The sense of loss?

[Mukuch]

Re: The sense of loss?

Nice one.

Yah, good enough for a cats intellect.... considering how funny the original subject is...

[bell-the-cat]

Re: The sense of loss?

The only thing missing from this script is a part for HARRISON FORD starring in 'The temple of Garni' or James Bond in 'Ararat Royale'. I reckon it would make a great Hollywood movie but I'll wait for the DVD version anyway. To be honest I'd prefer the Bollywood version.

Is this what they call giving yourself a creative license...?

Nice one.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: The sense of loss?

You're kidding, right? Things were going well? First, you make it sound as though they were at war for a year. The Turks had just entered the war at the very end of November, and didn't see much action till December, where they didn't do so well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ardahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sar%C4%B1kam%C4%B1%C5%9F

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG-bj-G5me4&feature=PlayList&p=21BE3036E649F508&index=1

Taken from the description of the video: "Enver Pasha takes personal command of the Ottoman Third Army (95,000 men) and sends it to attack Russian forces in the Caucasus. German military advisor, General Liman von Sanders, advises against a mountain offensive in winter. On December 29, 1914, the Ottoman advance is halted by about 100,000 Russian troops at Sarikamesh. Six days later, the Turks have lost 30,000 men and reel back toward the city of Erzurum. More soldiers desert or die of frostbite; more than half of the Third Army is lost."

BTW, that figure is wrong. They lost closer to 90% of the army by the time you factor in the deserters and those that died during the retreat. Was it at this point that "the Russians were in a state of panic", Bell? The only thing the Turks won was an insignificant battle in Bergmann. The rest of the time, they got their asses handed to them on account of Enver's ignorance and arrogance. Welcome to WWI 101.





......wow.....just....I don't even know where to start with this one, other than look up Turkey's excuses today for the deportations.







*massages his temples*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8sMDZkyXc (Part I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJI0HQLHlX4 (Part II)

Watch and learn basic history. Also, watch the documentary "Blood and Oil" which was just posted to YouTube late last year all the way through. As the title suggests, it does a good job explaining the importance that oil played even in WWI.



Seriously, Bell. Was your reply a joke? All your talk and posturing about how well versed you are on this subject, how we'd need to pay you $10k and wait 6 months for your version of a report on this subject, all your belittling of other members for not relying on facts, or knowing the truth about this subject, and this is the best you could come up with for a reply?? You have lost all credibility in my eyes on this subject. Never, EVER speak of the Armenian genocide again.

As for you, Ferdi, for the millionth time, do some research on this subject. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, not all opinions are created equal. For example, all you're doing is pulling opinions from out of your ass with ZERO facts to base them on. I'm telling you what the facts show, you're telling me "no, I don't think so because I'd rather not believe that/it doesn't make sense to me". Please stop commenting on things you have absolutely know knowledge of.

Please, Crimson Glow, I've said before that I don't doubt your good intentions with your history postings, and you don't seem to be like the neanderthal majority that roam this forum - but if you are going to attack people who point out obvious errors than maybe it is better for you to post nothing on these subjects. You don't yet seem to know enough about the subjects to write accurately about them (I know that doesn't stop the morons like Gavur who know nothing at all from posting at great length). A lot of what you are posting could have come straight out of a Turkish propaganda book!

Have you read any books about the Sarikamish offensive and the period immediately before it? Russian forces in the Caucasus were in a state of complete panic and disorganisation. Turkey had already captured Ardahan and Artvin only a few months earlier, routing the Russian army. "Bergmann" is not a place, it was the name of the defeated Russian commander. In expectation of further defeats Russia then withdrew all its troops from northern Iran, leaving the way open for the Turkish army to occupy it and massacre most of the Christians living there (an event which foreshadowed the Armenian Geniocide). The Russian army was preparing to abandon Kars as the Sarikamish battle was reached its climax (start of January 1915) and they expected total defeat. If it were not for the citizens of Sarikamish, and the soldiers based there, who decided to try and defend the town, preventing the Turks from getting shelter there from the severe weather, Turkey would have won.

And you oil nonsense is lifted straight from 1920s Bolshevik propaganda (invented to justify their occupation of the Caucasus republics). Turkey, never one to miss a trick, has just adapted that old lie for their own use.

[Mukuch]

Re: The sense of loss?

The only thing missing from this script is a part for HARRISON FORD starring in 'The temple of Garni' or James Bond in 'Ararat Royale'. I reckon it would make a great Hollywood movie but I'll wait for the DVD version anyway. To be honest I'd prefer the Bollywood version.

Is this what they call giving yourself a creative license...?

Try this. Although I do not promise you Harison Ford....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8sMDZkyXc&feature=PlayList&p=307C205170F134D8&index=0&playnext=1

[hrai]

Re: The sense of loss?

1. I don't know what duff means because it isn't a word here

2.



Please note you are claiming:
a) that people had industrial age oil derricks in "China at 347 CE" - Bullxxxx!
b) That chinese production of the oil is the same as in the industrial era - okay then...but I don't think so :P
c) Cars were cheap and affordable in 19th century and most people had a car
d) That there is no difference between a petrol powered engine and a steam powered one, and that the engine of 1800s was the same as used in 1900s.

So I am not dodging...:P Your just saying some correct info and backing it up with bullxxxx. As for the 20th century part I am half right since I can easily argue forever that the car of the 19th century is no way the same as the one of the 20th century...and that the 20th century car is what I was talking about. But never mind that.

I don't need a sense of humour...laughing at your comments was enough. :P

Hilarious.

I've been on this carousel before where over a few posts you slightly change the subject of the original post. Your numbered assumptions from my post are incredible. Reading between the lines to that degree must turn a daily newspaper into an epic.

Duff means excellent

[hipeter924]

Re: The sense of loss?

Easily done apparently.
You post duff info as fact and then dodge it.
A sense of humor wouldn't go wrong either.

http://www.sjgs.com/history.html

1. I don't know what duff means because it isn't a word here

2.

He is wrong over the oil for sure....people didn't even know how to distil and use oil properly till the industrial era and no one then actually imported petrol from Turkey, cars are a 20th century invention.

Yep to produce chemicals, and who is to say that modern production of oil is the same to the ancient Chinese production of oil...it isn't.

Please note you are claiming:
a) that people had industrial age oil derricks in "China at 347 CE" - Bullxxxx!
b) That chinese production of the oil is the same as in the industrial era - okay then...but I don't think so :P
c) Cars were cheap and affordable in 19th century and most people had a car
d) That there is no difference between a petrol powered engine and a steam powered one, and that the engine of 1800s was the same as used in 1900s.

So I am not dodging...:P Your just saying some correct info and backing it up with bullxxxx. As for the 20th century part I am half right since I can easily argue forever that the car of the 19th century is no way the same as the one of the 20th century...and that the 20th century car is what I was talking about. But never mind that.

I don't need a sense of humour...laughing at your comments was enough. :P

[Gavur]

Re: The sense of loss?

Ferdi came and he was game
Ferdi geldi Ermeniye verdi

[hrai]

Re: The sense of loss?

The only thing missing from this script is a part for HARRISON FORD starring in 'The temple of Garni' or James Bond in 'Ararat Royale'. I reckon it would make a great Hollywood movie but I'll wait for the DVD version anyway. To be honest I'd prefer the Bollywood version.

Is this what they call giving yourself a creative license...?

Try to parody your way out of your useless position.

http://www.trainsofturkey.com/w/pmwiki.php/History/CIOB

Also you could buy/loan one or both of these books :

"Studies in German Colonial History" by W O Henderson. (pages 77-79)
"The Killing Trap" by Manus I Midlarsky. (pages 215-218)

Read these or have someone do it for you.

[hrai]

Re: The sense of loss?

wtf?

Sorry just don't get what you are on about.

1. Excuse me? Are you saying that a modern oil derrick was made in China before the Industrial revolution? You are really confusing me now

2. What does a car have to do with New Zealand. Also please note all cars built in NZ were made by the same companies that existed in the Uk. So no they were exactly the same. :P

How is pointing out that cars originally could only be afforded by the wealthy anything discriminatory???

????

Easily done apparently.
You post duff info as fact and then dodge it.
A sense of humor wouldn't go wrong either.

http://www.sjgs.com/history.html

[hipeter924]

Re: The sense of loss?

is this fact or just another piece of duff info?


They're the ones built just for new zealand. (and more like "horseless carriages" as they were called)

p.s. Twice you mention "the rich/wealthy", don't you like them/us?

wtf?

Sorry just don't get what you are on about.

1. Excuse me? Are you saying that a modern oil derrick was made in China before the Industrial revolution? You are really confusing me now

2. What does a car have to do with New Zealand. Also please note all cars built in NZ were made by the same companies that existed in the Uk. So no they were exactly the same. :P

How is pointing out that cars originally could only be afforded by the wealthy anything discriminatory???

????