Freedom of expression where are you?

Remove all ads!

There seems to be a lot of arguements regarding the origins of certain foods and drinks from both sides but I don't care, I enjoy consuming them

 

The funny part is some of these foods' origins are neither Greek nor Turkish. There has been a discussion about baklava. Though wiki says it's Turkish, I think it came from Arabs. I know a few of their foods and baklava is their style. Anyway, I don't like it.

Those meals made using olive oil seems to be of Greek origin (my personal opinion, I'm not sure).

 

These foods are present in both side's cultures because Turks and Greeks lived together for centuries. But I think mediterranean style foods are Greek but spicy, more oriental foods are Turkish originally. In fact who makes it better, it is his food. But food is completely

 

To set some things straight there was no war of independence by Turkey.

Unless you mean the movement of Neoturks whose goal was to remove the feudalistic system of Sultans and establish a more Western type of Goverment (Western by the fact that mainly West had more democratic goverments).

Secondly i would like to say that the whole situation in Cyprus is a big mess. And a clear show of the bad relationships that still exist between the populations of Cyprus/Greece and Turkey.

The whole issue is furthermore complicated if one understands 3 simple facts.

1) Turkish population of Cyprus is by far smaller than Greek. That means that they are a minority, which in a democratic system will have a hard time to have some representatives in the goverment if there is no true cooperation between the populations (in case of a united nation that is).

2) The Turkish part is so poor and under developed (despite the fact that it has a large area of the agriculture areas of Cyprus as a whole). While the other part is highly developed and in fact one of the most powerfull economies in EU. That makes the difference even bigger.

3) The Turkeys policy so far for the part of the Cyprus that belongs to them, has been more of military purpose than anything else. At least from the info i have access to. Cyprus is located on the south of Turkeys coasts, and should the northern part was Greek (for the sake of argument) the possibility of an aircraft attack from Cyprus would be imminent in case of war. Making the number of fronts that the Turkish army had to defend more. So they do not really like that possibility (one of the reasons the invasion took place).

Also i would like to add that the way things look now, Turkey's case will get in the freezer for a year at least. The negotiations will go into full stop unless Turkey fulfill the obligations of the Union Protocol, and also accept the Finnish plan for Cyprus at least as a base for discussion.

That won't happen though sadly. The Turkish heads of the army are firm on their position, that they should maintain an army on the island. Which is stupid imho, since that would never be accepted by the Cyprus goverment. Reasons are many, but so far i can't understand the warmongering of these guys.

Greek head of the army are more easy on this. At least they haven't said no (many voices also where in favour of this) to a full withdrawal of the Greek army that resides in the Cyprus.

And frankly if these two communities can't find the common points that held them together for so many years before the troubles started (that is even before the invasion), then they deserve to be wiped out by themselves and leave us alone in the process.

On the topic though, i would like to say something.
It is stupid in my opinion to deny something that DID happened. There were troubled times then and over the course of history and time every nation has commited attrocities. One way or the other these things have been accepted as mistakes by the offending nation and the life went on. In fact it went on with better terms for the involved nations.

To deny only, is only provoking more hate and flame by the offended parties. Well that is what it looks like is happening anyway.

None Armenian has demanded anything back as far as i know only a public apology and acceptance of this unfortunate event.

On a more serious note too, sadly Turkey is still using policies and practices that are outdated, on many subjects that have to do with Greeks and in general ethnicities that were/still are within the Turkish territory. There are many examples of this which are happening still now.

Maybe someone will say that Greece does this too, allthough i would not bet on this since i live in here and i have a better understanding of what is going on.

 

And I live in Turkey and I have a better understanding of what is going on.

No, there was. It was between 1919 and 1923. Englishs invaded Çanakkale, Musul, Batum, Antep, Konya, Maraş, Samsun, Bilecik, Merzifon, Urla ,Kars and Bosphorus. Frenchs invaded Dörtyol, Mersin, Adana, Afyon and the railroad stations in Thrace. Italians invaded Antalya, Kuşadası, Bodrum, Fethiye ve Marmaris. Armenians entered Kozan, Osmaniye, Mersin ve Adana with French. And Greeks invaded Aegean part. But they have been defeated heavily thanks to Atatürk. Will you say it never happened? Or will you say Aegean parts of Turkey belongs to Greeks? If you do it, I will understand what you are.

And some information about the Armenian thing and exact numbers: After they started a civil rebellion and started to slaughter women and children; in April 24, 1915 2345 Armenians have been arrested. 1397 of them have been executed after. In June 1, 1915 law of emigration passed and they started to emigrate today's North Iraq and North Syria. All the needs of the emigrators were supplied by the army. There were 702.900 emigrators in total. Maybe some emigrators died because of the long journey.

And Turkey made an operation to Cyprus to save Turks there.

 

Argohir you seem to have a hard time seeing past national propaganda.

Besides this is a turkish law: Article 305 of the Turkish Penal Code states that "prosecution for anti-national plots" may be undertaken against those who call "for the recognition of the Armenian genocide"

also if you want to read a less biased version try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

 

The treaty of Sevres which followed the end of WWI had as aim to settle the conditions of surrender of the defeated Ottoman empire. According to this treaty: Hejaz (now part of Saudi Arabia) and Armenia were to become independent. Kurdistan was to be given independence, according to Section III Articles 62–64, the Kurdish vilayet of Mosul would also be able to join the independent Kurdistan. In accordance with the wartime Sykes-Picot Agreement, Mesopotamia and Palestine were assigned under mandate to the tutelage of the United Kingdom; Lebanon and an enlarged Syria to that of France. The Dodecanese and Rhodes (already under Italian occupation since 1911), with portions of southern Anatolia, were to pass to Italy, while Thrace and Western Anatolia, including the key port of Smyrna (now Izmir), would become part of Greece. The Bosphorus, Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara were to be demilitarized and internationalized. The treaty was acceppted by the Sultan but it was rejected by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

So, there was no invasion, the military forces went there in order to enforce the terms of a treaty already accepted by the Sultan.

Now, especially as far as the area that was given to Greece is concerned, a large part of the population (1.5 millions people, perhaps the majority but I'm not sure) were Greeks and according to the terms of the treaty after 5 years the local parliament of Smyrna (Izmir) would decide if the area would remain a part of Turkey or it would become a part of Greece.

During the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century, the official stance of the Greek state was that these areas were occupied territories, "enslaved fatherlands" was the most commonly used term. Anyway the whole issue was settled by the treaty of Laussane.

 

i believe that the law in germany doesnt deny the holocaust... it just prevents people from talking about it

 

@Argohir : Calm down man. You forgot to translate a few "ve"s.

@Mithrantir : After the treaty of Sevres there was nearly nowhere left for Turks. So the war that happened after The treaty of Sevres is seen as an independence war here. You may not agree this because your country lost these lands after that war and but Turks think they regained these lands after an invasion by "evil Greeks". You may not accept treaty of Laussane because you lost these lands but also Turks think they were unsuccessful at Laussane because they lost Mosul.

But if Turkish gov. accept it they may want some money and maybe land. That's what makes most people (and government) fear here.

 

reread what he says shoshino, he says germany and austria for example has a law that forbid people to deny that the Holocaust took place.

 

Yes, there are documents about it but I doubt they are saying the truth.

As you said, Ottomans don't have the right to give land which belongs to Turkey.

And some of you guys make me feel like a radical nationalist despite being a socialist "lefty"

 

Ottoman empire was basically a turkish empire, it sprouded from turkey and spread from it.

Secondly, you seem to call anyone or anything not agreeing with your very nationalistic view a liar or a lie.

thirdly you attack a law that is i direct attack on your own countries article 305: which forbid people in turkey to call what happened to the arminiens a genocide.

 

This is not that basic.

You and most of the others do the same. And you are the first person calling me a nationalist. I think some people here make me act like a nationalist but I am absolutely not.

From the beginning, I say that this law shouldn't exist. I don't defend that law. I want this topic to be talked freely about( especially by historians) and it will reveal the truths.

 

Then i guess you are familiar with the restrained freedoms and rights of the non Muslim religions in Turkey. That is both Catholic and Orthodox christian religions, and maybe with other christian dogmas too. Especially for the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, who also hold a position of the Global Patriarch for the Orthodox people the situation is even worse. Not to mention the rights Greeks, Kurds, Armenians etc have even to this date over their properties that lies within Turkish borders.

I don't want to get into this kind of discussion though. What Turkey should do as a whole is to try and get rid of this whole world conspiracy against Turkey sundrome. Noone is claiming any part of your terittory now. Unlike Turkeys policy unfortunately.
Even the Kurds are just demanding an equal treatment as citizens and the acceptance of their heritage. They got their nation (or some form of it anyway) in Iraq with clever choices.

For me the ongoing plan of unrooting the populations that lived in the Turkey territory before Turkey as it is now formed, population that chose to live within this state but wanted also to keep a tribe ID for heavens sake, is outdated.
A plan that Kemal devised and the Army of Turkey still blindly follows.

As for the Independence issue well the Sultan was Turk and his nation was Turkish (despite the clan that ruled the nation). How one can become indepented from his/her self, i wonder?

After the treaty of Serves Turkey had lost a big part of the power once possesed. But to say nearly nowhere is a little bit dramatic i think. Also we lost nothing if you see it correctly and without any biased glasses worn.

The area of Smurna was not under Greek authority. In that treaty it was specifically mentioned that this area was independent under the protection of the three big forces, and after 5 years the residents would get to vote to choose to which nation they would like to belong. The majority of the population though was Greek and the chances were that the vote would be in our favour.

Greek army moved in there, based on the simple fact that the Neoturk movement, that arose a little before, would make this outcome very difficult due to the tactics that were used to impose their beliefs. Thus they went initially for protection fo the Greek population. What happened afterward was our stupid move, noone else is blamed.

Things are as they are now, what is past should remain there. Why would not i accept a national treaty that after all was settling -seemingly- things down.

And that one should finally be nailed in the heads of the Turkish officials and become a reality for the rest of the population. There is no continious threat against Turkey, you create your own nightmares and only you can free yourselves.

This sounds to me like we are living still in a feudal system where every lord of his land would choose the sovereignity of his lands according to his whims and interests.

Unless you are quite aware that we don't, and you realise that returning back some houses and farms does not constitutes a threat to the sovereignity of these lands. It's not like these people think about proclaiming an indepented state once they get their property. Wow paranoia and conspiracy theories all the way.

If you want to think this option too. By not accepting these claims and by refusing to ever consider the possibility of returning that property to its rightfull owners, one goal is achieved. The unrooting of these people. The permanent loss of the possibility to be Turkey a multiethnical nation again, like it was under the Sultan. It looks familiar this plan but i won't say to what.

Anyway i am sure that Turkey will find its way though through this, for better or worse. Future will tell what will happen.

 

@Mithrantir : I'm sorry, I'm misunderstood (my poor English). I didn't mean actually returning back some houses and farms, I meant Armenians would want a few cities in the east as compensation if what happened is accepted as a genocide. BTW these are fears of nationalists and people who are under their influence not mine.

OTOH what you said may be true for some of your people. I've seen an empty village on TV last year. The owners of houses left there and went to Greece after 6 and September 7, 1955 . Of course these people should return to their houses. But if you mean the Greeks who lived here before war should return I don't think that's possible. My grandfather also had lands and houses in Rhodes but we can't return there. As you said things are as they are now, what is past should remain there.

I guess you mean Ataturk. The plan was devised by Committee of Union and Progress leaders. I read a few books about them and foundations of Turkish Republic recently. The books were based on archives of UK. Ataturk was much better than Leaders of C.U.P. who are responsible for whatever happened to Armenians. Ataturk always kept a distance with them. They also tried to assassinate Ataturk. I don't understand why our government still defends these Three Pashas against Armenians. It would be much easier for our politicians to accuse the triumvirate for Armenian deaths. Isn't this the traditional way of politicians : accuse another and escape from responsibility? Why are they still defending crimes of Three Pashas and getting involved in this event that has no relationship with Turkish Republic?

 

@ Mithrantir: There are some little truths in what you say. But, I know some Greeks and fortunately, they are not like you. What is your problem?

 

Ok no worries, allthough i am still perplexed as to what difference that would have. After all the cities would still be under Turkish sovereignity and the people that lived there still would have to pay their taxes to the Turkish ministry of Economics.

Ok extreme nationalists are a problem and in fact their radical claims and point of views, while laughable by majority (hopefully) are still attracting certain type of people. But this is a problem for the whole world not just Turkey.

In Turkey the problem is magnified, since many of these radical elements are part of an army THAT has a strong saying in political decisions. Do you agree with that?

I did not said anything about returning people back to their ancestral lands. It's too late now, damage is done (for everyone affected by this population exchanges) and is sort of healed. After all, almost all these people carried on with their lives. Their offsprings could never call home something they have never ever seen.

I have seen documentaries with an old man who was a refugee from a village outside Smirna. The people who made this documentary have took him to the village he was born and was forced to leave behind. He cried, he had a big hit of nostalgia and all that, but when he was asked if he would like to return and live there he said no. My life went on and now my home is where i live now.

As for the Kemal Ataturk stuff i agree i haven't done my homework that extensivelly. I know that his dogma has a vision of a Turkey for the Turks though. Which is a little bit cheesy if you ask me.

Anyway this is off topic, i am only saying that this dogma is outdated and most propably will be a boomerang to Turkeys goals (especially long term), if people continue to follow it. Like the Turkish army does.

Unfortunately you are not like Dengo, who at least has a reality check perfomed every now and then. And he has managed to look pass the propaganda being fed to you (likewise in our system so not to feel discriminated in that). I really hope that people like Dengo are becoming the majority in Turkey and people like you become more and more rare.

You have the shameless nerve to come here and whine about the loss of freedom of expression in France and EU, while your country is perfoming this tactic for so many years. Dare you come out of the haze and see the things objectivelly? I think not and that is showed by your posts.

I am not here to point fingers, but how can you even dare to point your finger towards France (allthough the law is a childish act), while your country performs this policy and also has very similar laws who affect not only Armenians but also other ethnical minorities?

If that is not hypocritical, then i really fail to see what hypocricy means.

 

I doubt you read my posts. If you did, you would know I am against such laws in Turkey. Stop acting like I made that laws. Nobody understand that, so I have to use capitals here to have attention, excuse me. I AM AGAINST SUCH LAWS IN TURKEY. Am I understood? I am also pointing my finger towards Turkey. Or maybe you read and understood them well but you see only what you want to see. So this shows you should look into a mirror for a better definition of hypocritical. And you should know that: two wrongs never made a right.

I have the same wish for you

 

Yes. Actually 2 or 3 days ago i watched a discussion on TV about "army and politics". There were 5 people speaking and 4 of them was against army's current position in our country. One of them started with these words: "if we are in year 2006 and we are still discussing about army's place in politics, we are wasting time." Then he told what a foreigner journalist said for Turkey : "In every country the government has an army, in Turkey army has a government".

BTW does anyone living in Europe knows who is the head of their army? We all know here who ours is. We see him nearly once a month on TVs or newspapers. He doesn't only speak about security, he enters into the area of internal affairs and send some messages to politicians too...

I would agree with you but according to our laws the definition of "Turk" is Turkish Rep. citizen whether she/he is Greek, Armenian, Turkish, Kurdish or another race . So we may interpret his words "Turkey is for Turks" this way too. OTOH this definition in our laws doesn't satisfy me but it will be too off-topic now.

In his time Ataturk did his best for his people and country. He made good revolutions here. The trend was nationalism in his day. Nation-states were being formed in everywhere and he tried the same here. Later Hitler's and Mussolini's rise was also in the same trend but Ataturk was much different (better) than them. Yes he was a dictator but he supported others who tried to establish a second political party. But sadly his attempts failed with revolts of fanatical Muslims against republic.

I agree that his ideas are outdated now. His ideas were revolutionary for this country in 1920s. But we're in 2000s now and fanatical Kemalists are still living in 1920s and 30s.

Hey don't use me for your discussion with others . IMHO discussions with other people on the net makes people hostile against each other very fast. I believe if we were at a cafe or in my (or your or Argohir's) house, drinking coffee, tea or something else (I've a bottle of Greek ouzo too) and speaking about these matters we wouldn't be so hostile to each other. We should calm down.