Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Oct 31, 2007 13:08:46 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D That is mostly the problem of the Greek minority... Inseminate your women and bring some better results. And say that to the "christian Turks" instead..
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 1, 2007 11:30:53 GMT -5
turks in greece have 1.0000000000000000000 more times better life then kurd have in turkey and remember we m Avrupa you are asians we m controled from brusels you are kontroled from.... generals turkish minority have repr in parlament
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Nov 1, 2007 22:43:18 GMT -5
ahristos,
my suggestion is still valid. You give us our Turkish brothers and you take your beloved Kurds and show us what is good treatment! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 1, 2007 23:50:04 GMT -5
kurds belongs to kurdistan gardash but we can give to turks turkish cypriots and take kurds in them place if u wond it ha ha now if greece has wond to kick w thrace turks junta had posibilities to load them in train to ankaras way one way road
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Nov 2, 2007 3:54:15 GMT -5
...and Greece (Christian Turkey) belongs to Turkey. ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 2, 2007 10:33:08 GMT -5
all muslems of w thrace arent turkish origin big diferent is muslems and turks if you wond to prodect gypsies do it ha ha also pomachs=slavs muslems imams try to turknise gypsies heh also pomechs i know pomachs dislikes turks because turks are in greek parlament pomachs not! and from every righits muslems take turks takes the top and pomachs the bottom some told me that they feel bad with turks because when he says muslem must be turk aman aman
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 2, 2007 10:37:19 GMT -5
you forghot what has happent to you in 1919-1921 in 1922 whwn king come back we lost way=split then we had to go home withowt batle and take greeks from them homes smyrna ect but whwn we wash united we won you we won later even this terible mussolini but when we m united.... that say story gardash
|
|
|
Post by benettonsenetme on Nov 3, 2007 18:45:21 GMT -5
You give us our Turkish brothers and you take your beloved Kurds and show us what is good treatment! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahac,
Drifting off-topic, do you think it was a good idea to include the Kurdish-dominated territories within the borders of Misak-i Milli?
Did we keep these lands because of their geographical contiguity to Mosul-Kirkuk(and the hope that one day the Brits would buzz off and we could reclaim those two provinces)? I can't think of any other logical reason.
Why did the Kurds prove to be a tough nut to crack and hence successfully resisted assimilation?
Related to the above question, why and how come did the Laz, who are aboriginal peoples of Anatolia, too and who are AT LEAST as hard-headed as the Kurds assimilate without any problems, unlike the Kurds?
How dangerous is the Kurdish growth rate? How can it be slowed down without ''ürküt''ing the vak vaks?
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 4, 2007 13:39:47 GMT -5
what a trash here turks have try to get up the wrongs from w thrace but only few muslems have follows them for too meny years you havent care at all now at once u are interesting for those ha ha if greek state has wond to kick them they had golden oportunity to do it at the time u have expel greeks from instanbul 1924-1964 gausagnes trity exeptions area instanbyl tenedos imbros island 250.000 greeks expelt extra...now in instanbul are some 3.000 priests withowt any scools and litle properties turks in greece are prosperus community and repr in parlament there are the diferences greece=eu turkey asia we respect them u kick us and also kurds also cypriots armenians jews ect u gonna pay for this some day
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Nov 5, 2007 0:50:33 GMT -5
Yahac, Drifting off-topic, do you think it was a good idea to include the Kurdish-dominated territories within the borders of Misak-i Milli? Did we keep these lands because of their geographical contiguity to Mosul-Kirkuk(and the hope that one day the Brits would buzz off and we could reclaim those two provinces)? I can't think of any other logical reason. Why did the Kurds prove to be a tough nut to crack and hence successfully resisted assimilation? Related to the above question, why and how come did the Laz, who are aboriginal peoples of Anatolia, too and who are AT LEAST as hard-headed as the Kurds assimilate without any problems, unlike the Kurds? How dangerous is the Kurdish growth rate? How can it be slowed down without ''ürküt''ing the vak vaks? I believe it was good decision. After we fought together against the enemies that is just natural result. That is also so beacuse then we didn't have the current meterialist fascist definition of nationality. We were religious people who would only care that Kurds were our Muslim brothers. Over the time we got more and more influenced by mterialistic made-up ideologies of West and became national socialists and less believers. Kurds were left backward in purpose for the sake of today and polarized against Turks. That is why now we have a Kurdish problem... Our colabolator politicians since 1948 worked hard for that. All for the messiah...
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Nov 5, 2007 4:32:49 GMT -5
I believe it was good decision. After we fought together against the enemies that is just natural result. That is also so beacuse then we didn't have the current meterialist fascist definition of nationality. We were religious people who would only care that Kurds were our Muslim brothers. Over the time we got more and more influenced by mterialistic made-up ideologies of West and became national socialists and less believers. Kurds were left backward in purpose for the sake of today and polarized against Turks. That is why now we have a Kurdish problem... Our colabolator politicians since 1948 worked hard for that. All for the messiah... Kurdish problem was seeded by the British and the French Empires as an alternative to the Armenian and the Arab solutions. The Armenians were close to the Russians, that is why the British and the French were reluctant to employ them as exclusive power in Eastern Anatolia. Respectfully, in 1910s and in early 1920s, the British and French acted as if they wanted to build a Kurdish State. However, after having witnessed Kurds siding with the Kemalist Turks, they started to see the Iraqi Kurds as potential threat. That is why, they built an Arab state in Northern Iraq instead of a Kurdish one. In the meantime, then they did not hesitate to bomb the Kurdish villages and did not doubt to kill the betrayed Kurds in masses. Now, the US tries to revamp those outdated imperialist strategies of the late 19th Century, and attempts to reevaluate them in the region. In Iraq, the US has been successful in creation of chaos necessary for partition of the country, but I do not think that she could be successful in the region before defeating Turkey, Syria, Iran (and of course Russia).
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Nov 5, 2007 9:28:58 GMT -5
The creation and then destruction of Babylon was necessary in order to meet the prophesies. Saddam was expected to shoot missiles to Israel and invade Kuwait. So Saddam as Yagog did its part and then Magog came to antagonize and nuetralize him. Friendly Kurdish nation of gentiles now needs to get its own country so can hold the gates of Babylon. Good friend Turkey will help to take all Muslims under the control of the one world government. Go Gulen go, go "soft" Islam go! Turkey is going to be a shining star!!! It is all for the sake of eternal liberation!!!
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 5, 2007 10:16:46 GMT -5
if they uprise i send them in albania and take from there greek minority in them places ha ha
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Nov 5, 2007 11:19:27 GMT -5
turks systematically have try to asymulate or turknise kurds greeks never have try to asymilate turks in w thrace they arent more then 120.000 peoples so no problems if they uprise pomahs=slavs muslems gonna eat them ha ha pomachs arent turks gypsies are also muslems do you wond gypsies if yez take them ha ha i pefer ruther kurds then gypsies ha ha
|
|
|
Post by fenian on Nov 18, 2007 13:53:50 GMT -5
Today, it's a really sophisticated issue to determine or mark the muslim masses in Balkans as Turks or non Turks due to the altered official citizenship conseptations of Turkish state in last 100 years. While the all muslims in Euroasian territory within the Ottoman borders(such as Albanians, Pomaks, muslim Slavs, Circassians and etc..) other than ethnic Turks were all considered as Turks until the collapse of Ottoman Empire, 'Turk' word began getting considered rather as an ethnic identity after the foundation of modern Turkish republic as it's still on. However, the modern Turkish state never excluded the other ethnic groups that used to be considered 'Turk' during the Ottoman era, on the contrary, did give citizenships for the 'Otoman Turk' applicants from neightbouring states who were willing to reside in Turkey as leaving the oppressive regimes behind.
Turkish politics today regarding the Balkan muslims are basically congruent with this approach. But the reason why Turkey is more sensitive on Pomaks and Islamized Greeks in western thrace is that they have no related external state to defend their minority rights other than Turkey. And it's another factor that over 90% of those people declare themselves as Turk before what's written on their ID cards.
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Nov 18, 2007 14:57:21 GMT -5
While the all muslims in Euroasian territory within the Ottoman borders(such as Albanians, Pomaks, muslim Slavs, Circassians and etc..) other than ethnic Turks were all considered as Turks until the collapse of Ottoman Empire... First of all wrong, they were considered Ottomans. Turks were one of the many ethnic grouops formed the empire. The official language was Ottoman not the modern Turkish. And not so tough to decide on the idetity of Turks in Balkans. Simply ask them what ethnicity they belong to. They will tell you. Other authorities can not decide on that...
|
|
|
Post by fenian on Nov 18, 2007 16:42:13 GMT -5
While the all muslims in Euroasian territory within the Ottoman borders(such as Albanians, Pomaks, muslim Slavs, Circassians and etc..) other than ethnic Turks were all considered as Turks until the collapse of Ottoman Empire... First of all wrong, they were considered Ottomans. Turks were one of the many ethnic grouops formed the empire. The official language was Ottoman not the modern Turkish. And not so tough to decide on the idetity of Turks in Balkans. Simply ask them what ethnicity they belong to. They will tell you. Other authorities can not decide on that... I'm not claiming something else than what you are remarking here. All muslims were considered as Turk in the empire and Turk was the synonim of the 'Ottoman' word but not an ethnic identity in the Ottoman empire. And related to the ethnicities of muslims in the Balkans, most of them(especially who haven't been able to establish their national states yet) still declare themselves 'Turk' even though they are generally not from Turk ethnic origin. Naim Suleymanoglu-who is ethnically Pomak but fled to Turkey as considering it his home country- is the best argument for backing my thought in this matter. We were told that 40% of Bulgaria was ethnic Turks in the beginning of the 1990's, but it was not actually true. %40 Was the percentage of all muslims accross the country(Pomaks and Islamized Bulgarians included), but not only Turks'. And what I said above is also a reality for nearly half of the Macedonian and Greek muslims as well as the Bulgarians. They are ethnically not Turks but feeling themselves Turk due to having been Islamized, Ottomanized and consequently Turkified.
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Nov 18, 2007 23:01:42 GMT -5
The term Turk actually represents the culture rather than racial or genetic features of an ethnic group. This culture embraces all people who joined the migration of Oguz Turks starting from Xinjang to the gates of Vienna. It is mostly a cultural identity. However, language is a big must in this. That is why Pomaks are not accepted as Turks. The same Greek muslims, Albanian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims or Arab Muslims are not Turks. So language as mother tongue is a must. Thus Turks represent a union of genetic pools of many ethnicities forming a highly efficient hybrid nation sharing the same traditions and language. Anybody who claims is a pert of that union is Turkish.
I am Turk born in Bulgaria. I learned first Turkish as my mother language. I was circumcised and raised according to Muslim traditions but in much milder form compared to those of Anatolia, but still totaly different from any Bulgarian child. When I was growing in to adolescence I started playing saz - a Turkish folk instument- and singing Turkish folk music. I was listening to the popular Turkish musicians from Turkey. I preferred to make friends with Turks and mostly our big brothers and sisters tended to marry Turks. So everything mostly Turkish. When, my sisters didn't hesitate to quit their good university education in Varna, when finally we got a chance to emigrate to Turkey. Well, I think that would qualify us as Turks enough.
Well, as far as I know Naim Suleymanoglu is not Pomak but Turk from Southern Rodop region. If I am not mistaken he was speaking Turkish when he came to Turkey, but poor. Pomaks normally can't speak Turkish. The Kuran is in Arabic, so they don't have to learn Turkish for any reason...
The reported population of Turkish minority in BG was never above 20%. I find your numbers exagerated. I wonder where you got them from?
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Nov 19, 2007 2:37:22 GMT -5
well Yahac,I get what your saying.
Turkic peoples in West Asia and Eastern Europe are genetically and racially indigenous to those places while Turkic peoples of around the border region of Eastern Europe,Central Asia and North East Asia are genetically and racially indigenous there.
That's why the varieties in racial looks of Turkic peoples.
Those in West Asia and Eastern Europe are descendants of locals who were assmilated under Turkic rule and became ethnically Turkic in the end.Although it should be possible to find traces of Turkic DNA in them because the Turkics did move there,but since small in numbers in comparison to the locals,their genetic impact is small.They were a conquering minority(Turkics).
Even though you Yahac said Turk represents cultural rather than racial or genetic features of an ethnic group,there are many ethnic groups who share similar genes,haplotypes which makes it easier to identify an ethnic group genetically.
What you said about it being cultural rather than genetics,is certainly the case with Turkic peoples.
You have the European looking Kosovo & Bulgarian Turks to the largely Middle Eastern looking Turks of Turkey & Iraqi Turkmen,to the North East Asian looking Kazakhs & Kyrgyz.
It also goes with the Indo-Europeans: look at the Germans to Greeks to the Persians and to the Sinhalese.They all look different but are all Indo-European linguistic ethnic groups.
Also,remember this:Midhat Pasha,an Ottoman Bulgarian grand vizier said that the Turks of Bulgaria are locals,not Anatolians brought to Bulgaria.So you see the point of what I was saying above.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Nov 19, 2007 4:12:15 GMT -5
I have a lot of friends whose families emigrated from Kosova, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania, Greece, Russia, Romania, Macedonia, Ukraine and so on. It is apparent that many those used to have at least some non-Turkish ethnic background in the past. As Fenian put it clearly, many of those also felt closer to the identity of the "Ottoman/Turk" rather than something else, and they preferred to emigrate to Turkey rather than remaining as ethnic minorities of some nation states derived from the Ottoman Empire.
On the one hand, "Turk" is the ethnic identity of people of Turkey who share a common Ottoman past. On the other hand, Turk is also a cultural identity which stretches from Finland to India, and from China to Poland. In some parts out of Turkey, the make up of ethnic and cultural aspects might vary. For example, Kosova Albanians, Bosnians or Pomaks are much closer to the Turks of Turkey compared to the Kazakh, Yakut or Kirghiz of Central Asia.
However, it is ethnically true that Azeris, Crimean Tatars, Caucasus Turks, Turkmen are closer to the Turks compared to the Balkan peoples. So, I believe that "what you say is not wrong", but what "what Fenian says" is not wrong either. In a sense, cultural and ethnic aspects form the identity what we call as "Turk". In my humble opinion, having one aspect more than the other does not qualify anyone more Turk than the other. As they say, "let us celebrate our diversity".
|
|