Balkan Turks

[Bulgarian]

I agree with Gondorian the Serbs did commit a genocide against the Albanians and Bosnians.

The Turks committed a genocide against the Bulgarians before the Armenian Genocide. I guess the Bulgarian Genocide was just a warm up (or practise run) of what they were going to do against the Armenians.

[Bulgarian]

They are not talking about a race. Turk = The Citizen of Turkish Republic. And also The Ottoman Empire's people who were from Anatolia named Turks since 1923. There is of course a need to call people in a common name.

The Turks are the only nation without a race. The Kurds you are treated as second class citizens have a race but are denied a nation by the Turks(which arent a race)

[Tarrak Hasan]

In the Turkey, all history books say that Bulgarian are Turks. That is they are from Asia but after coming to the Balkans they were slavizised and Christians. Is that true?

[Tarrak Hasan]

The Turks are the only nation without a race. The Kurds you are treated as second class citizens have a race but are denied a nation by the Turks(which arent a race)

What do you think about North Americans. They heve been mixing with the Latins, the Blacks, the Indians or someone elses from ourside of America. For example, Colin Powell is not pure Black.

Also south Americans. They have been mixing with the Spanishs, Portugeses. Aren't Brazillians mixed people.

Or can you say that all Europeans are pure races? They have been also mixing with each others for centruies. So I ask to you that what is race?

[Bulgarian]

In the Turkey, all history books say that Bulgarian are Turks. That is they are from Asia but after coming to the Balkans they were slavizised and Christians. Is that true?

Dont all Turkish history books say that there wasnt an Armenian Genocide?

The Bulgars (from Turkic people from Asia) migrated to Bulgaria but they mixed with the indigenous population (who were Slavs). The smaller numbers of Bulgars were absorbed into the Slavic population. As far as I am aware there werent records on the numbers that arrived but I am under the impression that there were many more Slavs. However their name (Bulgar) was adopted as the name of our state so I may be wrong. However the Turks were a minority in Anatolia but everyone is know as Turks. Which brings me back to the theory about the Turks. The Bulgars Bulgarized the Slavs the original inhabitance.


BTW Bulgaria was the first Slavic nation state. Centuries before Kievan Rus. There was a Bulgarian state during the same century of the earliest recording of the Turk (7th century BC)

[ScythianVizier]

I meant with an open mind

I think I am open minded enough to claim that dropping a nuclear bomb to a defenseless city populated by a specific group of people constitutes a genocide.

Ok so because American and British Forces are in Iraq we should allow total Barbarians into our countries?

Well, that depends upon your definition of barbarism. In fact, discrimination of specific group of people is the major reason for the policies that lead up to events that might be deemed as genocide. Individual freedom and fairness must prevail for all, not for some selected casts.

That makes no sense whatsoever, a Muslim who answers the European Immigration Tests like a Civilized Human Being may enter, a Muslim whoever who would kill his own sister for adultery, believes jews are demons, wants to destroy Europe in a violent Jihad, and wants Shariah to replace secular law is not welcome.

All those perceptions you state are based upon some assumptions and I must tell you that those are very dangerous indeed.

So your logic is because it happened in Macedonia it must have happened in Greece?

I am talking about the Ottoman Macedonia, which did include portions of today's Greece.

I don't care what their perception about it was, that isn't relevant. What is relevant is did Europeans try to whipe them off the face of the Earth, and the answer to that is no.

Well, they did whenever their subject did try to overthrow the European colonists. In fact, the methods used were extremely inhumane, and constituted all elements of the definition of genocide.

Again what you mention was a horrible crime, but it was not the crime of Genocide. Not all killing is Genocide Scythian. However if you really want to go that way you have been commiting Genocide against Greeks since the Battle of Manzikert.

The Greeks had a very autonomous administration. They kept almost everything they wished to have. They did have their viziers in Divan (Senate) until 1821. The had their flags and commercial freedom. They were employed by the Ottomans as administrators and state officials. Most of the Ottoman envoys to Europe included the Greeks, and later the Armenians.

Says the person from a country with a policy of Kurd killing. Erdogan said he would chase a Kurdish State to the ends of the Earth. Well according to your extremely weak definition that certainly qualifies as Genocide since Turkish Forces are slaughtering Kurds.

Well, I am not an anti-Kurd person. I have Kurdish friends and I support more freedom for the Kurds in terms of having their schools, universities, and cultural institutions. They already have their regional Kurdish TVs, books, music, language courses, but they should also be able to apply in Kurdish if they need to address any issue at the government offices. I also think that Turkey should establish sound policies to abolish income difference existing between the ethnic Kurds and the rest. Overall, such approach is important to establish if Turkey really wishes to live with the Kurds peacefully.

It was Genocide according to your meanignless definition, your people killed tens of thousands of Christians in their own country, you killed parents who did not want their young children turned into brainwashed fanatic soldiers, you put the obvious restriction that there was a high chance that a christian would end up with a son in slavery, you also frequently massacred lines of innocent Greeks to keep the population in line. If you call the British Occupation of India Genocide then the Turkish Occupation of Greece certainly is Genocide. I am not the one removing all meaning of the word Genocide by using it to refer to everything you are.

The British had not Indians in their senate. The British did not only tax the Indians for being Indians, but plundred whatever they found valuable in India. Today, the Greek commercial fleet is as big as it was since the Ottomans never prevented the Greeks from getting rich via sea trade. Thus, the Greeks who converted to Islam did access all resources and the power within the empire, and such notions were not applicable in India. Today, Turkey still have those Greeks who were deported from Greece for only being muslims.

In fact, the Greco-Turkish conflict was after the economic stagnation of the Ottoman empire, not before. The Greeks had their patriarch acting on their behalf, and had their own courts and laws governed by the Orthodox Church. The Ottomans were not like the British though they ended up acting like the Europeans as they couldnt compete with economic power of the west emerged as a consequence of the colonist extraction of surplus values.

Actually the Dutch Merchants were well meaning, they just wanted to make honest money through a new export market. Medical Technology was very poor at the time, and they had no way of knowing about the Germs and the effects they would have. The Natives didn't know either which is why they accepted the Dutch Merchants goods. It was those seemingly harmless trades that really killed natives, not wars.

Not true. I think you must read more about the Dutch policies affected several regions in the world. Indonesia is one of the places they have been, and the methods used there was nothing but ordinary fascism.

As for your remention of British Crimes in India, killing to increase your trade profit is not genocide. I really think that you do not know the definition of Genocide.

Well, if one entity kills a specific group of people to increase one's wealth, then I think it is genocide.

Please tell us the name. I read Benny Morris as well, and he says nothing about Israel using Genocide Tools.

As far as I am informed when reading this post, I am not allowed to discuss this part since I am now aware that it would violate the forum rules.

No it isn't. Jews got there without any help from Europeans, and they did not steal land at the expense of Arabs, they bought the land from Absentee Land Lords. They quickly became a Majority in much of the land, and the modern State of Israel was already on it's way to statehood before World War Two. Besides I would think that a Turk like you would love Israel, well perhaps Israel should see how Turks consider it to be an example of Colonialization and then reconsider its foriegn policy regarding Turkey.

As far as I am informed when reading this post, I am not allowed to discuss this part since I am now aware that it would violate the forum rules.

Look for it to be Genocide the goal has to be the elimination of a certain people, that was not the European Goal in the Colonies, hence by definition it could not be Genocide.

Genocide is not necessarily a total extermination process, but it is some fascist device to eliminate a specific thread that might arise from a certain group of people. This might embody some 30% of the population, or perhaps less since the intention is the major plot of such crime, not some specific numbers. If you look at Africa now, you could say that they are not a thread anymore for anyone excluding themselves. This was all due to the colonist policies, and I think the African people needs more than some abstract notions uttered.

[Parandzem]

Actually since he brought it up first he is the one who violated the rules not me. Besides you know that the context of this conversation isn't what that rule was meant to stop, it was neo-Nazis like you Sensei it was meant to shut up.

If it was meant to shut up neo-Nazis, then why are you still here? So you are stating here before everyone that the rules are NOT to be evenly applied to everyone? Your brand of free speech, the only kind you know.

The goal of the Serbs was to kill all Bosnians and Albanians, hence it was Genocide, and it fits the definition perfectly. If you have a problem with it perhaps you should talk to your friend Slobadan Milosovich's Ghost in Hell.

Yes, that is why Serbia is the most multi-ethnic country in the Balkans and many minorities live among the Serbs in harmony and prosperity. Keep lying, it is all you know how to do.

[Parandzem]

I agree with Gondorian the Serbs did commit a genocide against the Albanians and Bosnians.

The Turks committed a genocide against the Bulgarians before the Armenian Genocide. I guess the Bulgarian Genocide was just a warm up (or practise run) of what they were going to do against the Armenians.

You should know better than this.


I guess you think it's OK for turkified Bosnians and albanians to not only make themselves the demographic majority on Serbian land, but it is also acceptable for them to ethnically cleanse Serbian land of Serbs and wantonly murder resistant Serbs. In the manner which which you should be familiar: beheadings, mutilations, burning. Then the cultural destruction of Serbian churches and monuments. A la turkiye.

[Gondorian]

Bulgarian

Do you know a book, or good place to go for me to study the genocide in Bulgaria?

I only learned about Bulgaria through Greek eyes, sorry but we still don't have the greatest view of Bulgaria, and just ignore Sensei (Pandrezin) he was banned for Holocaust Denial, insulting Islam, virulently anti-semitic remarks, and total disrespect to everyone who didn't share his extremist views, he simply came back with a new name.

Scythian

The Japanese themselves do not regard the dropping of the bomb on them as Genocide. As I said for it to be Genocide the goal must be the elimination of the people in question. The goal of the American Army in World War Two was just to get Japan to surrender, not kill all Japanese.

All those perceptions you state are based upon some assumptions and I must tell you that those are very dangerous indeed.

Like Scythian that is WHY we have the Immigration Test instead of just rejecting all Muslim Immigrants. All a Muslim has to do to come to Europe is to denounce the barbaric practices like Honor Killings.

I am talking about the Ottoman Macedonia, which did include portions of today's Greece.

Portions that where not under Greek Controll at the time.

Well, they did whenever their subject did try to overthrow the European colonists. In fact, the methods used were extremely inhumane, and constituted all elements of the definition of genocide.

Not every Massacre is Genocide Scythian. Unless you can show that the European Goal was to eliminate the natives from existence it wasn't Genocide. The question does remain if mighty Europe at the hieght of it's power had as it's goal killing all of them, how did they survive hundreds of years under European Rule?

Well, I am not an anti-Kurd person. I have Kurdish friends and I support more freedom for the Kurds in terms of having their schools, universities, and cultural institutions. They already have their regional Kurdish TVs, books, music, language courses, but they should also be able to apply in Kurdish if they need to address any issue at the government offices. I also think that Turkey should establish sound policies to abolish income difference existing between the ethnic Kurds and the rest. Overall, such approach is important to establish if Turkey really wishes to live with the Kurds peacefully.

In that case you should know about the brutal treatment the Kurds recieved in the 20th century.

Not true. I think you must read more about the Dutch policies affected several regions in the world. Indonesia is one of the places they have been, and the methods used there was nothing but ordinary fascism.

I didn't say Dutch Government, I said Dutch Merchants read what I say a bit more carefully/ Dutch Merchants usually where outside of Governmental controll, their goal was just to make money. They killed a lot more people unintentionally then any Colonists did with bad intentions.

As far as I am informed when reading this post, I am not allowed to discuss this part since I am now aware that it would violate the forum rules.

Ok we can debate that part through Private Messaging.

Genocide is not necessarily a total extermination process, but it is some fascist device to eliminate a specific thread that might arise from a certain group of people. This might embody some 30% of the population, or perhaps less since the intention is the major plot of such crime, not some specific numbers. If you look at Africa now, you could say that they are not a thread anymore for anyone excluding themselves. This was all due to the colonist policies, and I think the African people needs more than some abstract notions uttered.

Maybe not total extermination yes, but extermination in part. Just killing a lot of people wouldn't count as genocide.

[Krokodil]

Dont all Turkish history books say that there wasnt an Armenian Genocide?

The Bulgars (from Turkic people from Asia) migrated to Bulgaria but they mixed with the indigenous population (who were Slavs). The smaller numbers of Bulgars were absorbed into the Slavic population. As far as I am aware there werent records on the numbers that arrived but I am under the impression that there were many more Slavs.

Bulgarians are of coarse Slavs. But you may want to check with your nations historians. The Bulgars were not any turkic tribe, Bulgars were of Finno-Ugric similar to Mari, Udmurt, and Indo-European (Iranic) similar to Alans and Sarmatians ethnogeneses.


PS:
My mother visited Sofia a long time ago when she was younger, I think she had fun.