Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Kurdistan or Armenia???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by AnnFrankenstein
    Why are you surprised? Ever see a map of what the kurds claim as kurdistan?



    On the site it also says, "Diyarbakir, in southeastern Turkey is widely accepted as the ancient capital of the Kurds." , but from what I have seen on maps and read elsewhere, it seems to me that "diarbakir" is one of Tigranes 4 cities that he named Tigranakert and like most other Armenian towns and cities, they are claiming them as theirs. I guess they still want what they were promised by the turks for killing Armenians. According to their map, even Ararat is in kurdistan.
    Listen in those area's are tha majoraties Kurds but we Kurds don't bother if the Armenians would come and live there unlike the Turks who even forbid the word Kurdistan!
    But Amed is a real Kurdish capital.
    My brothers wait if Kurdistan gets independent from al those supression of Turkey,Iran and Syrie. We really don't bother if Armenians come and live there but you must know that we Kurds have been killed,deportated, assimilated and more for the last 80 years in Turkey there were also tens of etnocides!
    They don't even accept if we celebrate the ancient Kurdish,Iranian,Afghanian etc. Newroz !

    Comment


    • #22
      It isn't right time to discuss for sharing East lands.Because it isn't either ARmenians' or Kurds'.Now it is Turks'.So Kurds and Armenians shouldn't fight for East.(East of Turkey I mean)
      Right?
      [COLOR="Red"]A TANGO BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN[/COLOR]

      Comment


      • #23
        It isn't right time to discuss for sharing East lands.Because it isn't either ARmenians' or Kurds'.Now it is Turks'.So Kurds and Armenians shouldn't fight for East.(East of Turkey I mean)
        Right?
        State of Turkey is the legitamate ruler of those lands. People dont have to fight for it since where they live belongs to them.It belongs to Kurds, Turks and Armenian who live on there.Simple as that.
        It is wrong to be French- Al Bundy

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by elendil
          State of Turkey is the legitamate ruler of those lands. People dont have to fight for it since where they live belongs to them.It belongs to Kurds, Turks and Armenian who live on there.Simple as that.
          But State of Turkey made genocide to Armenians and now there aren't any Armenians there.And Kurds are tortured by army and racists.DOES THE RULER(TURKEY)RULE EAST WELL?
          [COLOR="Red"]A TANGO BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN[/COLOR]

          Comment


          • #25
            Or should East be ruled by other nations who will rule it well?
            [COLOR="Red"]A TANGO BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN[/COLOR]

            Comment


            • #26
              But State of Turkey made genocide to Armenians and now there aren't any Armenians there
              There are Armenians those who live in small numbers in the east as to genocide issue well I dont think like you.

              And Kurds are tortured by army and racists.DOES THE RULER(TURKEY)RULE EAST WELL?
              Kurds may be tortured by racist people but army tortures only PKK members. Them being Kurds ofcourse is another issue.

              DOES THE RULER(TURKEY)RULE EAST WELL?
              No. However one must see today Turkey's parliament is formed of %20-30 Kurdish rooted Turkish people. They have the power in the goverment. Let them encourage investments, Let them make taxes lower in south-eastern Turkey. But Ofcourse, we Turks were very mistaken in dealing with Kurdish people of Turkey, that must be handed. Still it is up to us(Kurd, Turk etc..) to change it.

              Or should East be ruled by other nations who will rule it well?
              Not one inch of my country goes to another dynasty. People of my country be it Kurd, Turk or Armenian may rule Turkey. But my country's integrity is not
              something I will negotiate, I am sorry.
              It is wrong to be French- Al Bundy

              Comment


              • #27
                TURKEY: THE OCCUPIED NATION
                Written by Milosz Matuschek

                Newropeans Magazine, France
                Feb 8 2006

                EDITO - Turkey is a battlefield for forces fighting for secular
                modernity on one side and those promoting religious traditionalism
                on the other side. This struggle reveals an alarming gap between
                state and society. The idea to fill this gap by an accession to the
                EU would be a mistake.

                While Gaul was ethnically divided in three parts (gallia est omnis
                divisa in partes tres), as Julius Cesar states at the beginning of
                his famous report about the war in Gaul "de bello gallico", modern
                Turkey seems to be divided in three parts, as well - at least as far
                as the attitude of its people is concerned. The first division can be
                remarked between state and society, and society in itself is divided
                in a modern Western part and a traditional Islamic part.

                When discussing Turkey and its accession to the EU, we're normally
                arguing in patterns such as geography, modernity, legal compatibility,
                religion and if "the Turks" can be trusted. But who are "the Turks"
                we are talking about? Is it the state? The society?

                Or both of them? The raise of this question in the case of Turkey
                is crucial, but notoriously neglected, as generally a state and its
                nation show a sort of homogeneity. This, unfortunately, seems not to
                be the case with Turkey and is one of the reasons, why an accession
                in this condition could become a serious problem for Europe.

                Since Ataturk installed modern Turkey as we know it today, the fight
                against radical Islamic movements has not stopped. The guarantor for
                the maintenance of the modern status quo has been the Turkish army,
                which played for a long time not only a decisive role in Turkeys
                decision-making process, but also interfered three times by removing
                elected leaders with coups dī etat, or - as it was the case in 1997 -
                forced the government of Erbakan to step down.

                Though the army's influence has been reduced, the generals still remain
                powerful and reclaim their role. Yet, the role of the Turkish army
                is not reduced, because it makes Turkey look better in the eyes of
                Western European people. Its role is mainly reduced, because the EU is
                trying to take over they army's role as guardian for Turkeys internal
                integrity. This, though being a kind of political acquisition, is
                officially sold under the name of "necessity to continue the reform
                process in Turkey". However, as the EU could apparently not interfere
                against potential radical changes, the army is likely to react in
                cases of urgency despite a membership, as two Majors of the Turkish
                armed forces argue in this months issue of Foreign affairs.[1]

                Superficially seen, Turkey is a military state. When looking deeper,
                one can remark, that the role of the army is not the oppression of the
                people, as it is the case in real military states, but to guarantee the
                existence of the modern constitution and the secular institutions, even
                - and this is one problem - against the democratically expressed will
                of the people. This leads us to the decisive question: What are we told
                about the inner coherence of a state, when it needs the interference of
                the armed forces to prevent its people from voting for "wrong" leaders
                ? The history of Turkish modernity is a fight between the state and
                its people: the people electing democratic leaders they want, often
                from Islamic movements, and the army removing them. Isn't this the
                real gap between Turkey and European Union Member states? By saying
                that it is necessary to "accompany" the process of modernisation,
                EU confesses, that Turkey indeed needs a keeper, who can not be left
                off its eyes, without running the risk that the state collapses.

                On one hand, Turkey is a splitted nation, torn apart by tradition
                and religion on one side and modernity and laicism on the other side.

                Turkey's problem on the long term is not the fulfilling of any
                Copenhagen Criteria. Turkey's economy and especially the public
                deficit do make astonishing progresses. Turkey's problem is the
                coherence of its nation and no one else but the Turkish people
                can solve this problem. The EU should stop playing accoucheur to a
                nation's identity. The Commissions accession policy is far away from
                just giving incentives to a willing state. The paradox of the Turkey
                accession is, that the Turkish are tried to be made a modern nation
                by accession instead of waiting till they are one. The EU tends to
                generate a fictitious status, they can't guarantee for, instead of
                demanding one, which the EU can rely on. The negative consequence
                of this kind of policy could be, that when the Turkish one day will
                have joined the EU, they won't be Europeans by conviction, but by
                the simple fact, that they are member of the EU.

                On the other hand, the deficit on homogeneity of the Turkish nation
                is tried to be compensated by an exaggerated emphasis on collectivism
                and national symbolism. The Pamuk trial and the incrimination of
                about 50 other writers are exemplary for this phenomenon. How can
                the raise of a historical question of public importance, like the
                Armenian genocide, be legally qualified as an offence ? Actually,
                how can a state be an object for an offence, implying a feel of honour
                that could be aggrieved?

                The most vivid demonstration of this dichotomy is the actual Prime
                Minister Erdogan himself. "Which side are you on, Mr. Erdogan?" asked
                the Turkish Times in 2002 by quoting younger Erdogan with the sentence
                "democracy is not an aim but a means to an end". Still in 1998,
                Erdogan was sentenced to four months in prison for challenging the
                secular state.

                Even if people may change their opinions over the years, and no one
                should be qualified till the end of his life for things he said,
                when he was young, doesn't it at least provoke misunderstanding, when
                Erdogan is dreaming loudly of becoming President one day and one knows
                already, that his wife and daughters, who hide their faces behind
                headscarves, could never come visit him in the public Presidential
                building? Recently, he has revealed his attitude by answering the
                question, if he would abolish the paragraph 301 in the Turkish Penal
                code, which punishes the insult of Turkish identity, by saying:
                "yes, if it is necessary".

                No one demands, that state and society should be identical, because
                this would mean totalitarianism. But what is needed, is a minimum
                of homogeneity. Of course, the Turkish could argue, that if one
                asked French, German or British people, what they think about the
                equalisation of men and women, or the allowance of torture in extreme
                situations, one would probably get awkward answers as well. But this
                is not the same dimension. Absurd opinions are the price we pay
                willingly for the liberty of expression. A state must be a group
                of people consenting on the same principles. European democracies
                are stable concerning their self- determination and their national
                identity, because they fought on their own for the principles they
                share. Turkish modernity has not been eked out by the people on the
                streets, but has been installed from above by a military leader,
                who did not ask anyone if to do so.

                Turkey's accession to the EU would be the third take-over of the
                Turkish nation, after Ataturks imposition of modernity and the army's
                maintenance of it. How far can interference from above go? Where
                does support for reforms end, and where does interference begin? The
                strongest indicator is probably the will of the people itself.

                Democracy had not to be imposed on the Germans by the Allies after
                World War II, but was already growing in the regions. The same with
                the falling of the iron curtain: changes were supported, but not
                imposed by foreign powers. Are Turkish people consenting on the same
                principles as we do, when its army must interfere repeatedly to save
                the state from people, who were elected by their majority ?

                Allowedly, the whole situation for Turkey looks like a dilemma:
                When not modernising itself, it is regarded as backward, and when
                modernising, it smells like chumming up in order to receive something
                in counterpart. How to solve this dilemma? Getting ready for an
                accession means more than affixing labels. We should less watch on the
                superficial formal shell or the accession lyricism of politicians and
                more on convictions and deep change, even if it might take a long time
                for the Turkish to overcome their interior division. However, this
                accomplishment is indispensable for the Turkish and is in their own
                interest, because, as we know from Abraham Lincoln, a house divided
                can not stand. Neither with an European outbuilding.

                Milosz Matuschek Munich (Germany)

                [1] Ersel Aydinli, Nihat Ali Ozcan, and Dogan Akyaz, ~DThe Turkish
                military's march toward Europe", Foreign Affairs, Volume 85 No. 1,
                January/February 2006, p. 77 - 90.

                --Boundary_(ID_vrZG4n4ZAfRj2nmjE6g4sQ)--
                Ayn [email protected] Wor Azg Morana Mi Ayl Azg Darna Anicumem Cnvac Oric Gerezman Darna

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by elendil
                  Kurds may be tortured by racist people but army tortures only PKK members. Them being Kurds ofcourse is another issue.
                  I supose complete and utter destruction of hundreds of Kurdish villages and brutalization by Turkish paramilitary "Village Guards" does not officially qualify as being torture...and you are also assuming that PKK members carry some identification of being such and that this is verified by Turkish soldiers prior to them cutting their heads of and such eh? And are you so sure that all of the 30,000+ Kurds killed by the Turks were in fact PKK members. I have my doubts.
                  Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
                  Adolf Hitler (22 August 1939)

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    I suppose complete and utter destruction of hundreds of Kurdish villages and brutalization by Turkish paramilitary "Village Guards" does not officially qualify as being torture...and you are also assuming that PKK members carry some identification of being such and that this is verified by Turkish soldiers prior to them cutting their heads of and such eh? And are you so sure that all of the 30,000+ Kurds killed by the Turks were in fact PKK members. I have my doubts.
                    1-) PKK militans carry AK-47 s, Druganovs which helps a great deal in terms of identification.
                    2-) Village guards were a necessity in terms of guerilla warfare. Sure they were brutal, as much as PKK.
                    3-) We razed the villages to deport Kurdish populated villages which were being used as jump-points when operating to Turkey from mountains of notheren Iraq.
                    4-) All 30.000 Kurds were PKK members? I guess not. But expect a few hundered people I am sure the rest were.
                    It is wrong to be French- Al Bundy

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X