Tweet
Originally posted by willy_wonka
-
Yes. May you live in interesting times and meet fascinating people.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.” -
"And if anything gets in your way (human rights activists, uppity minorities, Kurds, leftists, the educated elite, missionaries,etc), you must be prepared to KILLLLLLL for your nation and make Ataturk proud."
joseph you are looking at the point of view in the way you can feel yourself right...but please be objective and look: i said "if necessary" which means during a war, when people attack our lands...
kurts, leftists, minorities are all our brothers...you see the ones who are opposite in this idea but i have many kurt friends who are a perfect patriot...
and for me "to die for my country if necessary" means as i told before during a war...i have never thougt of "kurts, minorities, leftist or the others"...i already couldn't understand at the first time what you mean and the association of this sentence with "killing" and "dying"...
as Einstein says "It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom"...
i am not sure if you really want to understand what i wrote exactly...you have certain ideas about us and suits one of them on each our sentence without trying to understand what the sentence means in fact...
and i want to add that i hate wars...especially in this century of humanity what a harrowing way of punishment for the humanty to himself...and in this case too, i think just like what Einstein thinks about wars...
i don't want wars,i don't want any people to die and anyone to kill...
i want people in the conscious of their rights and if there is something wrong, struggle by the way of laws and by the way of discussing objectively their ideas in a platform and in such ways that suits better to the definition of a human...Comment
-
Wonka, you're losing focus. You must prepare yourself from the coming onslaught. The Kurds are rising up, the minorities are making you look bad in the eyes of the world, human rights organizations are pestering your military, multi-international companies are conspiring to control your country and make you buy their products, the EU is going to impose the Sevres Treaty on you, Iraq is falling into chaos and the Kurds will soon have their own state, leftists are questioning Ataturkism, China is single handedly destroying your textile industry, the Islamists are rising and taking control of your nation, Iran will soon have nukes. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!Originally posted by willy_wonka
Ataturk bekons it's almost time for war. He is look up at you with his piercing glare and bidding you to go to war. He is crying for his nation. So be prepared and be willing to kill even if you don't want to. The world is not safe until it submits to Turkey and the Pan-turkist ideal.
These are certainly interesting times and you will meet fascinating people.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
joseph you are still at the same point:and this is the last post of me about this point:
-you don't know anything about Ataturk.What you know about himself is just what you want to know...facts are so different.how many books did you read about him?War is the last thing to do to Ataturk.but in such conditions just try to conceive:
-there are many nations' armies attacking Ottoman's lands (England,france,Greece,Italy...)
they have money and all possibilities...
-those were the years of collapsing of Ottoman...he was losing his lands and money day by day...
-sultan was in cooperative with England and the other countries and to him the only solution for these bad conditions was to live under the directives of England despite the public...
-what Europan called "human rights" were never effective for Turks...if the subject is Turks there rights and rules could easily be changed...
-in our lands some were dreaming Istanbul, some were a pontus rum country in blacksea, some were petrol, some were straits and like Greek some were dreaming the frienship of English...
as they confess (greek confess) they were did wars in Anatolia like Sakarya, like Kutahya-Eskisehir war and so... just for the friendship and respect of England...when they were defeated by Turks, they said "all those didn't worth (their army was so damaged) for gaining petrol to England"...they saw that they were used as a paw and while they were defated they wanted extra money and arms for their army in Anatolia at least to return their homes, Europa just talked but did nothing for them because what they wanted wasn't managed by Greek army...
-many Turks were murdered by minorities to decreaseTurk's population to gain land depending on the Wilson points...
i have many things to say but i know that you don't want to know and read these...
lastly i want to say that the wars for freedom of Turks with Greece and the other nations were in the strategy of defensive for Turks you can see this in any history book...then as you see we didn't start the wars.if we had started then the lands of war shouldn't be Anatolia, right???Maybe Europan likes wars more than us...again i am writing:in the begining of the struggles, wars Turkish army stood in defence, the one who attacked were Europans...
they attacked us and we defenced...
these are the facts...and these facts can last long...joseph i have admired your interest in history for many times up to now butyour knowladge about Ataturk and "Kurtulus Savasları"(the wars of Turks for freedom)" is not enough and the ones you know are already unfair...
yours sincerely...Comment
-
I'm glad this is your last post. I know quite a bit about Ataturk and am very aware (though you may not be) that he and his minions did indeed send Karabekir to attack Armenia in 1920 just to finish them off. Fortunately, they were unable to do so. Or perhaps that was a mirage.Originally posted by willy_wonka
Plus don't overestimate the invaders of the Republican Turkey after WWI. Neither the Brits, French or other European states sent any meaningful amounts of troops or equipment and indeed lost interest in the whole affair to the detriment of the Greeks of course. As for the slaughter of the Armenian refugees that were repatriated by aid organizations back to their homes in places such as Marash, Hadjin, Sis...very heroic.
And sure, Turkey was on the defensive when they invaded Russia at the behest of Germany in 1914. But why would you ever blame the CUP? I wonder if getting involved in the war and all the destruction that ensued was the fault of the Christian minorities?General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
A Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim
This is part (6) you can start at part one (by link on page) which started over a year ago overall the dialogue shows the major contrasts between us and Islam .
"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
We need to/must get this thread going againGeneral Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
Hmm. Interesting. Apparently fearing Islam and its adherents is somehow worse than terrorism. I'm really entertained by their convoluted reasoning but at the same time, I'm at a loss for words
"‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism,’" by Siraj Wahab for Arab News, with thanks to LGF:
ISLAMABAD, 17 May 2007 — Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) yesterday expressed grave concern at the rising tide of discrimination and intolerance against Muslims, especially in Europe and North America. “It is something that has assumed xenophobic proportions,” they said in unison.
Speaking at a special brainstorming session on the sidelines of the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia the worst form of terrorism and called for practical steps to counter it.
The ministers described Islamophobia as a deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. “This campaign of calumny against Muslims resulted in the publication of the blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper and the issuance of the inflammatory statement by Pope Benedict XVI,” they said. During a speech in Germany last year, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things. The Pope’s remarks aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world.
“The increasingly negative political and media discourse targeting Muslims and Islam in the United States and Europe has made things all the more difficult,” the foreign ministers said. “Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.
The OIC foreign ministers deplored the misrepresentation in the Western media of Islam and Muslims in the context of terrorism. “The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable,” they said. “This is further inciting negative sentiments and hatred in the West against Muslims,” they said. The ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
The only true option a Muslim can take, is the side of Allah, the side of Adonai, the side of the Father. I speak out daily as a Muslim about the genocide, but I also speak out against the Government of the states. I don’t support any type of terrorism, that of radical Islam, or a government built on greed and corruption. When one takes either side as stated above, there is no winner. History repeats, no different than when the young Turks took power. People believed there would be change for the better, then you see what happens. I choose Allah, Adonai, and God.Unfortunately, just as happened to American colonists during our 1776
War of Independence, when families and friends were split between
American rebels and loyalists to the crown, Muslims living in western
societies are caught between two loyalties and they must choose.
The Qurán does teach peace, it is only because of ignorance that it breeds hate. No different than any other Holy Book. We all have free will, we can either use it for the good of all, or for evil. And it's easier for mankind to do that which is wrong, than it is to do that which is right. We don't have to teach a child to be selfish, but we do have to teach a child to share. This tells us something about mankind as a whole. We have to strive for that which is good, so that we become good, and by this, and only by this, do we prosper in wisdom. No matter what faith you are, when you reach the stage of wisdom, we are all at the same place of faith, even if we differ in religion. Hate doesn't prosper anyone.
All religions have stains, there isn’t one that doesn’t. I have the pleasure of taking care of a 106 year old Christian survivor of the genocide. She has definitely taught me a lot, but has also loved me just as much as a son, and I am a Muslim. Out of 17 members of her family, only 3 survived. The atrocities she witnessed is beyond belief, beyond description. But like a true person of faith, she put her trust in God, and not in hate.
Do not be a bigot on religions, but despise those who teach hate, who are ruled by greed, lust and the hunger of power. But hate not the religion.Comment
-
Two-hour rape and torture of honour killing girl murdered by her family
Last updated at 13:01pm on 20th July 2007
Banaz Mahmod Babakir Agha
Details from the pre-sentence hearing looking into the honour killing involving victim Banaz Mahmod indicate she was raped and tortured
The father and uncle of honour killing victim Banaz Mahmod were jailed for life today for her murder.
Mahmod Mahmod, 54, was told he will have to serve a minimumn of 20 years while his brother Ari, 51, will have to serve at least 23 years.
Horrific details were revealed yesterday of the last hours of the young Kurdish woman murdered by her family for falling in love with the wrong man.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was brutally raped and stamped on during a two-hour ordeal before being garotted.
One of her killers, the Old Bailey was told, was 30-year-old Mohamad Hama, who had been recruited by Banaz's father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari, 51.
Both were found guilty of murder last month.
The shocking details of the killing came to light when Hama was secretly recorded talking to a friend in prison.
He admitted "slapping" and "f***ing" Banaz, who was subjected to degrading sex acts.
Hama and his friend were heard laughing as he described how she was killed in her family home in Mitcham, South London, with Ari Mahmod "supervising".
The murderers - two other suspects have fled to Iraq - had been told Banaz would be on her own.
Hama is recorded as saying: "Ari (the uncle) said there is no one there. There was someone there, Biza (her sister). The bastard lied to us."
He said of the murder: "I swear to God it took him more than two hours. Her soul and her life would not leave."
Banaz was garotted for five minutes, said Hama, but it took another half an hour for her to die.
Hama said: "The wire was thick and the soul would not just leave like that.
"We could not remove it. All in all it took five minutes (to strangle) her.
"I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get the soul out. I saw her stark naked, without wearing pants or underwear."
Banaz's body was packed into a suitcase and buried in a garden in Birmingham, where it was found three months later.
The trial of the two brothers heard that Banaz was killed because she had walked out of an unhappy arranged marriage - which she was forced into at just 17 - and fallen in love with Iranian Kurd Rahmat Suleimani, 28.
The pair had been secretly seeing each other, but her family were furious when they found out because Mr Suleimani was not "immediate family" or a strict Muslim.
Terrified, Banaz wrote to police naming people she said were planning to kill her.
Hama was on the list, the court heard. Two other men named by Banaz have fled the country.
Transcripts of the prison recording were read out at a pre- sentence hearing for Hama, of South Norwood, South London, who pleaded guilty to murdering Banaz at an earlier hearing.
Judge Brian Barker, the Common Serjeant of London, sat to assess the extent of Hama's involvement.
Victor Temple QC, prosecuting, told the court that Hama, who sat impassively in the dock, took a "leading part" in raping and killing Banaz in January last year then dumping her body.
He was said to have been recorded expressing concern because his fingerprints and DNA were on her body.
He was also concerned that a leaking pipe at the house where she was buried was sending water through the suitcase, possibly uncovering it.
During another taped conversation, Hama joked about Banaz's hair and elbow sticking out of the suitcase and how a police patrol drove past while he was helping to drag it to a car.
He said: "The road was crowded. The police came past. People were passing by - and we were dragging the bag.
"I almost ran away. Mr Ari (was dragging it) and we were around by each side of him.
"You know what it was, sticking out, her elbow, her hair was falling out so much. That was a stupid thing, a silly thing."
Defence barrister Malcolm Swift QC claimed Hama became involved only after Banaz's body had been put in the suitcase.
He told the court there was no direct evidence that Hama was present at the time of the murder - he took part in the planning but "had realised the error of becoming directly involved in the killing".
Hama's car was outside his home throughout the morning of the killing and his mobile phone could not be linked to the murder scene.
Mr Swift said Hama got his information on the killing from others, including Ari Mahmod.Comment
Comment