The Armenian Holocaust Of 1915

Topic locked
  • Reply
May 19, 2009
muyesser wrote:I would like to think that Turkey is not a ‘totally Islamic’ country but rather ‘not totally secular’ one; it’s a tricky balance trying to figure out how a non-Arab Muslim country should be like..?


It's not totally Islamic and it wants to be secular (or the majority of the elite seem to understand that is their way forward), however there are pressures inside Turkey for religion to interfere more in state matters.

If you look at secular elites in Turkey, their notion of secularism is not the separation of mosque and state. They basically have a very negative attitude towards religion itself.

Given that 99 percent of the population is Muslim, Turkey’s secularism and parliamentary democracy is perceived by the West as an example to the rest of the Muslim world. This is hypocritical because the image of that democratic country hides a lot of tension in itself.


This is a point, most of the country is Muslim, we are not just talking about Istanbul and Ankara here. It is important for the EU to be able to hold them in the air and wave them, as an 'Islamic secular buffer'.

Partly in Europe, partly in Asia, Turkey has long been a bridge between East and West, but it doesn’t fit neatly in either.
When we look from the Western side, the country is very Eastern, and when look from the Eastern side, Turkey is very Western country.

Turkey with its current economic instability, will find it rather difficult to meet the EU monetary union convergent criterias –single currency, government deficit, price stability- to become a member, not to forget the bad human right records.


I agree, Red Chief thinks that the human rights issue is just smokescreen, I believe it is certainly a convenient thing for the EU to use to stave off the eventual crunch of join or not join, but it also is a real matter.

Speedhump
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 4262

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
NATO is totally another issue. It was and is a military instrument for infuence of US in the World, mostly against Russia. In this case Turkey has some value.

Why do you connent it with EU states who initialy were an economical union of defeated states in WW2 (Germany, France and Italy) to survive in the World's competition?

P.S. I've never told that human rights is not an issue. I wrote only that EU used and uses it presumably when it's convinient for them, the double standard policy.
Red Chief
Dubai forums GURU
User avatar
Posts: 2256

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
Red Chief wrote:NATO is totally another issue. It was and is a military instrument for infuence of US in the World, mostly against Russia. In this case Turkey has some value.


It was you that mentioned NATO. I presumed you meant that the EU had some moral debt to Turkey because of its longstanding membership. Turkey's continued membership of NATO is of benefit to both the EU and the US. It's not so beneficial to Turkey though IMO, unless they can get the full EU package, otherwise they are cutting off other potential economic and military allies.

Why do you connent it with EU states who initialy were an economical union of defeated states in WW2 (Germany, France and Italy) to survive in the World's competition?


I don't connect it. Turkey itself wants to be connected. Simple.

P.S. I've never told that human rights is not an issue. I wrote only that EU used and uses it presumably when it's convinient for them, the double standard policy.


Yes we agree on its convenience to the EU. Howewer the EU certainly does consider human rights as a relevant issue, as former Yugoslav states are still not even candidates for membership.

Red Chief, you didn't tell me why the EU is even interested in discussing EU membership with Turkey, what are the reasons in your own opinion?
Speedhump
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 4262

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
Hungarian Sarcozy has told directly that EU should cancel this discussion. I think his partner Ms. Merckel from DDR shares his position.

There were a lot of promises had been given before sudden collapse of Eastern Block. Nobody waited for it.

Actually EU don't want even the empty discussions.

P.S. Your knowledge in Continental history is depressed me. Slovenia, the former Yugoslavian state, was in the first portion of EU members from Eastern block.
Red Chief
Dubai forums GURU
User avatar
Posts: 2256

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
Red Chief wrote:Hungarian Sarcozy has told directly that EU should cancel this discussion. I think his partner Ms. Merckel from DDR shares his position.

There were a lot of promises had been given before sudden collapse of Eastern Block. Nobody waited for it.

Actually EU don't want even the empty discussions.

P.S. Your knowledge in Continental history is depressed me. Slovenia, the former Yugoslavian state, was in the first portion of EU members from Eastern block.


EU would be stupid to let Turkey walk away free and get into bed with Russia for example.

You are the depressing one. How many other ex-Yugoslav states are NOT EVEN up for membership, please enlighten me. Stop with the sarcasm it makes you sound childish. Are you descending to insults again?
Speedhump
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 4262

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
Speedhump wrote:EU would be stupid to let Turkey walk away free and get into bed with Russia for example.


I don't think that it's an issue - it's difficult to forget bad history. You are right that Turkey needs to find its place in the World.

Russia is also in very chalenging situation now, Ukrain is nearly collapsed in its Western orientation.
Red Chief
Dubai forums GURU
User avatar
Posts: 2256

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
I heard that the people of many ex-soviet states wished the return of USSR. Mostly the poorer, country people I imagine. Is this true of Ukraine peasant people, or even in Kiev itself?

Seems that you are correct, with the dragging on of Turkey's application for a lot of years, EU membership now is no way automatic for NATO members!
Speedhump
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 4262

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
There was a vigorous campaign in 02 launched by Bush and his administration aimed to pressure the EU to put Turkish membership onto the fast track.

The US initiative was based on strategic considerations. As the key member of NATO her strategic position has become, since 11 September, quite vital. Therefore, Turkish airbases and other military support will be essential in any US attack on Iraq.

In particular, Bush demanded that the EU relax the so called Copenhagen membership criteria, which are supposed to make tough demands on would - be entrants' treatment of human rights, press freedom, and the rights of ethnic minorities.
muyesser
Dubai forums Addict
User avatar
Posts: 289
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
50% of Ukrainian are ethnically Russians. Russian is the first language for 90% of inhabitance and understandable by 100%. Ukrainain, that used to be a language of peasans is not understandable by more than 50% of inhabitance. Big cities/plants/mines are connected to Russia technologically.

It's a big tragedy for people when new states appear according to administrative borders. We lived together with Eastern Ukraine for 350 yesrs. Crimea was Russian before bloody Ukrainian Khruschev. Sevastopol is a city of Russian glory where each santimeter were poured by Russian blood in Crimian war and WW2.

That's why there were a lot of wars in Yugoslavia.
Red Chief
Dubai forums GURU
User avatar
Posts: 2256

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
Double post
Red Chief
Dubai forums GURU
User avatar
Posts: 2256

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
In his book ‘Breaking of Nations’ Robert Cooper, -formerly a special adviser to T.Blair- argues that EU represents the most advanced case of a "postmodern" global order with no national boundaries, conflicts are settled, not by war, but through negotiations and even court cases.

The question here is, would Turkey be a fit candidate with its unresolved Armenian and Kurdish conflict that a potential threat to its ‘national borders’…
muyesser
Dubai forums Addict
User avatar
Posts: 289
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
Fab thread guys, very informative. I'm lapping it up!
Misery Called Life
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 3033

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
For interest:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121997087258381935.html
AUGUST 29, 2008

Will Turkey Abandon NATO?
By ZEYNO BARAN

Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia?

A Turkish refusal would seriously impair American efforts to support the beleaguered Caucasus republic. Ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the North. Yet that is precisely the decision before Ankara. If Turkey does not allow the ships through, it will essentially be taking Russia's side.

Whether in government or in the military, Turkish officials have for several years been expressing concern about U.S. intentions to "enter" the Black Sea. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Black Sea remained peaceful due to the fact that Turkey and Russia had clearly defined spheres of influence. But littoral countries Romania and Bulgaria have since joined NATO, and Ukraine and Georgia have drawn closer to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Ankara has expressed nervousness about a potential Russian reaction.

The Turkish mantra goes something like this: "the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Black Sea -- and as in Iraq, this will create a mess in our neighborhood, leaving us to deal with the consequences once America eventually pulls out. After all, if Russia is agitated, it won't be the Americans that will have to deal with them."

Nonetheless, Ankara sided with fellow NATO members in telling Georgia and Ukraine that they would be invited to join the alliance -- albeit without any time frame. But now that Russia has waged war in part over this decision, the Turks will have to pick sides. Deputy chief of the Russian general staff Anatoly Nogoivtsyn already warned Turkey that Russia will hold Turkey responsible if the U.S. ships do not leave the Black Sea. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will travel to Ankara on Monday to make clear that Russia means it.

Russia is Turkey's largest trading partner, mostly because of Turkey's dependence on Russian gas. More important, the two countries share what some call the post-imperial stress syndrome: that is, an inability to see former provinces as fellow independent states, and ultimately a wish to recreate old agreements on spheres of influence. When Mr. Putin gave a speech in Munich last year challenging the U.S.-led world order, Turks cheered. The Turkish military even posted it on its Web site. President Abdullah Gül recently suggested that "a new world order should emerge."

Turkey joined Russia at the height of its war on Georgia in suggesting a five-party "Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform." In other words, they want to keep the U.S. and the EU at arm's length. Both Russia and Turkey consider Georgia's American-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to be crazy enough to unleash the next world war. In that view Turkey is not so far from the positions of France or Germany -- but even these two countries did not suggest that the Georgians sign up to a new regional arrangement co-chaired by Russia while the Kremlin's air force was bombing Georgian cities.

Two other neighbors -- Azerbaijan and Armenia -- are watching the Turkish-Russian partnership with concern. Azeris remember how the Turks -- their ethnic and religious brethren -- left them to be annexed by the Soviets in the 1920s. Armenians already fear their giant neighbor, who they consider to have committed genocide against them. Neither wants to have to rely on Iran (once again) as a counterbalance to Russia. Oh, and of course, Iran had its own sphere-of-influence arrangements with the Soviets as well.

Though Turkey and Iran are historic competitors, Turkey has broken with NATO countries recently by hosting President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on a working visit. As the rest of NATO was preoccupied with the Russian aggression in Georgia, Turkey legitimized the Iranian leader amidst chants in Istanbul of "death to Israel, death to America."

A few days later, Turkey played host to Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide by the rest of NATO -- but not by Russia or Iran, or by the Muslim-majority countries who usually claim to care so much about Muslim lives.

Where is Turkey headed? Turkish officials say they are using their trust-based relations with various sides to act as a mediator between various parties in the region: the U.S. and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc. It may be so. But as more American ships steam toward the Black Sea, a time for choosing has arrived.

Ms. Baran is senior fellow and director of the Center For Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute.
Speedhump
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 4262

  • Reply
May 19, 2009
muyesser wrote:In his book ‘Breaking of Nations’ Robert Cooper, -formerly a special adviser to T.Blair- argues that EU represents the most advanced case of a "postmodern" global order with no national boundaries, conflicts are settled, not by war, but through negotiations and even court cases.

The question here is, would Turkey be a fit candidate with its unresolved Armenian and Kurdish conflict that a potential threat to its ‘national borders’…


The point is that Turkey should never be able to join the EU unless these issues are resolved. As RC says, for the EU it's a convenient escape hatch from the sunken submarine. I suggested the EU are 'stringing Turkey along' for as long as they are able, why?. You suggested the reason for this is that the EU want to appease the USA's militarily-based demands, I suggested that a secular Muslim country inside the EU would be an advantage, but not necessarily enough of an advantage to take on the burden of Turkey 'as it stands'.
Speedhump
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 4262

  • Reply
May 20, 2009
I doubt if the above much-detailed analysis applies to Obama erra.

After all, US and Russia are no longer at odds on some issues.

Turkey seems to worry me with its inclination towards the Hamas and Iran, maybe due to their popular support , rather than to Turkey's
real interest.
acrostichos
Dubai Expat Wannabe
Posts: 7

  • Reply
May 20, 2009
Reffering to the 1st post of this thread,

It is ridiculous to try to do any connection between the Armenian genocide and the jews/ Zionists.
Those who did it were the Turks, who haunted the Zionists as well & at the same time!
They expelled them out of Palestine, and evacuated the small town of Tel Aviv.
As a Jew, I DO recognize this genocide, but I'm proud of the moral position taken by H. Morgentau,
the then Jewish-American diplomat against the young Turks.
It should also be mentioned that US jewish community is very sympathetic with the Armenians.
acrostichos
Dubai Expat Wannabe
Posts: 7

  • Reply
Re: The Armenian Holocaust Of 1915 Oct 17, 2010
britisharab wrote:The Armenian Holocaust Of 1915

Image

Some Put The Deaths At Over Three Million


As Armenians fled to Russia they were slaughtered by the Bolsheviks

Image

Turkey was occupied by Judeo Zionists from Kharzaria

The Zionists Killed The Intellectuals

The Christians Were Sent To Death Camps

Image


The 'Young Turks' Were The Leaders Of The Revolution

Emmanuele Carasso Was Their Leader

The Armenian Genocide And The Bolshevik Revolution

Here are the two worst genocides in history, and no one wants to discuss them. The Bolsheviks murdered 50 million between 1917-1939, and the Armenian toll was 1.5 to 3.7 million dead.

The easy question is, why are the Zionists so opposed to having this in the history books?


Jews Are Outraged

A delegation of Turkish Jews, headed by Silvyo Ovadyadelegation, lobbied against a resolution under consideration in the U.S. Congress, that would recognize the massacres of Armenians as genocide.


Turkey Is Controlled By Zionists

Ovadya said the resolution would harm relations between the United States and its closest Muslim ally, Turkey. They called it the The Revolution,but it was another Bolshevik swindle. The Armenians were the intelligentsia of Turkey. They were the doctors, lawyers, the wealthy leaders, etc.. The Zionists wanted them gone, and at the same time stole their properties.

The so-called Young Turk movement, that was blamed for the bulk of anti-Armenian atrocities, was dominated by Jews. To the extent that there were massacres of Armenians, they were essentially a massacre of Christians by Zionist Jews. At the head of the genocide was a Jew named Mehmed Talat.

Talaat's Finance Minister was another Jew, Djavid Bey who arranged the finances of revolution in Turkey with Jewish banks abroad.

The Founder Of The 'Young Turks'


A lawyer, and a Jewish Italian B'nai B'rith official, named Emmanuel Carasso

By 1905, the Russian Czar had contained 10 million Zionist Jews to the Pale of the Settlement (Khazaria). During the Armenian Genocide, they went from this in Russia, to wealthy merchants in Turkey.

The Armenian Revolution Was Just Another Zionist Scam


The real reason that no one wants this discussed is because, the Armenian Genocide was the most brutal slaughter in history. In the period from 1917-1939, the Bolsheviks killed a large majority of Russian white Christians, but they did it over many years, and used the cover of famine and world wars, to hide their crimes. Russia was their country, and they controlled the press. But in Armenia, they attacked like werewolves, and the massacres were horrifying, and some documentation leaked out.


What Is The ADL Position?

The ADL pressuring the US Congress not to pass the Armenian Genocide bill


Thank you for telling the truth..
gadfly
Dubai Forums Enthusiast
Posts: 86
Location: canada

posting in Dubai Politics TalkForum Rules

Return to Dubai Politics Talk


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Last post