Tweet
Originally posted by winoman
I've never heard anyone claim that Turkey does not exist.
Don't you read what is written above?
Which Turks? (ie not so simple as just this...)...invaded yes....settlements? some...but really were talking 13th-14th century and the Ottomans as Seljuks never became the majority and really only arrived and impacted a bit (not all that special/unusual) - did not transform....this occured with the Ottomans.
Maybe. Actually I don't know the details. What I know is Armenians were never the majority at the region since 14th century.
This does not compute..again I have not seen claims based on this per se...remember difference between kingdom/nation and nation/people. Your examples are all of people who assimilated - Armenians always maintained their ethnic and cultural identity - and yes - "nationhood" in the sense of a national (ethnic) community....until 1915 of course....and please consult an unbiased history book. Azerbaijan brutally attacked Artsahk (Nagorno-Karabagh) after it legitimatly (legally) became an independent state by means of referendum under the Soviet constitution then in effect. (and I'll discuss the concept of "lost wars" and "considerations for the agressors in such" in just a bit...)
Maybe again. I only read those things from international newspapers, not the Azeri ones. Your claim doesn't match with CNN,etc. for example.
somehow I think you would if you could...and please conside the difference between "Empire" and "homeland"...
Again dind't say such..but does make me think of the arguments I have had from several Turks in the past who disasociate modern Turkey with the Ottoman Empire....are you not a Kemalist?
No I am not a Kemalist.
Yes and there is no poverty in the West, Slaves in the Americas were privaledged and well taken care of by their masters, etc etc - any more myths you wish to foster? While Ottoman practice (beginning in the 14th century) of allowing ethnic/religious communities to exist and largely run their own affairs was enlightened (to all parties) for some time - it was not so idealic in all respects and it was part of a caste like system that by the 18th-19th century was outmoded, insufficient andled to increasing brutality adn rerpression on the part of the Ottoman/Turks to maintain...so no - not just 20 years. Massacre, pillaging, exctortion etc etc had become institutionalized...and the cracks began in the 17th century when the ottomans went from conquoering power to one just attempting to maintin the status quo - something that the political (and economic) heirarchy was not designed to do...
I did not say that Ottoman system is the idealic one. Just I said that it was not a system that you accuse like this comparing the ones at that time.
OK kudos to you....but only if you accept the bad history along with the good...
No comment.
...just like the favored slaves in the old South in the US - learned to read and write (maybe) etc - my they had it good...its still attempting to justify a barbaric practice - taking children away from their parents...while some may have considered this a means of social advancement - etc - most families - I imagine - would have just liked to have their sons back....
Janissary system is not something like parents can not see their childs again. Most of the janissaries were even financing the monuments like churchs, fountains, etc. at their villages because they were rich. A good system looking from todays perspective? No. But is was not something like stealing babies what you try to show. If you do not believe me read some history books from Oxford, Cambridge publications,etc. instead of popular western orientalistic books for ordinary American who are not aware of anything about history.
Cyprus issue is much to complex to discuss here & now....
I agree.
You are reading to many Azeri papers IMO....and agian - who invaded who?
Again, I do not read any Azeri paper or TV. It is just written at ordinary western sources.
Regarding lost wars and crying foul on the part of the aggressor...well Azerbaijan is to blame for the mess that they are in and the Armenians have no obligation to return anything. WHat they may choose to do - to give - for peace - is another matter - but no claims on the part of the Azaeris in this - regarding lost teritorty or what not - are in any way legitimate - sorry.
And I can see Turkey in WWI the same way. Sure Sevres was terrible for them - and yes it represented much greed on the part of the European States and was perhaps overly harsh....but - Ottoman Turkey was an aggressor state - that lost the war! Additionally, they proved that they could not be trusted to care for their own people (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians - all butchered) - thus I argue the Turks had no right to greater Anatolia - through their folly they should have lost it - it was deserving that they lose it - this would have been justice. It was only through the brilliance of Ataturk - and much luck they they got out of their jam - escaped justice - but then look what they (he) did - they continued the genocidal campaign - against the Armenains of the caucuses and Cilicia and agianst the Greeks and Armenians in Smyrna and elsewhere...yes your boy Ataturk may not have perpetuated the Genocide...but he certainly completed it....and for all of these unrepentent crimes - yes - what right do the Turks have to occupy our homeland? Sure it is fact...but there was a blood price - a price that we paid and continue to pay...and yet you come here and show no remorse and no understanding...and you preach to us about hate...I would consider yourself to be very lucky to be in the postion you are in - that we are nto now actively seeking your blood...and if I were you I would try to be a bit more compasionate - and be ready to accept and understand a bit fisrt - where Armenains are comming from - what we have been through and still must live with - before you come here and demand from us....
Don't you read what is written above?
Which Turks? (ie not so simple as just this...)...invaded yes....settlements? some...but really were talking 13th-14th century and the Ottomans as Seljuks never became the majority and really only arrived and impacted a bit (not all that special/unusual) - did not transform....this occured with the Ottomans.
Maybe. Actually I don't know the details. What I know is Armenians were never the majority at the region since 14th century.
This does not compute..again I have not seen claims based on this per se...remember difference between kingdom/nation and nation/people. Your examples are all of people who assimilated - Armenians always maintained their ethnic and cultural identity - and yes - "nationhood" in the sense of a national (ethnic) community....until 1915 of course....and please consult an unbiased history book. Azerbaijan brutally attacked Artsahk (Nagorno-Karabagh) after it legitimatly (legally) became an independent state by means of referendum under the Soviet constitution then in effect. (and I'll discuss the concept of "lost wars" and "considerations for the agressors in such" in just a bit...)
Maybe again. I only read those things from international newspapers, not the Azeri ones. Your claim doesn't match with CNN,etc. for example.
somehow I think you would if you could...and please conside the difference between "Empire" and "homeland"...
Again dind't say such..but does make me think of the arguments I have had from several Turks in the past who disasociate modern Turkey with the Ottoman Empire....are you not a Kemalist?
No I am not a Kemalist.
Yes and there is no poverty in the West, Slaves in the Americas were privaledged and well taken care of by their masters, etc etc - any more myths you wish to foster? While Ottoman practice (beginning in the 14th century) of allowing ethnic/religious communities to exist and largely run their own affairs was enlightened (to all parties) for some time - it was not so idealic in all respects and it was part of a caste like system that by the 18th-19th century was outmoded, insufficient andled to increasing brutality adn rerpression on the part of the Ottoman/Turks to maintain...so no - not just 20 years. Massacre, pillaging, exctortion etc etc had become institutionalized...and the cracks began in the 17th century when the ottomans went from conquoering power to one just attempting to maintin the status quo - something that the political (and economic) heirarchy was not designed to do...
I did not say that Ottoman system is the idealic one. Just I said that it was not a system that you accuse like this comparing the ones at that time.
OK kudos to you....but only if you accept the bad history along with the good...
No comment.
...just like the favored slaves in the old South in the US - learned to read and write (maybe) etc - my they had it good...its still attempting to justify a barbaric practice - taking children away from their parents...while some may have considered this a means of social advancement - etc - most families - I imagine - would have just liked to have their sons back....
Janissary system is not something like parents can not see their childs again. Most of the janissaries were even financing the monuments like churchs, fountains, etc. at their villages because they were rich. A good system looking from todays perspective? No. But is was not something like stealing babies what you try to show. If you do not believe me read some history books from Oxford, Cambridge publications,etc. instead of popular western orientalistic books for ordinary American who are not aware of anything about history.
Cyprus issue is much to complex to discuss here & now....
I agree.
You are reading to many Azeri papers IMO....and agian - who invaded who?
Again, I do not read any Azeri paper or TV. It is just written at ordinary western sources.
Regarding lost wars and crying foul on the part of the aggressor...well Azerbaijan is to blame for the mess that they are in and the Armenians have no obligation to return anything. WHat they may choose to do - to give - for peace - is another matter - but no claims on the part of the Azaeris in this - regarding lost teritorty or what not - are in any way legitimate - sorry.
And I can see Turkey in WWI the same way. Sure Sevres was terrible for them - and yes it represented much greed on the part of the European States and was perhaps overly harsh....but - Ottoman Turkey was an aggressor state - that lost the war! Additionally, they proved that they could not be trusted to care for their own people (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians - all butchered) - thus I argue the Turks had no right to greater Anatolia - through their folly they should have lost it - it was deserving that they lose it - this would have been justice. It was only through the brilliance of Ataturk - and much luck they they got out of their jam - escaped justice - but then look what they (he) did - they continued the genocidal campaign - against the Armenains of the caucuses and Cilicia and agianst the Greeks and Armenians in Smyrna and elsewhere...yes your boy Ataturk may not have perpetuated the Genocide...but he certainly completed it....and for all of these unrepentent crimes - yes - what right do the Turks have to occupy our homeland? Sure it is fact...but there was a blood price - a price that we paid and continue to pay...and yet you come here and show no remorse and no understanding...and you preach to us about hate...I would consider yourself to be very lucky to be in the postion you are in - that we are nto now actively seeking your blood...and if I were you I would try to be a bit more compasionate - and be ready to accept and understand a bit fisrt - where Armenains are comming from - what we have been through and still must live with - before you come here and demand from us....
What Greeks?
Turkey did not massacred Greeks, but the opposite is true, Greek invasion army did it. After the Turkish-Greek war Turkey and Greece agreed to exchange their minorities by the advice of a Norvegian diplomat. Is it a good thing? Of course not. Just do not misinterpret the issues.
Assyrians?
Again no.
I show and showed remorse, please read carefully, and my aim was understanding your point as I wrote, when your friend was only swareind and even some of them are seeking a vendetta.
I do not want to dispute with a civilised person like you at here even you accuse us with the same thing. I am ready to accept our faults and the tragedies that my ancestor was responsible. But not with those people which represents your people.
Comment