|
Post by thracian08 on Nov 3, 2009 15:02:27 GMT -5
Vizier, I agree with you. Iranians do not like Kurds either. Kurds also are fighting for their own country in Iran, although it's not as big as in Turkey. That's why Iranian president had bombed their Kurdish region about a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Nov 3, 2009 15:38:17 GMT -5
Again, Turkey is extremely lucky that its strategic position has covered up its appalling human rights record. 1980s and 1990s? You think that you could live in the past forever? Think about your government. How many Iraqis did your government kill with the help of the tax you have been paying? You talk about human right records, do you apply the term to the natives of Australia, or the boat people your government keeps in NAZI-like detention centers?
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Nov 3, 2009 15:41:22 GMT -5
Ottomans would have hampered the development of Europe, as they did with Balkans. Balkan countries are in better shape compared to Russia. What happened to your country? Hampered by whom?
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Nov 3, 2009 15:45:52 GMT -5
Vizier, I agree with you. Iranians do not like Kurds either. Kurds also are fighting for their own country in Iran, although it's not as big as in Turkey. That's why Iranian president had bombed their Kurdish region about a year ago. Iranians do not like the Kurdish nationalism. They did not like the Western support to the Kurds witnessed after the Invasion of Iraq either. Now the Kurds are getting closer to Turkey, so do the Syrians, Armenians, and Iranians. Turkey's current foreign policy is in fact sensible. Turkey does not want any conflict within or around her borders. After all, progress is only possible when the conflicts are eliminated. Turkey is right on track.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 3, 2009 23:08:58 GMT -5
"You talk about human right records, do you apply the term to the natives of Australia, or the boat people your government keeps in NAZI-like detention centers?"
Regarding the Australian Aborigine, l absolutely agree. However the detention centres l give full support because it will serve as a deterant to others willing to enter Australia illegally.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 3, 2009 23:12:19 GMT -5
"You take an article from Greek Cypriots, who harboured the PKK and pose it as fact."
I've also quoted an american source.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Nov 4, 2009 0:06:16 GMT -5
These Kurds remind me of Albanians.... always looking to stealing someone land...
We need another war..but this time I hope Turkey joins in,,not like the last one where it played dumb.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Nov 4, 2009 7:32:21 GMT -5
These Kurds remind me of Albanians.... always looking to stealing someone land... We need another war..but this time I hope Turkey joins in,,not like the last one where it played dumb. Ah, you Greeks are such professional and subtle ass-lickers. A little licking there and behind the Turks' back; www.turkishweekly.net/resim.asp?path=ocalan-39-s-capture-a-timeline-ez6nG.jpg&width=366(he trully looks like a Lazaros; reminds me of my elementary school cleaner, Mr Vassilios) Either way, no worries, Kurds aren't stealing land anywhere. Their best chances are in Iraq, but I don't see that as much of a possibility either. Turkey and Iran wouldnt accept it and the US has a mess going on there as it is -- no need to pour oil on an ongoing fire.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Nov 4, 2009 8:28:59 GMT -5
That card is part of the Turkish propanganda machine... the whole plot of his capture was part of it..to make themselves look good..
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Nov 4, 2009 13:26:28 GMT -5
So his hiding in Greece never happened? He wasn't arrested in Kenya after leaving the Greek embassy? He was never harboured by the Greek consul George Costoulas?
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Nov 4, 2009 14:11:41 GMT -5
It was a mistake to let Otsalan captured by Osman budalas... Pagkalos is stil accused for his actions then... Otsalan was a refugee who could get political asylon in Greece...
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Nov 5, 2009 8:20:45 GMT -5
It was a mistake to let Otsalan captured by Osman budalas... Pagkalos is stil accused for his actions then... Otsalan was a refugee who could get political asylon in Greece... There's a reason Greece didnt give political asylum to Ocalan, and I think you know it.
|
|
|
Post by tito on Nov 5, 2009 9:16:38 GMT -5
The Grand Mufti of Bosnia in support of the Turkish ambassadors Ottoman perspective on Balkan history:
In short: We Bosniaks have the right to cherish the positive influences of Ottoman culture in Bosnia and the Balkans. As an example he mentions Mehmed II's Firman on the freedom of the Bosnian Franciscan catholic order:
"I, the Sultan Khan the Conqueror, hereby declare the whole world that, The Bosnian Franciscans granted with this sultanate firman are under my protection. And I command that: No one shall disturb or give harm to these people and their churches! They shall live in peace in my state. These people who have become emigrants, shall have security and liberty. They may return to their monasteries which are located in the borders of my state. No one from my empire notable, viziers, clerks or my maids will break their honour or give any harm to them! No one shall insult, put in danger or attack these lives, properties, and churches of these people! Also, what and those these people have brought from their own countries have the same rights... By declaring this firman, I swear on my sword by the holy name of Allah who has created the ground and sky, Allah's prophet Mohammed, and 124.000 former prophets that; no one from my citizens will react or behave the opposite of this firman!"
This oath firman, which has provided independence and tolerance to the ones who are from another religion, belief, and race was declared by Mehmed II the Conqueror and granted to Angjeo Zvizdovic of the Franciscan Catholic Monastery in Fojnica, Bosnia and Herzegovina after the conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina on May 28 of 1463. The firman has been recently raised and published by the Ministry of Culture of Turkey for the 700th anniversary of the foundation of the Ottoman State. The edict was issued by the Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror to protect the basic rights of the Bosnian Christians when he conquered that territory in 1463. The original edict is still kept in the Bosnian Franciscan Catholic Monastery in Fojnica. It is one of the oldest documents on religious freedom. Mehmed II's oath was entered into force in the Ottoman Empire on May 28, 1463. In 1971, the United Nations published a translation of the document in all the official U.N. languages.
The Grand Mufti of Bosnia also adds that genocide in Bosnia did happen during 500 years of Ottoman rule but after the Ottomans. If Europe in 1995 had been as protective of muslims as Sultan Mehmed II was of Bosnian christians in 1463 genocide in Srebrenica would not have happend.
In other words the glorious Ottomans were 500 years before their time when it came to religious tolerance in Europe. Not to mention the fact that they liberated the ordinary Balkan people from serfdom 400 years before Russia.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Nov 5, 2009 11:53:46 GMT -5
What religion freedom....? Only in some cases where the local pashas were more logical... Why were there massive islamisations.... were all those Slavs, Albanians,Greeks etc fasinated by the...Koran...or believed that they'll get their 72 virgins...and the pilaf...and cut their dicks?
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Nov 5, 2009 15:59:59 GMT -5
Because we found the true faith and were liberated from the Orthodox Byzantine tyranny. That is why we converted. And you know what? We are loving it.
Ejvallah patrine!
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Nov 16, 2009 15:08:03 GMT -5
if it hadn't been for the Ottomans, there would be no Orthodoxy today ! You would all be Catholic!
Under the millet system, non-Muslim people were considered subjects of the Empire, but were not subject to the Muslim faith or Muslim law. The Orthodox millet, for instance, was still officially legally subject to Justinian's Code, which had been in effect in the Byzantine Empire for 900 years. Also, as the largest group of non-Muslim subjects (or zimmi) of the Islamic Ottoman state, the Orthodox millet was granted a number of special privileges in the fields of politics and commerce, in addition to having to pay higher taxes than Muslim subjects. And the Muslims had to join the army, so that was a fair trade -off.
The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II allowed the local Christians to stay in Constantinople after conquering the city in 1453, and to retain their institutions such as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.
In 1461 Sultan Mehmed II established the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. Previously, the Byzantines considered the Armenian Church as heretical and thus did not allow them to build churches inside the walls of Constantinople. In 1492, when the Muslims and Sephardic Jews were expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II sent his fleet under Kemal Reis to save them and granted the refugees the right to settle in the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman legal system accepted the religious law over its subjects. The Ottoman Empire was always organized around a system of local jurisprudence. Legal administration in the Ottoman Empire was part of a larger scheme of balancing central and local authority.[78] Ottoman power revolved crucially around the administration of the rights to land, which gave a space for the local authority develop the needs of the local millet.[78] The jurisdictional complexity of the Ottoman Empire was aimed to permit the integration of culturally and religiously different groups. The Ottoman system had three court systems: one for Muslims, one for non-Muslims, involving appointed Jews and Christians ruling over their respective religious communities, and the "trade court". The entire system was regulated from above by means of the administrative Kanun, i.e. laws, a system based upon the Turkic Yasa and Töre which were developed in the pre-Islamic era. The kanun law system, on the other hand, was the secular law of the sultan, and dealt with issues not clearly addressed by the sharia system.
These court categories were not, however, wholly exclusive in nature: for instance, the Islamic courts — which were the Empire's primary courts — could also be used to settle a trade conflict or disputes between litigants of differing religions, and Jews and Christians often went to them so as to obtain a more forceful ruling on an issue. The Ottoman state tended not to interfere with non-Muslim religious law systems, despite legally having a voice to do so through local governors. The Islamic Sharia law system had been developed from a combination of the Qur'ân; the Hadîth, or words of the prophet Muhammad; ijmâ', or consensus of the members of the Muslim community; qiyas, a system of analogical reasoning from previous precedents; and local customs. Both systems were taught at the Empire's law schools, which were in Constantinople and Bursa.
|
|