|
Post by tito on Oct 30, 2009 18:30:03 GMT -5
You know, Tito, I prefer her being the face of Bosnia than some fvcking grand vizier. But Kanaris prefers males you know and the Ottoman liberation of Cyprus should be easy enough for him to remember.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Oct 30, 2009 18:41:50 GMT -5
The most famous Albanian Grand Viziers was the Köprülü Family. I initially learned about it from Ismail Kadare's book : "The Palace of Dreams". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6pr%C3%BCl%C3%BC_familyIn the History of the Ottoman Empire the Köprülü Viziers have a reputation for dynamism in a state that would later show signs of decline and stagnation. The early viziers in particular focused on military campaigns that extended the Empire's power. This, however came to an end after the disastrous Battle of Vienna launched by Kara Mustafa Pasha (see also the Treaty of Karlowitz).
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Oct 30, 2009 18:49:28 GMT -5
Novi, I believe you are referring to these two maps ME (middle east) Now ME in a possible (I would say probable) future Why do I say is probable... well... for several reasons. 1) Kurds are already combined 30 million and remain having very high natality rate (much higher then say Turks which will make them majority in Turkey within little more then half a century) and in the future could easily double or even triple in numbers (Yemen and Saudis will easily triple so why not them). Iran and Turkey can barely keep them in check now ... imagine in the future. 2) Iranian Azeris are second most numerous ethnic element within Iran and might at one point combine forces with Azerbaijan (irregardless of the fact that the two regions are culturally different since one was under USSR and other one under thecratic ruler). 3) Iraq will (apart from losing north to local Kurds) most likely split into two arabophone states (one Shiite, in the southern half, and one Sunni, central region). That is practically apparent now. 4) Saudi Arabia is controlled by despised (by vast majority of the local populace) western puppets and sooner or later will implode. Saudis will remain in control in one vast section. Muslim holly cities will become separated. Jordan will likely attempt to benefit as it needs access to the sea and also Shiite Iraq will try to Shiite arabophone regions around it. 5) Iran might also easily implode due to three reasons ... 1.economic .. 2. ethnic (only half are Persians)...3.religious (many do not want to follow their extremists). 6) Baluchis want separation from both Pakistan and Iran. I do not see them as strong enough to pull it off. 7) Pashtuns are more and more aggressive and might seek regions across the border in Pakistan. Question is whether Pakistan will become weak enough. 8) Real possibility is also that Kurds, Pashtuns and Tajiks become incorporates into new future Persia.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Oct 30, 2009 18:53:48 GMT -5
So going back to Turkey.. not only does it look like Ottoman dream will never become reality again (that ship has sailed long time ago) but will very likely shrink in the future due to Kurds seperating.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Oct 30, 2009 19:16:07 GMT -5
Kurds are being pacified as we speak, and assimilated. The new islamic oriented party in Turkey has appeased them to a massive extent, the population shifts towards the west continue as do intermarriage between Turks and Kurds (inwhich case Kurds usually become Turks). Not to mention that the majority of the Kurds do not want independence (just look at the recent Kurdish gathering in Istanbul). You do realize that the majority of Kurds in Turkey are assimilating at a light speed process right?
The maps above were a proposal during the Bush administration. It was never adopted and most probably even that cabinet, as small minded as it was, did not very much think that that would be a reality. It was proposed two years ago and wasnt adopted then... do you think it is still a reality in the white house? These maps have no basis in he new White House, which is trying its best to consolidate its position in the ME (mainly to Afghanistan).
Btw, the current elite in Iran come FROM the Azeri population. Most of the Mullahs, and even the head Mullah... so what reason do the Azeris have to separate?
Sorry Aadmin, Turkey is a growing power. Once some wealth starts to penetrate the eastern provinces, that is it for the Kurdish problem.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 30, 2009 19:22:27 GMT -5
"Novi, I believe you are referring to these two maps" Yes l was aadmin, thankyou for posting it Aadmin, in my opinion, what will hold back the US and its western partners from applying the Kosovo or even the destructive Yugoslav model on the middle east and its immediate 'border lands'?. The English 100 years ago drew the borders for the middle east countries, and now, what will stop the US today from doing the same because of its lack of respect for international laws.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 30, 2009 19:30:56 GMT -5
"Kurds are being pacified as we speak, and assimilated. The new islamic oriented party in Turkey has appeased them to a massive extent, the population shifts towards the west continue as do intermarriage between Turks and Kurds (inwhich case Kurds usually become Turks). Not to mention that the majority of the Kurds do not want independence (just look at the recent Kurdish gathering in Istanbul)."
Are they?....there was an ottoman empire and they survived it, what makes them not going to survive a more modern humanistic turkey?
I believe they protested because they are a minority in Istanbul and are worried about themselves. Why don't they protest in majority Kurdish areas?
Its only time in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 30, 2009 19:33:22 GMT -5
"Once some wealth starts to penetrate the eastern provinces, that is it for the Kurdish problem."
or it could go the otherway.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Oct 30, 2009 19:41:41 GMT -5
The Ottomans didnt try to assimilate and the Kurds were a very loyal entity within the Ottoman realm. They were in fact some of the most loyal group in the middle east and a consistent help against the Persians. The Kurds lived in isolated mountain areas where they maintained a strong among of cultural and local autonomy. They didnt need to 'survive' the Ottoman lands. Today they are being assimilated as their population shifts into cities and as they are bring brought increasingly to the western areas, where they become Turks quite effectively. They dont live in isolated mountains anymore, and as they do less and less, assimilation will kick in.
Really? Is that why they held signs promoting Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood? And signs attacking the terrorists in the east?
Poverty is endemic and one of the chief causes of instability? How would it go the other way? Was that a thought out question or are you just playing 'smart'? Poverty in Yugoslavia was one of the chief reasons for the eventual collapse...
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Oct 30, 2009 19:49:02 GMT -5
Let me just say that the knowledge you two have on the Mid East is pathetic. America right now is trying to consolidate its position after the disasterous Bush administration. Its main hope is to restore a sense of stability in Iraq and to focus on trying to qualm the situation in Afghanistan, which they are increasingly losing control. Russia has no interest in trying to destabilize the Mid East and has increasing connections with both Turkey and Iran. The Kurdish situation in Turkey is at the most peaceful yet and now that Turkey is opening up relations with its historically alienated neighbors (like Syria, where PKK also claim land) its eastern territories are becoming more and more stable. Not to mention the military strategy in its eastern provinces are becoming more and more consolidated (for instance there is increasing attention on having permanent small mobile special forces who become more and more knowledgeable of the terrain). Already the Turkish military has pacified some its most troubled points and areas. Its threats to push into Iraq show the reach Turkey has.
Not to mention that the Erdogan government has been on the whole favorable to the Kurds (for instance giving them cultural rights, schools, TV stations, stuff that pacifies the majority of non-militant Kurds, isolating those who remain militant).
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 30, 2009 22:39:09 GMT -5
Some of the indigenous populations of Kurdistan include the Armenians, Assyrians (Christians), and Kurds (mostly Muslims). There are also other goups, such as the Yezidis, who are followers of minority religions, as well as scattered minorities such as the Jews. These peoples survived the intensive colonization of the region by Turkic (Oghuz, Turkoman, Ottoman) and Mongol nomadic and tribal peoples from central Asia. The homogenizing force of centuries of conversion, forcible population movements, and massacres was offset by the inability of feudal states to centralize power and therefore assimilate their conquered peoples of the region into the language, culture and religion of the conquerors. Equally important in preventing the total annihilation of the indigenous populations was the labor-intensive nature of feudal agrarian production. Without a sizeable productive labor force, the fertile lands of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and Mesopotamia could not sustain elaborate state structures. Although some Kurdish territories were Turkicized due to conquest and the violent elimination of Kurdish ruling families (especially by the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty, 1378–1508), as well as by massacres and deportations, some Kurdish mini-states were, nonetheless, gaining ground. www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/kurds
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 30, 2009 22:41:54 GMT -5
"Poverty is endemic and one of the chief causes of instability? How would it go the other way? Was that a thought out question or are you just playing 'smart'? Poverty in Yugoslavia was one of the chief reasons for the eventual collapse..."
You tell me?
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 31, 2009 1:45:27 GMT -5
Ottoman Empire should revive at the Balkans, Turkish foreign minister says28 October 2009 | 17:36 | FOCUS News Agency Sarajevo. The Ottoman Empire should revive, said Turkish foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu during a talks with Bosnian leaders in Sarajevo, Macedonian A1 television informed. Davutoglu has praised Turkish occupation of Bosnia as an act of release and noted Sokollu Mehmet Paşa would have been an ordinary man of he had not been taken from his family. In his words Turkey has the right and interest to influence the relations at the Balkans, Caucasus and Middle East and to defend its historical heritage and its own security. According to him there are more Bosnians in Turkey than in Bosnia and Herzegovina and more Albanians than in Albania, A1 noted. www.focus-fen.net/?id=n198625www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=115511 Here is the speech he made in Sarajevo: illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bosniahercegovina&thread=27200&page=1
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Oct 31, 2009 1:52:47 GMT -5
"Poverty is endemic and one of the chief causes of instability? How would it go the other way? Was that a thought out question or are you just playing 'smart'? Poverty in Yugoslavia was one of the chief reasons for the eventual collapse..." You tell me? If you think twisting these discussions around is an intelligent way to go about an argument you are wrong. One of the reasons for the troubles in the east is the old establishment of land. If reforms were to be established a lot of the old problems would cease. This quote you highlighted has absolutely no significance over the discussion. It is mostly for the various Christian populations in the east. Do you know who was responsible for much of the repression in these territories? Kurds. They were loyal instruments of Ottoman authority in Armenia and over various Christian groups just like Albs were in the western Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 31, 2009 3:01:25 GMT -5
^ you must admit that the Oguz tribes didn't first meet the Kurds with a bunch of flowers?. They ruled over them, hence why they were loyal, just like the Bulgarian ruling stratum over its slavs or even the English with the Indians.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Oct 31, 2009 10:55:10 GMT -5
What's a Bosnian? All knowing Oracle please answer my call....
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Oct 31, 2009 11:01:20 GMT -5
Nevermind I just read up on them.... there basically the same as Albanians..both of yous bend over backwards for the incoming hordes... and you liked it and still like it.
Bosnians or Albanians same coin different sides....
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Oct 31, 2009 15:12:48 GMT -5
^ you must admit that the Oguz tribes didn't first meet the Kurds with a bunch of flowers?. They ruled over them, hence why they were loyal, just like the Bulgarian ruling stratum over its slavs or even the English with the Indians. Kurds were never a united ethnic group. They have been, and to a large extent have remained until recently, a people divided among fiercely independent clans and dynasties with vague kinship towards one another. The Oghuz were also divided clans who settled in Anatolia on a kinship principle and were led by charismatic clan leaders each with their own interests in mind. Only later were these groups united under a single dynasty. The Kurds were for the most part active mercenaries between the various middle east empires. They were not ruled over a single people and for the most part were controlled by ethnically unimportant figures.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Oct 31, 2009 15:51:17 GMT -5
PS: If anything should be taken into consideration is probable future united Persia that will include all Iranic speaking groups (and possibly Shiite Arabophone Iraq) and stretch from Indus river in Pakistan to Tigris and Euphrates in present Iraq ending in eastern Anatolian Kurdistan.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Oct 31, 2009 16:32:45 GMT -5
Lol, aadmin your stupidity outdoes itself yet again. Forgetting for one the Sunni-Shiite difference that exists among these people (Kurds have historically been anti-Persian and pro-Ottoman since they were Sunni) you also ignore the fact that most of the people have only a vague conception of a linguistic commonality. With the exception of maybe a minor few secular elites who live in the diaspora and who are entirely separated from the reality of the region. The common people (except the Tajiks) do not feel any sense of similarity. Nevermind the political friction and divisions involved in uniting such a thing. lol... okay tho, united persia. About as likely as a Pan-Slavia. Im sorry aadmin, but you should go to school and read. It would help fill that empty head.
|
|