answered your call. We were treated well too. That is how things should be, minus the war on Europe (in Borat voice) that...not so much.
Why not starting telling this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1196564&postcount=60) to your nation youself, IA :
So, could we not call the Armenians killing Turks a genocide, and the Turks killing Armenians Genocides at the same time? I beleive so, and this stubborn bastard just changed his views. (Me obviously)
Do Armenians have the guts to confess their murders on Turkish nation that were started by Caucasian Armenians fed by the Russian, then those fed by France after the invasion? Do you really have the guts to?
No way. Why spoil a plan while it's going full throttle to your advantage? Politics is the art of the powerful not the rightful. So as long as you are crying under big brothers' arms, I do not expect such thing. Because Armenians in Turkey are still leaving peacefully -as they did before their murders on Turks.
Oh by the way, Hrant Dink, who wrote "..that poisonous blood that will spill out of the Turk.." in his Istanbul publish newspaper Agos and is under a trial because of these words can join a program on TV, and talk about what Frenchies did. Are you around, Civilized Son of Zeus?
Edit: We had had a nice discussion here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=66637&highlight=genocide), Civilization Tutor Idomenas, if you'd like to.
LeftEyeNine
11-01-2006, 16:08
I Am Not European
I need this title. Turkey is not European. Nor do I love those medieval guys in modern day clothes (yeah they are hell medieval), nor do they have a drop of friendship towards Turkey. Here ends the preface. Now:
What's The Reality ?
The reality derives from the death of 514.000 Turks, committed by primarily Caucasian Armenians who were provocated by Russia and France. This is not a baseless accusation. One should be deaf and blind not to know the invasion of France and Russia all throughout Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. That is the pure piece of information confirmed by a Turkish Armenian (you can feel Turkish since you are living and committed to this country) named Levon Panos Dabağyan in a recent TV program.
The relocation process, in the weakest time of the government caused some murderous situations. Epidemic (2 million Muslims were lost during the same epidemic) , the avenging Turks and Kurds caused some serious loss among the Armenian populace. It is the dumbest scenario on earth imagining that "millet-i sadıka" were exposed to systemic ethnic cleansing -modernly terminologized as "genocide"- by Ottoman government in its weakest time.
I think it's also my duty to tell that Dabağyan was calling for the Turkish governtment's recent ignorance towards the Armenian society living in Turkey. "We love this country. We are happy here. Why turn your back to us because of a lie told by Armenians abroad?". The old man is a historian who asked for at least a 20-minutes of broadcast on TV, to tell the truth to his own people, because he thinks they are highly manipulated.
What's The Lie ?
Get a google. It will tell you so many. They even dared to use an artist's painting illustrating a tiny hill of skulls as the photo of the genocide. The artist had died 60 years ago before the so called genocide had taken place. It was not even a photo, it was a man crafted painting. That's how a lie can b ebuilt, if you need someday, copy it.
Where Are We Now ?
France -the self-proclaimed cradle of liberty and freedom of expression- is attempting to legislate that people who deny Armenian Genocide will be sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of up to 45.000 Euros.
The very self-contradiction of self-proclaimed democratic genius is left to brains having enough ability to distinguish between a coconut and a howitzer.
Why did this happen ?
Because Turks are lazy asses. If Ataturk was alive, he would spit on all our faces. Let alone following and improving his principles, we are unable to tell people what this whole mess is about. Instead we prefer watching our cable, getting pumped up by crap TV series like Valley of The Wolves and remember the pride of our nation only after national football team's matches. We prefer screwing each other while being opiumed by imported lifestyles from abroad.
Why did France act so ?
Kurd card is in USA 's hands. And after losing it, France made a quick step forward to gain the favor of the Armenians. History is not only something to read. Tools and their blacksmiths get along with each other very well. It is left to us to be screwed. This is even more disgusting while your streets are burning with rage due to the immigrants you have.
What's next ?
If we happen so unfortunate to adopt this lie invented, next stage of play is the compensation part. No one can make me believe that it will only be a matter of wordly apologize. Even that bugger called Hrant Dink said taht there are Armenians looking for that. Although it is dumb to think that they will be compensated, this will be obliged to us next time. Some European officials say "a game's rules can not be changed during gameplay" but who cares..There is another 80 year-old sick man in front of you, why wait?
I'll put this simple. I-hate-European-Union.
I did not do anything inhumane in the past, I did not want this EU thing, and it is clear that I'm not European 'cause I don't want to be with people that hate me already, why pushing yourself that way, are we teddybears looking for love?
Finally, how can you earn a lot of money?
Call your nation being the murderers of 1 million Armenians and 300.000 Kurds. They'll get you a Nobel prize.
I'll put this simple. I-hate-European-Union.
I did not do anything inhumane in the past, I did not want this EU thing, and it is clear that I'm not European 'cause I don't want to be with people that hate me already, why pushing yourself that way, are we teddybears looking for love?
Ya, don't even bother, the EU is looking for a muslim pet now that black buttlers aren't fashionable anymore. Let's not pretend that Turkey is an european country, friends yes but no family. This whole armenian issue is bull anyway, not because it didn't happen but why judge Turkey on something that happened when Turkey wasn't even Turkey. If the reluctance to discuss this issue, whatever the stance one takes, is such a big deal in Turkey, well pro-Turkey guys, that is what you want in the EU. A completily different culture, mixing cultures have been such a succes on national levels, why not make the disaster even greater huh.
I don't get it, we don't want it, the majority turkish people don't want it, yet the multicultists just keep going and going. Just leave us be.
LeftEyeNine
11-01-2006, 16:26
Ya, don't even bother, the EU is looking for a muslim pet now that black buttlers aren't fashionable anymore. Let's not pretend that Turkey is an european country, friends yes but no family. This whole armenian issue is bull anyway, not because it didn't happen but why judge Turkey on something that happened when Turkey wasn't even Turkey. If the reluctance to discuss this issue, whatever the stance one takes, is such a big deal in Turkey, well pro-Turkey guys, that is what you want in the EU. A completily different culture, mixing cultures have been such a succes on national levels, why not make the disaster even greater huh.
I don't get it, we don't want it, the majority turkish people don't want it, yet the multicultists just keep going and going. Just leave us be.
Ottomans are counted a Turkish state. I see no reason to dodge the issue like that, because even if I do not accept it, if it is accepted by the government someday, Turkey will pay for the consequences which are totally BS.
One more thing. I'll print out this post of yours and hang it on the wall, 'cause we can't agree any better than this, Frag. ~:)
Ottomans are counted a Turkish state. I see no reason to dodge the issue like that, because even if I do not accept it, if it is accepted by the government someday, Turkey will pay for the consequences which are totally BS.
One more thing. I'll print out this post of yours and hang it on the wall, 'cause we can't agree any better than this, Frag. ~:)
Glad you agree, nationalism is a good thing, to respect differences one needs a little distance, otherwise these differences just annoy the crap out of you. Pyramids are great things but that doesn't mean I want one thrown on my lap.
Kralizec
11-01-2006, 16:42
The reality derives from the death of 514.000 Turks, committed by primarily Caucasian Armenians who were provocated by Russia and France.
514.000 Turks? Please, I've seen you make this claim before in the monastery debating against some Greek members. I'm not knowledgable enough about the figures but you state it as if it's fact.
Not saying there weren't any, there were probably many, but 514.000 reeks of fantasy, and an attempt to rationalise the massacre- as if hundreds of thousends of Armenians suddenly decided overnight to assault their muslim neighbours :dizzy2:
Armenians were massacred, but the label "genocide" is out of it's place IMO. Armenians were forced to march and of course the Ottoman officials who ordered it couldn't care less if a good portion of them didn't make it, that doesn't make it a coordinated effort to wipe out a nation. Besides the Ottoman empire was in a state of dissolution, so I don't think we can really say it was government sactioned...but the deaths are there, and that many Turks still vigourously try to underplay the death toll is disgusting.
LeftEyeNine
11-01-2006, 18:29
514.000 Turks? Please, I've seen you make this claim before in the monastery debating against some Greek members. I'm not knowledgable enough about the figures but you state it as if it's fact.
Ottoman archives claim the numbers, not me. It's also quite impossible to understand why a number ranging from 1 million to 2 million deaths among ARmenians does not sound fantasy to you. Are you all well told about this? I guess this is why Armenian Genocide believers repel the idea of the discussion. "Admit!" is all they say, why "a lie" part is concealed.
Armenian neigbours were Turks as well. Why did they decide on murders? Who told you this happened all of a sudden over night. The murders start with the Russian invasion in the late 1800's. Please don't jump to conclusions, instead ask.
Armenians were massacred, but the label "genocide" is out of it's place IMO. Armenians were forced to march and of course the Ottoman officials who ordered it couldn't care less if a good portion of them didn't make it, that doesn't make it a coordinated effort to wipe out a nation. Besides the Ottoman empire was in a state of dissolution, so I don't think we can really say it was government sactioned...but the deaths are there, and that many Turks still vigourously try to underplay the death toll is disgusting.
Turks were massacred, but the label genocide is out of place IMO. Turks were forced to revenge after the ongoing assaults, rapes and murders starting in the late 1800's. Nah, "millet-i sadıka" (loyal nation) did not wake up berserk one day. They were well "processed" by the Russians and the French for years by dividing them into religious sects such as Catholics, Protestans and Orthodox and the promise of independecy and domination over those lands. Besides the Ottoman empire was in a state of dissolution, they were not able to oppress the rebellion and the murders there, let alone planning a systematic ethnic cleansing of Armenians -called genocide. But the deaths are there, and that many foreigners who love the idea of "Barbarian Turks did not hesitate to massacre 356 billion Armenians without a cause" and still vigourously try to force a nation to admit a lie that is never discussed among historians, only so-called proofs carried away by Armenian immigrants.
Kiss me EU, Hug me US, Jump Up France, Don't Cry For Me Argentina. (Yes, quite pointless but even Argentina has a law accepting the Armenian Genocide)
Hmmm it's weren't just the armenians, we just call everyone from that region Armenians. All the ones killed happened to be christians, and the armenians are just one of the lucky few, what about the aremenians, who never did anything, or the Greeks, basicly it just wasn't a very nice thing to do. Calling it revenge just won't do, that would excuse the serbs for killing thousands of muslims, excuse the poles for killing thousands of germans, and it would excuse Israel if they decide to nuke Berlin. I don't see why this has to be such a big issue though, so people got killed a century ago, can't wait for the movie.
Kralizec
11-01-2006, 18:52
Ottoman archives claim the numbers, not me.
Nevertheless you cite them, implying that you see them as reliable.
It's also quite impossible to understand why a number ranging from 1 million to 2 million deaths among ARmenians does not sound fantasy to you. Are you all well told about this? I guess this is why Armenian Genocide believers repel the idea of the discussion. "Admit!" is all they say, why "a lie" part is concealed.
I'm not an academic on this issue, and I guess that neither are you. I think that it should be possible to rationally investigate and discuss the issue, wich is why I'm against laws that prohibit denial.
Now in France this law failed to pass- but similar laws, but to the opposite effect are being enforced in Turkey.
Armenian neigbours were Turks as well. Why did they decide on murders? Who told you this happened all of a sudden over night. The murders start with the Russian invasion in the late 1800's. Please don't jump to conclusions, instead ask.
I don't know enough about the late Ottoman empire to challenge your assertion, but a few Armenian seperatists committing random acts of violence over a period of 2 or 3 decades isn't in the same league as force marching millions with little food across the desert, resulting in the death of 500.000 - 1.000.000, most of who had nothing to do with earlier violence.
Turks were massacred, but the label genocide is out of place IMO. Turks were forced to revenge after the ongoing assaults, rapes and murders starting in the late 1800's. Nah, "millet-i sadıka" (loyal nation) did not wake up berserk one day. They were well "processed" by the Russians and the French for years by dividing them into religious sects such as Catholics, Protestans and Orthodox and the promise of independecy and domination over those lands.
So the "loyal nation" was not content living under a despotic government, I won't blame them. The Armenian massacre was a desperate act of a dying empire to keep what it saw as "theirs", the Ottoman empire should have died an inglorious death decades before that. I'm not condoning violence from the Armenians, but they were acts of people who wanted to be independent, and suddenly the state is "forced to revenge"? Nobody is forced to revenge, and state officials should know better. Even if your number of 500.000 Turks killed is accurate it still doesn't justify the killing of 500.000 - 1.000.000 people, most of wich had nothing to do with the violence.
Besides the Ottoman empire was in a state of dissolution, they were not able to oppress the rebellion and the murders there, let alone planning a systematic ethnic cleansing of Armenians -called genocide.
So if you can't supress seperatist movements, mass murder is an acceptable solution? They should have let the Armenians have their country. I already say that I don't agree with the term "Armenian genocide" but you can't deny there was state involvement when the Armenians were forced to march with far to little food and supplies. And some people dismiss these deaths as accidental :wall:
Papewaio
11-02-2006, 02:16
Sorry, all Anzacs were tools exploited from the Imperialistic Great Britain's colonies. Please try differentiating the apples from pears, dear Pape. Those big daddies are apples but I don't see Aussies or other Anzacs as apples as well. Maybe it's my fault to be looking as if I hate it all out there.
The current governments and their peoples are not the ones that were involved almost a hundred years ago. Why not let go of the hatreds of the past and aim for the prosperity of the future.
There are very few countries in the world that haven't got a history that involves bloodshed. It is better to see those histories, learn from them and move on.
Holding onto the past to spite the future is not wise.
IrishArmenian
11-02-2006, 02:57
I'll put this simple. I-hate-European-Union.
And apparentley Armenians. I just want to know why.
Also, let us not forget about the Hamidian massacres... Was that the "revenge" you speak of? And for what, The Turkic-Armenian War? Can't you see, this is like the Palestinians saying that the Holocaust was fake. It is purely defamatory and obviously false.
Nevertheless you cite them, implying that you see them as reliable.
I'm not an academic on this issue, and I guess that neither are you. I think that it should be possible to rationally investigate and discuss the issue, wich is why I'm against laws that prohibit denial.
Now in France this law failed to pass- but similar laws, but to the opposite effect are being enforced in Turkey.
I don't know enough about the late Ottoman empire to challenge your assertion, but a few Armenian seperatists committing random acts of violence over a period of 2 or 3 decades isn't in the same league as force marching millions with little food across the desert, resulting in the death of 500.000 - 1.000.000, most of who had nothing to do with earlier violence.
So the "loyal nation" was not content living under a despotic government, I won't blame them. The Armenian massacre was a desperate act of a dying empire to keep what it saw as "theirs", the Ottoman empire should have died an inglorious death decades before that. I'm not condoning violence from the Armenians, but they were acts of people who wanted to be independent, and suddenly the state is "forced to revenge"? Nobody is forced to revenge, and state officials should know better. Even if your number of 500.000 Turks killed is accurate it still doesn't justify the killing of 500.000 - 1.000.000 people, most of wich had nothing to do with the violence.
So if you can't supress seperatist movements, mass murder is an acceptable solution? They should have let the Armenians have their country. I already say that I don't agree with the term "Armenian genocide" but you can't deny there was state involvement when the Armenians were forced to march with far to little food and supplies. And some people dismiss these deaths as accidental :wall:
I think the issue at heart here is that having a view on history should not be illegal. Whether the Ottomans or the Armenians started it is really wholly irrelevant. The Ottoman state is no more modern Turkey than the Third Reich is modern Germany. There is no reason that Turkey should be held reprehensible for the deaths of the Armenians than the Germans should be held responsible for the deaths of the substantial number of Jews they killed.
On the history of it.
force marching millions with little food across the desert, resulting in the death of 500.000 - 1.000.000
I don't think that constitutes a genocide. It isn't aiming to wipe out the Armenian people. i also hardly think that proves the deaths were deliberate. If they wanted to kill off these millions of Armenians, it would have been much cheaper to round them up and gun them down.
Why do you seem to suggest that wanting to be indepedent makes it right to kill someone, while wanting to retain control of an area and stop the frequent murders of your people does not?
Edit:
Holding onto the past to spite the future is not wise.
Preach on!
Kralizec
11-04-2006, 00:44
Why do you seem to suggest that wanting to be indepedent makes it right to kill someone while wanting to retain control of an area and stop the frequent murders of your people does not?
I don't think my post implied that, at any rate I didn't mean it to.
I think the issue at heart here is that having a view on history should not be illegal.
Agreed, that's why I said so ~;)
I don't think that constitutes a genocide. It isn't aiming to wipe out the Armenian people. i also hardly think that proves the deaths were deliberate. If they wanted to kill off these millions of Armenians, it would have been much cheaper to round them up and gun them down.
That depends on how you interpret "deliberately". They obviously didn't go out of their way trying to exterminate the Armenians, but that doesn't say it all.
Suppose I'm hunted by the police, and that I drive my car into a dead end street. I turn around and see a police officer blocking my path. I step up the gas and run him over.
I didn't have killing the officer as a goal in my mind, getting away was my goal. I just didn't care that I had to kill the officer to do it, I accepted it as a consequense of my actions. To me that is deliberate killing.
I already mentioned that I don't think it was a genocide.
The Ottoman state is no more modern Turkey than the Third Reich is modern Germany.
Actually their relation is even less than modern Germany and Third Reich, as the nationalist Turkish government has fought against Ottoman government. The founders of modern Turkey were rebels from the perpective of Ottoman state.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.