Russia vs Azerbaijan

[wormbyte]

This is my first post on this forum so go easy on me, because my knowledge comes no where close to you guys.

I have writing a scenario where by there has been a coup within Russia leading to a former soviet hardliner taking power of the country.

My question is this:

If Russia was to attack Azerbaijan because of it's military reserve, would this cause a military response from any other country? Especially military powers in the west.

I was going to have the scenario pan out so that Russian would start by launching an offensive against Azerbaijan before moving on to other energy producing states within the Caucasus region, such as kazakhstan and then taking control of the Caspian Sea and the oil reserves located there.

But would Russian have the military power to take control of this area? And as I said before, would it cause a military response from the west?

You thoughts would be much appreciated.

[Chrom]

This is my first post on this forum so go easy on me, because my knowledge comes no where close to you guys.

I have writing a scenario where by there has been a coup within Russia leading to a former soviet hardliner taking power of the country.

My question is this:

If Russia was to attack Azerbaijan because of it's military reserve, would this cause a military response from any other country? Especially military powers in the west.

Obviously impossible to answer with any degree of credibility. However, that means you can speculate on that matter all you want and noone can say "it is impossible!" :)


I was going to have the scenario pan out so that Russian would start by launching an offensive against Azerbaijan before moving on to other energy producing states within the Caucasus region, such as kazakhstan and then taking control of the Caspian Sea and the oil reserves located there.

But would Russian have the military power to take control of this area? And as I said before, would it cause a military response from the west?

You thoughts would be much appreciated. As for responce - look q1. As for military power - depends. Certainly, regular army in all ex-USSR countries are no match for russian army. It will be no show. But unregular combatants resistance - is a whole another matter. A lot will be depended from propaganda, russian internal politic, foreign support for rebels, etc, etc. As in any partizan war...

[wormbyte]

Thank you for your response.

I have just realised that I made a significantly large typo within my first post.

"If Russia was to attack Azerbaijan because of it's military reserve, would this cause a military response from any other country? Especially military powers in the west."

Should have been ....

"If Russia was to attack Azerbaijan because of it's ENERGY (oil and gas) reserve, would this cause a military response from any other country? Especially military powers in the west."

[Zhengwei]

As a student of war and it my bread and butter I often view Russia in the periphery as I have the luxury of living south of her. You bring up an interesting point and one should note that the distance that Azerbaijan has staked from Russia since 1991. We won't elaborate on all that now but the key significance is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline (Georgia-another country on Russia's shit list) and the 'Red Leash' that Russia continues to exert in an unsurprisingly reactionary posture. Aliyev earned his way to power on the promise of a truly independent Azerbaijan but this is doubtful because of surrogate energy and commercial trade combined with the new 'corporate divide and conquer' strategy Russia has employed. This is not to say that Baku has slacked in its determination, refusing to deliver oil to Tiblssi and cutting Russian television as well as strengthening ties with western nations (not to a serious degree the US right now for several reasons) mainly Turkey, the EU to a degree, and it's other -stan neighbors.
As with almost every CIS, Russia left them with a barebones military that did manage to mobilize and become professional but is concentrating solely on its own stability and defense. Besides the very idea that it would come to blows between these two that have such a complex relationship I believe is, at this time, next to impossible. Russia would catch hell diplomatically but no one wants to rub glass in an infected wound, there would be no US or UN assistance unless short of ethnic cleansing was happening in its borders. We will see the CIS AND Russia AND West play out in an often painful game of chess (or the English game Chutes and Ladders if you want) for years to come before comfort is found.

[Lostfleet]

A Russian invasion is always a possibility, especially using any upcoming civil unrest as a cause to intervene ( to bring stability etc) however you should not forget that an Iranian invasion is possible as the Russian alternative. ( either using their own Azeri population as a justification or using no justification for invasion at all)

[Zhengwei]

Ah, yes. One can never discount a Russian incursion, there are countless examples of post-Soviet intervention in the name of 'security' or under the UN even. The probability of such is weak in Baku, Russia is in a position of non-intervention partially to refocus on domestic issues and partially to make the US stick out like a sore thumb with its 'hard power'. If Russia's sovereignty or their prime strategic interests are threatened they are not afraid to be forcible (see Yugoslav-Serbian 1999 conflict where Russia occupied an airport and threatened to move its regulars in to restore peace) even in its weaker point. Just remember that it is a chess game (and who is damnably outstanding at that game?) Russia intends to fully reestablish its MIC [military industrial complex] and attempt once again to be a prodigal superpower. But that is another topic altogether :D

[Yasin20]

you know there are states that have signed a pact to defend each other like kazakistan azerbaijan turkmenistan uzbekistan tajikistan kirgistan as well

[Lostfleet]

Signing a pact is a good way to deter any possible war however when the real fight begins, it is not hundred percent guaranteed that the members of the pact will come to aid.

Even during the cold war, US was not sure if all of the members would contribute to the war if there was any conflict.

[Yasin20]

then i dont know what will happen lets hope this whont realy happen in the future becouse theres a price in every war not money the price is how much life must you pay for this kinde of war

[PullerRommel]

Isnt Russia also have a pact with some of the countries mentioned that have a pact with Azerbaijin(sp?)?

[Chrom]

Isnt Russia also have a pact with some of the countries mentioned that have a pact with Azerbaijin(sp?)?

Yes. At least Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirgizia from mentioned have really close military and political ties with Russia.

They are part of CSTO defence pact ( Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.) and CSO political organizations (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan)

As can be seen, Azerbaijan in any military conflict with Russia will remain most likely alone.

[Atilla [TR]]

If there was a military inrcusion into Azerbaijan then her Turkish neighbors would help from on both sides of Azerbaijan, I dunno but something like that happened to Azerbaijan, and the neighbors helped a huge greater Turkism would erupt and even if Russia captured Azerbaijan and a few of other Turkish nations manly to the east of Azerbaijan you would see rebellion far worse then Chechnya and even the Tatars in Russia might get worked up.

[Chrom]

;134292']If there was a military inrcusion into Azerbaijan then her Turkish neighbors would help from on both sides of Azerbaijan, I dunno but something like that happened to Azerbaijan, and the neighbors helped a huge greater Turkism would erupt and even if Russia captured Azerbaijan and a few of other Turkish nations manly to the east of Azerbaijan you would see rebellion far worse then Chechnya and even the Tatars in Russia might get worked up. Hmm, i dont think so. Azerbaijan peoples never were as cruel and warlike as Chechens. Tatars... lol. They are completely different entity. If they didnt rebelled during Chechens war - then they will not be upset about Azerbaijan either. I repeat, they are COMPLETELY different. They are not even caucasic.

[Atilla [TR]]

Hmm, i dont think so. Azerbaijan peoples never were as cruel and warlike as Chechens. Tatars... lol. They are completely different entity. If they didnt rebelled during Chechens war - then they will not be upset about Azerbaijan either. I repeat, they are COMPLETELY different. They are not even caucasic.


You are so wrong! Tatars are Turkish decent(In fact during the soviet union they where hated by Russians because the Soviet Union said they where Turkish spies) Chechens are not, but Azeris would go crazy if there land got taken over maybe not to a larger degree like Chechens.

[Chrom]

;134327']You are so wrong! Tatars are Turkish decent(In fact during the soviet union they where hated by Russians because the Soviet Union said they where Turkish spies) Chechens are not, but Azeris would go crazy if there land got taken over maybe not to a larger degree like Chechens.

Lol. Tatars are turkish? In historical aspect - somewhat true. To the about same degree as current Germans living in Trier - are the romans. Current tatars living in Russia have very little in common with Turks, and anyway they feel itself as part of native russian population, with full religy spectrum (mostly islam and christian ortodox), and view azerbajans as completely foreign folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

In Europe, they were assimilated by the local Turkic populations or their name spread to the conquered peoples: Kipchaks, Volga Bulgars, Alans, Kimaks and others; and elsewhere with Finno-Ugric speaking peoples, as well as with remnants of the ancient Greek colonies in the Crimea and Caucasians in the Caucasus.

Tatars of Siberia are survivors of the Turkic population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some extent with the speakers of Uralic languages, as well as with Mongols. Later, each group adopted Turkic languages and many adopted Islam. At the beginning of 20th century, most of those groups, except the Volga Tatars and Crimean Tatars adopted their own ethnic names and now are not referred to as Tatars, being Tatars or Tartars only in historical context. Now the name Tatars is generally applied to two ethnic groups: Volga Tatars (or simply Tatars) and Crimean Tatars. However, some indigenous peoples of Siberia are also traditionally named Tatars, such as Chulym Tatars.

As you see, there is no such unified entity as "tatars". Many different folks carry that name. Believe me, absolutely most of them dont care about Turks or Azerbajan at all.

Btw, Turkic doesnt equal Turkish. It is just common racial and language type like f.e. "Indo-European" or "roman" family languages type.

[Atilla [TR]]

Lol. Tatars are turkish? In historical aspect - somewhat true. To the about same degree as current Germans living in Trier - are the romans. Current tatars living in Russia have very little in common with Turks, and anyway they feel itself as part of native russian population, with full religy spectrum (mostly islam and christian ortodox), and view azerbajans as completely foreign folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars



As you see, there is no such unified entity as "tatars". Many different folks carry that name. Believe me, absolutely most of them dont care about Turks or Azerbajan at all.

Btw, Turkic doesnt equal Turkish. It is just common racial and language type like f.e. "Indo-European" or "roman" family languages type.



I am pretty sure they have it burned in there memory that they are Turkish since Russian back in the days that they where Soviet, had propaganda going around saying do not trust Tartars they are Turkish spies working for Turkey. And everyone Turkic are related in fact there are a group of people outside the Turkic people that are related to Turkic people, there are Tatars walking on the streets of Turkey right now they are not Turkic, they speak tatar which is very similar to Turkish, don't you think that a Turk will know more about Turks?

[Chrom]

;137279']I am pretty sure they have it burned in there memory that they are Turkish since Russian back in the days that they where Soviet, had propaganda going around saying do not trust Tartars they are Turkish spies working for Turkey. And everyone Turkic are related in fact there are a group of people outside the Turkic people that are related to Turkic people, there are Tatars walking on the streets of Turkey right now they are not Turkic, they speak tatar which is very similar to Turkish, don't you think that a Turk will know more about Turks?
They burned it deep in the memory from 500 to 1500 years ago, depending from region. And most of them never had anything with turks common anyway. This have absolutely nothing to do with soviet times. Turks surely know more about turks (of course not all turks know lol), but tatars do not equal turks. May be tatars, well, know more about tatars? Dont you think?

And right now 99% tatars in ex-USSR (let alone Russia) have absolutely no connection with turks.

[s3kiz]

Dear Chrom you seem to be greatly misinformed about the Tatar Turks, and unlike you claim the Tatar Turks (not just the ones in Crimea peninsula) are aware of their history and heritage.

All historians, etymologists and the Tatar Turks themselves prove to be a Turkish people sharing the same roots, heritage as dozens of different Turkish people around the world with different prefixes like Tatar, Pechenek, Nogay, Gagauz, Azeri, Kazak, Kiman/Kuman, Uzbek, Turkmen, Kirgiz, Kipchak, Bulgar (yes, the word "bulgar" comes from the first tribes that settled in nowaday Bulgaria who were a Turkish tribe before the geography became Slavic in time, keeping the name) just to name a few.

Theres dozens of such examples of various tribe names that all go back to the same shared Turkish origins in history and currently share the same culture, heritage, beliefs, traditions and language with natural accentual differences due to the vast geography and history these people have had and do currently occupy.

The relations between the state and civilian counterparts between Republic of Turkiye, and Tatar Turks widespread across a vast geography including the autonomous Crimean Tatar State in Ukraine and Republic of Tataristan in Russia are speacial and encompassing.

They continually participate in all the official and NGO events that are held annually like the "world Turkish people" confrences and congresses regarding cultural and political cooperations between all the Turkish people from all corners of the world whether they live in an independent, autonomous countries/states or in lands under foreign rule, like those in Russia, China, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Moldovia, Ukraine, Romania, Iraq, Iran, Georgia.

Some might not know well who they are but they certainly do.

"Tatars (Tatar: Tatarlar/Татарлар), sometimes spelled Tartar...are a Turkic ethnic group.

The name "Tatar" initially appeared amongst the nomadic Turkic peoples of northeastern Mongolia in the region around Lake Baikal in the beginning of the 5th century.These people may have been related to the Cumans or the Kipchaks (other Turkish tribes). The Chinese term is Dada and is a comparatively specific term for nomads to the north, emerging in the late Tang. Other names include Dadan and Tatan.

As various of these nomadic groups became part of Genghis Khan's army in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic (relatives of each other) elements took place, and the invaders of Rus and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars). After the break up of the empire, the Tatars became especially identified with the western part of the empire, which included most of European Russia and was known as the Golden Horde."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars


http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=20

http://www.turkiye.net/sota/sota.html

http://www.tatar.ru/

http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/krimtatar.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-143037/Crimean-Tatar-language

http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/krfacts.html

A few examples of their cultural websites:

http://www.vatankirim.net/

http://www.bahcesaray.info

http://www.tatardunyasi.com

Back on topic, I dont see any possibility of a Russian invasion of Azerbaijan at all, the whole world power balances will be upturned, resulting into a great war, including Turkiye.

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

Just as an addition to the off-topic discussion that has been going on here.

Think of China, the people that make up majority of China are Chinese as all know, but this doesnt mean that the people in Taiwan, or the Chinese in Malaysia, are different, with politics and borders maybe.

A better example could be the Arabs. Think of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its people are Arabs as we all now, it has the "Arab" definition in its name too, this doesnt mean that the people in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Egypt, Qatar etc are not Arabs. Sure they have their differences, but they are Arabs.

Same thing with Turks, my country Turkiye Cumhuriyeti (Republic of Turkiye) has the word "Turk" in it, likewise with Republic of Turkmenistan in central asia, this doesnt mean that been a "Turk" is limited to these only two countries and not the other people we mentioned.

We have seen many political thoughts and aims to divide the Turks in history, since ancient times. The nearest and best remembered example to this aim to divide can be seen in the Soviet Union era, where the communists segregated each Turkish tribes that make up the people in central asia, also knows as Turkistan as a geography (with East Turkistan been the Xinjiang province of nowaday China inhabited by 30 million Uygur Turks), into tribe names (Azeri, Kazak, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kirgiz, Tatar etc) for close to a century to divide-and-rule.

Anyway I touched on this matter a bit in the thread entitled "Balance of Power" , located at:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

Sorry for the deviation of topic, but there was great grave preponderate mistakefull claims been made here.

Cheers.

Back on to the topic.

[Chrom]

Just as an addition to the off-topic discussion that has been going on here.

Think of China, the people that make up majority of China are Chinese as all know, but this doesnt mean that the people in Taiwan, or the Chinese in Malaysia, are different, with politics and borders maybe.

A better example could be the Arabs. Think of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its people are Arabs as we all now, it has the "Arab" definition in its name too, this doesnt mean that the people in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Egypt, Qatar etc are not Arabs. Sure they have their differences, but they are Arabs.

Same thing with Turks, my country Turkiye Cumhuriyeti (Republic of Turkiye) has the word "Turk" in it, likewise with Republic of Turkmenistan in central asia, this doesnt mean that been a "Turk" is limited to these only two countries and not the other people we mentioned.

We have seen many political thoughts and aims to divide the Turks in history, since ancient times. The nearest and best remembered example to this aim to divide can be seen in the Soviet Union era, where the communists segregated each Turkish tribes that make up the people in central asia, also knows as Turkistan as a geography (with East Turkistan been the Xinjiang province of nowaday China inhabited by 30 million Uygur Turks), into tribe names (Azeri, Kazak, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kirgiz, Tatar etc) for close to a century to divide-and-rule.

Anyway I touched on this matter a bit in the thread entitled "Balance of Power" , located at:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

Sorry for the deviation of topic, but there was great grave preponderate mistakefull claims been made here.

Cheers.

Back on to the topic.

Ok, whatever tatars turks or not from your POV doesnt matter the slightest - the important what tatars in Russia think themselves. They are generally fully integrated in russian society and have nothing in common with turks. 70% do not even speak tatars language. They have less in common with turks than Poland peoples with Serbian peoples. Btw, they are both slavic...

You are very wrong if you think tatars will feel anything wrong in case of conflict against Azerbaijan or Turkey. There was nothing similar in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict times - and these were much, much more irritating times. So, in current, much more content situation - tatars will remain neutral even more so.

[s3kiz]

Ok, whatever tatars turks or not from your POV doesnt matter the slightest - the important what tatars in Russia think themselves. They are generally fully integrated in russian society and have nothing in common with turks. 70% do not even speak tatars language.

Soviet regimes ruthless ethnic cleansing of Tatar Turks:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html

Tatar Turks trying to keep their identity in Crimea:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2007/11/19/9451.htm

We'll if my POV doesnt matter the slightest, what makes you think your POV mattered allowing you to derail this thread from its main point.

But nevertheless I respect your point of view, which is why i answered and provided factual information to who these Tatar Turks were/are and their situation with some links and evidence.

-Its good that they are fully integrated into the Russian society like you say, thats what I would want because they are living under Russian rule in lands which they are aborigines of, although some may want it that still doesnt take away or change their history, heritage, nationality (not in sense of citizenship) and who they are.

-Your claim that Tatar Turks share nothing with Turkiye Turks is explained in my above posts and the links and the few examples there that you can search, the history, traditions, beliefs, stories, ethnicity, "great men" they see in history, folklore, foods, music, arts, way of life etc etc are the same, although politicalls segregated.

-My uncles wife and her family is from Crimea, she is a Tatar Turk, my uncle is a Turkiye Turk. And hundreds and thousands of Tatar Turks escaping the Russian persecution, forced exodus and ethnic cleansing live in Turkiye and other parts of the world just like her.

-You claim 70% dont speak the Turkish language, but I didnt have any trouble what so ever speaking with them when I toured Tataristan, I spoke Turkiye Turkish and they spoke Tatar Turkish, the difference was like that is between American English and a South African English.

-Here in Republic of Turkiye we call the parliment "Millet Meclisi", the Tatar Turks call the parliment of their autonomous lands "Millet Mejlisi".


The historical, scientific and factual evidences proving that your claims are false are immense, no matter how much you think my POV is wrong.

Politics and history are two different things, too bad history is sometimes tried to be manipulated due to political ambitions.

Cheers.

I guess we did enough off-topic discussion here, wouldnt you agree Chrom?

[eliaslar]

@s3kiz
There is no autonomous tatar Crimean state, have you ever been there? There is an autonomous Crimean Republic, which is part of Ukraine and Crimean Tatars compose only the 12% of it's whole population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

Also if there are Tatars in Greece, their number is so small, even smaller than 0,5% of the whole population.

Maybe your political and historical links are inacurate or have other goals than to inform people in the right way.

I will not make any more comments on this topic about such things because i really believe this conversation must be over and continue on it's strategic path than to become another Greek-Turkish or Russian-Turkish war.

[s3kiz]

Ok lets go step by step.

No eliaslar.

"Crimea is the homeland for the Crimean Tatars, an ethnic minority who now make up about 13% of the population. The Crimean Tatars were forcibly expelled to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin's government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

True, because of:
Soviet regimes ruthless ethnic cleansing of Tatar Turks:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html
Tatar Turks trying to keep their identity in Crimea:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2007/11/19/9451.htm

Etc etc, lets wind back in history:

Crimean Turkish Tatar Khanate (State) of 1441-1783:
"A number of Turkic peoples, now collectively known as the Crimean Tatars, have been inhabiting the peninsula since the early Middle Ages.
The Crimean Tatars controlled the steppes that stretched from the Kuban and to the Dniester River, however, they were unable to take control over commercial Genoese towns. After the Crimean Tatars asked for help from the Ottomans, an Ottoman invasion of the Genoese towns led by Gedik Ahmed Pasha in 1475 brought Kaffa and the other trading towns under their control."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

Lets come back to our time:

@s3kiz
There is no autonomous tatar Crimean state, have you ever been there?
.

Are you sure?
...and...
Yes, I have.

Crimean Tatar State Parliment of 2008:
"On June 30, 1991, the Mejlis declared its sovereignty over the Crimean Tatars, and adopted the Crimean Tatar's national anthem and the national flag.[2] Also, the Crimean Tatars elected 14 Crimean Tatar Deputies to the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea. These 14 deputies were the first Crimean Tatar representatives in the Crimean Parliament for over 50 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mejlis_of_the_Crimean_Tatar_People

Tatar Turks under Russian rule in 2008:
And here is a Russian official site of the Republic of Tataristan within current day borders of Russia, the Tatar Turks are aborigines of the lands they live in, albeit under a foreign rule like the Soviets before and now Russians.
www.tatar.ru

@s3kiz
Also if there are Tatars in Greece, their number is so small, even smaller than 0,5% of the whole population.
.
You are not sure yet "if there are any", however "just in case" there are some "they must be small, becasue if they are big it would be trouble for Greece" and so you give us a number? which is it they dont exist or 0.5% of the population? maybe you just dont know and just trying to save the moment?

Anyway, regarding the Turks i mentioned in Greece, pls re-read my post I was clearly referring to other tribes of Turks not the Tatars while mentioning Greece and some other countries that have aboriginal Turkish populations belonging to various Turkish tribes.

Reading undesirable proofs surfacing about ones self sometimes causes panick and panick can cause cognitive faults. Perhaps this was one such incident, who knows.

There are currently between 300 000 and 500 000 Turks living in Greece, whom the Greek government throws into prison for calling themselves "Turk", they are not even allowed to call themselves "Greek citizens of Turkish ethnicity", the Greek government only recognizes them as "Greek muslims" trying to oppress and slowly ethnically cleanse them.

Sure some will say "hey but what about Kurds in Turkiye", unlike the propaganda made by those who would like to see Turkiye in turmoil, the Kurds do not have a recognition problem in Turkiye, anyone can speak, publish, teach, broadcast in their ethnic language/culture etc, as long as they obey the law and order.

People can and do say "I am from such and such ethnicity", anyone holding Turkiye citizenship has equal rights and there is no segregation or seperate laws according to your ethnicity like there is in Greece, against the ethnic Turks and Macedonians.

We have ministers, generals, foreign ministers, ambassadors even presidents of various ethnicities, Kurdish included, everyone has the right to express their ethnicity.

And this freedom of expression is not limited to laymen. President Turgut Ozal could/did express he was of Kurdish ethnicity while President of Turkiye. NATO ISAF civilian chief from Turkiye Mr Hikmet Cetin can express he is a citizen of Turkiye with Kurdish ethnicity, 20%+ members of the Republic of Turkiye parliment can/do express they are ethnically Kurdish and still feel passionate as been a citizen of Republic of Turkiye and serving it.

Turkiye has more freedom than what some people who want it in turmoil make it out to be, supporting false propaganda and even terror organizations like PKK, whose ringleader was caught in a Greek Embassy with a Greek Cypriot passport issued to him, on him.

An EU country, harbouring and fostering a terrorist and supporting his terror organization as recognized by EU, USA and U.N.

But Turks dont have the same freedom in Greece, you want proof?:
"Ethnic Turks have resided in Thrace since at least the fourteenth century (this date is for muslim Turks, its actually centuries earlier than that if we are to consider the pre-Islamic migration of Turks namely the Hun Turks).....In 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne, the Turkish minority of Thrace was granted a wide array of rights to ensure protection of their religion, language, culture, and equality before the law. In addition, as Greek citizens, ethnic Turks also enjoy the protection of Greek law, as well as of the European Convention of Human Rights. Despite such protections, however, ethnic Turks suffer a host of human rights violations.
Greece’s attitude toward the ethnic Turkish minority is nowhere more evident then in its continued official denial of the Turkish identity of the community. Greece only accepts the existence of a “Muslim” minority in Thrace and aggressively prosecutes and bans organizations and individuals who seek to call themselves “Turkish.”
A number of discriminatory measures have been enacted either to force ethnic Turks to migrate to Turkey or to disrupt community life and weaken its cultural basis. The most egregious example was Article 19 of the Citizenship Law, which, until it was abolished in 1998, allowed the state to revoke the citizenship of non-ethnic Greeks unilaterally and arbitrarily. Between 1955 and 1998, approximately 60,000 lost their citizenship under the article. As a result of Article 19 and other discriminatory measures, the ethnic Turkish minority today numbers approximately 80-120,000.2 In 1951, forty-seven years ago, the official census reported 112,665. Given an annual 2 percent growth rate, not high for a poorly-educated and rural community, the Turkish minority, using 1951 as a base, would have been expected to number closer to 300,000 today."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf

@s3kiz
Maybe your political and historical links are inacurate or have other goals than to inform people in the right way.

Right! Evidence speaks for its self.
Ever wonder maybe that maybe what you are programmed to think may be incorrect or biased?
And perhaps that you are (both in person and country:Greece) are doing what you are accusing me of?
Objective analysis of this thread & history can answer that very well.

@s3kiz
...this conversation must be over and continue on it's strategic path than to become another Greek-Turkish or Russian-Turkish war.
Thats what I have been saying all along.
But Chrom made misinformed claims about a whole nation, almost to the extent to resemble Soviet regimes' ethnic cleansing politics of the various Turkish tribes.
I merely presented proofs.
And you came along not liking the proofs.
But truth isnt about liking or disliking.
Its there, even if you close your eyes or deny it.

@s3kiz
...I will not make any more comments on this topic...
I think thats a wise decision.

For a better world.

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

Anyway, my new signature tells it all, just "google" each of the names there if you are interested in history and are justfull in your reasoning.

Sometimes what we get to know as history is merely "his-story".

But thruth has a tendency to resurface.

PS: This thread went way-off topic, but nevertheless im sure it will be a good source of brain gymnastics for some and new knowledge for others.

Cheers.

[Atilla [TR]]

Okay way off topic (not necessary because we are discussing how the Turkish population in Russia may counter a attack on Azerbaijan and me and S3kiz where trying to help defend the rights of the Tatars to still call them selves Turks) also do release that not only do Turks live in Russia and Azerbaijan they also live in from Turkey all the way to Mongolia and there are several Turkic nations that would defend Azerbaijan. Plus Turkey can rally more support from Nato (who seems mad at Medvedev for what he said about Georgia and Ukraine going into Nato).

[s3kiz]

Atilla you mentioned Georgia, who are not just sharing a border with Turkiye, but would share the same feelings with Turkiye if Azerbaijan was to be invaded by Russian brute.

There is a close coorperation between Turkiye and Georgia (and Azerbaijan), with many Georgian officers training at Turkish defence academies, and multitude of excersis/trainings between the two country on all levels, police-military. Not mentioning the cultural, political & economic ties.

Lets not forget the Baku(Azerbaijan)-Tiblisi(Georgia)-Ceyhan(Turkiye) pipeline.

Russia is very much unwanted in the caucauses, only supported by Armenia which is isolated due to its agressive and offensive stance on its neighbours, including attempts to sieze neighbours lands via brutal cleansing when it can, and when it cant officially showing chunks of lands belonging to and in the borders of Turkiye, Georgia and Azerbaijan in her official Armenian maps and worded as hers by leaders of various levels with the support of Armenian diaspora internationally for global propaganda.

An expantionast ultra-nationalistic nation, willing to be agressive when they have the chance.

In a geography like the causcusus, perfect Russian bate, hence the Russian-Armenian packt.

Nevertheless, the world has changed alot, old Russian bear does not have the free will as it once did, to rummage the forest like it wanted.

There is too much obstacles, not only to deter it, but even stop it if needed be.

I find Russia is over exaggerated sometimes, and believe that she will be contained in her current borders, and even perhaps shrink a bit more considering the multitude of aboriginal Turkish populations in it that belong in the Turkistan geography but currently under Russian rule, as i highlighted in the thread named "Balance of Power":

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

Basically, Turkiye with USA are trying to sustain and further develop the current situation in the caucauses and central asia, supporting the democracy, economy, education and peace of the (relatively) new independent Turkish states there, including Azerbaijan.

But Russia is forming a block with Armenia, Greece and Serbia, as Russia to them are the "Orthodox big-brother" and their counter measure against their sworn-enemy Turks (I dont see anyone as an enemy my self).

So this "Orthodox-brotherhood" and the "enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-best-friend" mentality resulting into a Russian-Greek-Armenian-Serbian cooperation has/does/and could provide some problems in the future to non-Orthodox Christian and Muslim people of the region and the world in general.

If such a Russian-Greek-Armenian-Serbian orthodoxy axis gets hyper-excited, not just the caucasus but whole of humanity will be walking on thin ice.

Cheers.

[Atilla [TR]]

LOL yeah Georgians are having lots of problems with Russians also complicated by the De Facto state of Ahbahzia where the U.N put Russian soldiers :confused: I was shocked. So Georgia would fall very fast but they have strong backing from the U.S so the U.S would end up backing Azerbaijan and Georgia and no matter what you say U.S has a upper hand vs Russia. Also there are Turkish people in Georgia (DO not fight this with me I am a Turkish, but my family came from Georgia from Kazakhstan, I still have family there), Also everyone knows that when you invade a neighbor to get to another nation the nation you invaded might use Gurilla Tactics (Hit and run) to dry up your supply lines to the front line. Not to mention the part of Russia that is next to the black sea get there overseas goods through the Istanbul Bosporus and with this line cut that might slightly dry out the supplies.

[eliaslar]

I don't think there will be a war between Russia and Azerbaijan.

If there was a war to happen in this region, it would happen because of Azerbaijan's gas resources, but if Russia would attack Azerbaijan then it would ruin everything about it's strategy to deliver in Europe the Gas needed for her energy supply.

In the south part of Europe there are two main rival planned pipelines
1) the Nabucco pipeline, which will deliver Azeri, among other countries, gas to Europe through Turkey to Europe and which is backed from the US.

2) the South stream pipeling, which will deliver Russian gas and gas from central Asia to Europe, through European countries, leaving Ukraine and Turkey outside of the energy transfer game and which is obviously backed from Russia.

Also in the region there is another smaller pipeline, but very significant, the Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline, which will transfer Russian and Caspian oil to Europe, bypassing the Bosporus, making the transfer really fast and without making the ships pay a fare to Turkey for the passing through the straits.

At this point the South stream has gained an advantage on Nabucco. This happened after Bulgary, Hungary and Austria decided to join the South stream pipeline, leaving their initial intention for the Nabucco pipeline. So the countries that the South stream will pass from are Greece, Italy, Serbia, Bulgary, Hungary and Austria.
Also another blow to the Nabucco pipeline was from French energy company Gaz de France, which decided to back up the South stream pipeline, instead of Nabucco.

This all makes me think that the possibility for a Russian attack on Azerbaijan is very small, but on the contrary i think that Azerbaijan will come closer to Russia because of the need to transfer it's gas through Russian pipelines to Europe.

This Oil/Gas transfer game will have a significant and strategical effect on Russian influence in the Balkans and generally in Europe, thus strengthening ties between the contributing countries and making Balkans not such a fragile region of the world.

The energy game is not over yet, all the most recent news show that South stream has beatten Nabucco, leaving Ukraine and Turkey out of the energy transfer game at this point, but especially for Turkey things might change because there are still oil pipelines that pass through her.

The final outcome is uknown, there are still very important energy reserves in various countries of this region especially in the Autonomous Kurdistan Region in North Iraq, which will make things pretty interesting in the years to come, about it's exploitation.

The sources used are:
http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1561_march_7_2008/1561_econ_one.html
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372856
http://acturca.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/south-stream-pipeline-threatens-turkeys-role-in-gas-transit-to-europe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgas-Alexandroupoli_pipeline
http://www.ameinfo.com/95595.html

[s3kiz]

"The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (sometimes abbreviated as BTC pipeline) is a crude oil pipeline that covers 1,768 kilometres (1,099 mi) from the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field in the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It connects Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan; Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia; and Ceyhan, a port on the south-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, hence its name.

It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world after the Druzhba pipeline. The first oil that was pumped from the Baku end of the pipeline on May 10, 2005 reached Ceyhan on May 28, 2006.

The Caspian Sea lies above one of the world's largest groups of oil and gas fields. As the Caspian Sea is landlocked, the transportation of oil to Western markets is complicated. During Soviet times, all transportation routes from the Caspian region were built through Russia.

The collapse of the Soviet Union started a search for new routes. Russia first insisted that the new pipeline should pass through Russian territory, then declined to participate. A pipeline across Iran from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf would have provided the shortest route, but Iran was considered an undesirable partner for a number of reasons: its theocratic government, concerns about its nuclear program, and United States sanctions that greatly restrict Western investment (especially by American companies) in the country. The United States government opposed any route that would pass through Iran.

At the time, Turkey called for energy transit through Turkey, insisting that this would be the safest and most economic route for export. In the spring of 1992, the Turkish Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel made this proposal to Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan. The first document on the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline was signed between Azerbaijan and Turkey on 9 March 1993 in Ankara.

The South Caucasus, previously seen as Russia's backyard, is now a region of great strategic significance to other great powers. The U.S. and other Western nations have consequently become much more closely involved in the affairs of the three nations through which oil will flow.

The countries themselves though have been trying to use the involvement as a counterbalance to Russian and Iranian economic and military dominance in the region. It is seen similarly by Russian specialists claiming that the pipeline is aimed to weaken the Russian influence in Caucasus. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline

It is because of the above reasons, that Russia is been supported by Greece and Serbia for the "South Stream Pipeline". The USA-UK-Turkiye-Azerbaijan-Georgia alliance is targetted by an opposing axis involving Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia alliance like i mentioned in my previous posts.

This "Russian front" been strategically supported by Greece, Serbia and Armenia is aiming to weaken USA-UK-Turkish power balance in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and strengthen the Russians on all fields, as both Greece, Serbia and Armenia see Russia as an "orthodox-big-brother", their "member-of-family" and their counter against USA-UK-Turkish presence in these regions and their gaurantee for their possible military conlicts in the region.

This is an interesting picture considering Greece is a member of Nato, however aligning her self with Russia to support Russian involvement in the Balkans and Caucasus to counter even USA when it sees it necessary. Alliances are changing and will become more evident in time.

It seems the USA-UK alliance is already aware of this importance and are actively positioning themselves close with the Turkistan geography and its people. A parallel discussion went on the thread entitled "Balance of Power" where I touched on the global power rivalries and how this geography will play a pivotal role in such developments in the future, here: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

Just as a final note, other Turkistan countries; Kazakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are joining up on the BTC pipeline, expanding an energy route from the heartlands of Turkistan all the way to the Meditteranean and into Europe, further cementing the independence of the Turkistani countries, away from a Russian dominance.

A modern day Silk-Road if you will, thats what the BTC is connecting Turkistan energy resources with the West, reducing Russian-Iranian monopoly, opposed by the Russia-Greek-Serbia-Armenia alliance.

Anyway the current share-holders in BTC are:
BP (United Kingdom): 30.1%
State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) (Azerbaijan): 25.00%
Chevron (USA): 8.90%
StatoilHydro (Norway): 8.71%
Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı (TPAO) (Turkey): 6.53%
Eni/Agip (Italy): 5.00%
Total (France): 5.0%
Itochu (Japan): 3.4%
Inpex (Japan): 2.50%
ConocoPhillips (USA): 2.50%
Hess Corporation (USA) 2.36%

The world needs to prevent Russia from having a monopoly on natural resources, and BTC is the right answer for that.

Cheers.


Souce:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/12423.htm
http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2369812
http://bridge.aznet.org/bridge/files/BTCpipespolitik.htm
http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/bp/
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9006669&contentId=7015093

[s3kiz]

The Cold-War, unlike common belief…........is not over.

Now having said that, before I continue on sharing my thoughts, let me explain that initially it will seem like I will transgress the scope of this thread with what I continue to write, which is about the possibilities of a Russian agression towards Azerbaijan, but I hope that I will do justice to explain how what I write is in fact in relation to this matter.

Continuing on with my thought, Cold-War is not over. Quite the contrary Cold-War has transformed itself into what I personally label as the Complex-Cold-War, thats why I divide this long lasting rivalry between USA and Russia into two segments, the (simplified) Classical-Cold-War which we had witnessed nearly all of this passed century and the (multi-faceted) Complex-Cold-War that we will face in the coming decades and perhaps close into next century.

The disintegration of USSR and the loss of Russian direct influence on East Europe and Turkistan (Central Asia) has resulted into the evolution of this coming Complex-Cold-War that we are gradually seeing and will see more of as its multiple-facets will bring complicated frictions in this rivalry.

The Classical-Cold-War was a simple rivalry, between two opposing polarities, the USA (Nato) and USSR (Warsaw Packt), its ending is merely a tactical victory for the USA and her allies but the war it self is not over, instead continuing on a multi-faceted, complicated manner.

The Complex-Cold-War is not so simplified and easier to recognize as the Classical-Cold-War.

Firstly the reasons for this is that what may seem “white” will infact be black and what may seem “black” will in fact be white. In other words our settled understanding about various countries’ affiliations and alliances and thus their interests will be criss-crossing into a matrix like interest grid. Also, the Complex-Cold-War will be more covert than its previously simplified bi-polar classical version.

Above all this no matter how long the uni-polarity of USA global power balance is to continue the world is heading towards a multi-polarity, with a European entity developing and drifting away from USA to rival it and on the other spectrum the rising of China, further adding to the complexities of the evolved Complex-Cold-War.

Rather than re-write the summary I wrote on post number 6 on the thread titled “Balance of Power” at: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459 I recommend a brief read of my thoughts there.

China will rival USA in the coming future, perhaps past around and past mid-century. But what is of great interest is the rivalry Europe will bring.

The Complex-Cold-War is bringing with it new alliances, in contrast and fundamentily different than the alliances we had become accustomed to in the Classical-Cold-War.

Nato I suspect will go through a major change as the sole unity of “Western” alliance. We are already seeing various EU countries that are members of Nato talking about creating a European Military Force, independent of Nato, the aim of this is to draw Europe away from the USA dominance resulting into “independence” in European military and thus international affairs. This venture is head by France and Germany, and supported by various other EU countries like Greece. This Franco-German venture is due to the projected European Empire which is envisaged in the coming decades, as such a European Empires interests are projected to be in conflict with that of USA due to energy resource demands I highlighted in the “Balance of Power” thread I linked above.

It is because of this projected seperation of roads between USA and European Empire drawn by Franco-German architects that USA is trying to further bolster Nato and also establish her self in various European countries with military bases (including missile shield efforts etc albeit it been against Russia is also a way for USA presence in Europe) and political presence, and the independence of Kosovo is just a small part of this. We all know that USA is in full support and pressuring EU for Turkiyes accession into the European Union, and that too is part of USA plans to keep its presence in the EU, and prevent/slow the development, drifting and creation of a Franco-German led European Empire, because Turkiye been a close ally of USA is been aimed to be utilized like a Trojan horse in EU by USA. Another such example can be the extreme close alliance between USA and UK, we all know UK’s concept of EU is very different to that of the Franco-German envisaged European Empire, and the USA-UK alliance is beyond the spectrums of EU. These are all small proofs of how European Empire will be a rival of and in conflict over interests with USA in the the projected future.

While this is going on, we are seeing Russia with a loss of influence it once had due to Soviet empire, trying to undermine the USA efforts. While trying to increase her dominance in the world independently, we are seeing Russia attempt and draw closer relations with EU, once again to reduce USA dominance and form a projected Russia-European Empire alliance in the future. Due to Cold-War psychology most European populace are not so warm on this, but some are gradually accepting this scenario, even on state level with increase in coorperation between them. While some European countries are distant from such a coming together, others including EU and non-EU countries are welcoming a European-Russian block that will be ultimately against USA, with open arms like Greece, Serbia and Armenia.

The “South Stream Pipeline” bypassing USA allies Turkiye and Ukraine, and delivering Russian gas and oil to Europe, like user eliaslar mentioned in his above post is part of the projects of our days for this planned Russian-European Empire alliance of future. Another simple example can be seen in the procurement of military products, or the change of such products. Previously reliant on USA defence industry we are seeing Greece gradually moving towards completely fitting out her armed forces with now European products and perhaps in time with Russian products, drifting away from USA reliance. Another simple example to this alliance can be seen in the avatar DefenceTalk forum user named “Kosovo=Serbia” uses, with Serbian and Greek flags hand to hand in front of the Russian flag that makes the background.

These are all just simple examples of reflection of the transition EU is going through, towards the creation of a European Empire, with some/parts of it gradually forming an alliance with Russia (and Armenia been part of this gathering), perhaps in time resulting into a Russian (including Armenia)-European Empire block against USA in many conflicting interests.

I highly suspect that future decades will bring a multi-polar world with USA, European Empire-Russia and China contending for partial-whole world domination with rivalries in interest, and the conflicting matter that will cause major frictions between these three polarities will likely be energy resources.

Like I highlighted in the above linked “Balance of Power” thread, the origins and transition paths of the majority of world energy resources are located in and around the vicinity of Anatolia and Turkistan, populated by Turkish peoples, namely by such countries as Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizistan, Kazakistan and Turkmenistan.

The Turkish people living in these countries are gradually realizing the geostrategical importance of their homelands and are steadily forming a unison between them, just recently announcing the Turkish Union Parlimant, composed off all these mentioned independent countries, with selected ministers from each country representing their individual countries, to gradually create a singular body in politics, economy, education, international affairs and defence much like what EU was/is.

And it is on this point that the coming rivalry which will be part of the Complex-Cold-War between USA, European Empire and China will be differentiated by. All the Turkish countries have close political and military ties with USA, with Turkiye been one of the founding members of Nato back in the 50s.

However I think it is an intricate path that awaits us all, with the ending of Classic-Cold-War, the tactical gains of USA over Russia caused a euphoria in the American populace and thus reflecting in her domestic politics. With the engineered inhumane tradegies we witnessed on 9/11 and also in other USA allies namely UK, Turkiye and Spain (another EU country with different views to Europe against the Franco-German European Empire plans), the American populace was as I personally see “steered” into a mindframe serving the New World Order patrons, resulting into a more agressive USA foreign military ventures further sabotaging her rightfull global dominance and image.

I personally believe and have proven to my self that instead of planning and taking steps to further the USA global power upper and her peoples prosperous lives, the NWO via the neo-con governance has and is drifting USA away from its ability to make use of her advantages that she has and could have. Neo-con NWO is displacing USA’s global-dominance out of context, and into the hands of the patrons that are and plan to make organization/personal gains, damaging the USA as whole and her future power capabilities.

The populace of USA need to realize the coming rivalry/threat of the European Empire-Russia and China, and apply her force more delicately and intricately in the world, further developing the alliance with the upcoming Turkish Union, not been kept busy “artificial enemies” like the engineered “islamoterrorizm” and not fall for the NWO ambitions no matter how patriotic and “pro-American” they may seem at face value.

Like I said at the start, “black” sometimes can be made to look “white” and vice-versa.

Without wanting to sound arrogant, as I have experienced/witnessed/suffered/lived in the 12 000 years of documented Turkish history, that with sureness and ease visiual/cognitive deceptions are easy to create and hard to distinguish and solve, but it is the responsibility of all of us humans to do so, because many times in history countries have warred, humanity have suffered and empires have come to an end because of such deceptions.

If you managed to read to here, thank you, if I bored you, I’m sorry, if I managed to open a window in your thinking, I'm glad, that was the aim.

Now, did somebody ask “will Russia invade Azerbaijan, and what will its consequences be?”.

For a better world.

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

For those who have not read this thread from the beginning i suggest that you do to get the bigger picture. For those who have read this from the beginning will recall eliaslars comment in post #22:

“Maybe your political and historical links are inacurate or have other goals than to inform people in the right way.”

Referring to my statements and the various links and proofs I had put forward regarding the Tatar Turks and other Turkish tribes’ situation in Russia and also Greece.

Well we have a new occurance that have happened on the 27th of March 2008. As I had said that since the creation of the Greek state, the ethnic Turks a part of and under Greek rule were not allowed their ethnic recognition, continually denied their rights to self expression and prosecuted by the Greek governement for using the name “Turk” on an individual and organizational basis (amoung other violations of human rights), which are detailed in the various links in my previous posts here.

Anyway on 27 march 2008 the European Court of Human Rights has heard one of the complaints of the Turkish community in Greece and has found and prosecuted Greece guilty of human rights violations against her Turkish minority which she rejected to recognize.
The details of this matter can be found at:

http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=34144/05&sessionid=6552169&skin=hudoc-pr-fr

Another proof on top of the many proofs I provided in my previous links to show that I’m not providing “inacurate links or have other goals than to inform people in the right way” like eliaslar had suggested in his post # 22.

Anyway, considering the Turkish minority in Greece are slowly freeing themselves of the Greek state persecution and human right violations, maybe we will see the ethnic Macedonians in Greece gain their rights and recognition in time too.

According to the organization Human Rights Watch the ethnic Macedonians in Greece are no better off than the ethnic Turks there, not been recognized and persecuted since the creation of Greek state. The Greek state stance against its Macedonian minority is continued on the international arena with their attitude towards the Republic of Macedonia:

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=greece&document_limit=20,20
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece945.pdf

Now one might ask how all this ties with the threads topic, simple;

1) it was brought up by other commenters who did not recognize Tatar Turks (amoung other Turkish tribes).

2) and more importantly because all these facts go hand in hand with whether Russia can invade Azerbaijan or not, as this is highly dependent on the power-balance games in the caucasus and the balkans including the minorities and the development of Turkish-USA-UK alliance rivalled by the Russian-Greek-Serb-Armenia alliance that we have seen in history and will see more of in the coming future.

Anyway, I highy recommend those interested with the power balances of caucasus (and the balkans) and future Russian and world power games/balances to thoroughly read this thread (and accompaniying links) from the beginning.

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

Everything you write my friend s3kiz is very interesting even very provocative. I don't have the intention to start another war here, but some things must be put in order. I don't want to blame you but you may don't know some things, of course a man cannot know everything, personally i always try to learn new things and open my spiritual horizons and you help me in this direction.
The links i will refere to will be mostly from the wikipedia because i think it's a really reliable source from all sides.

About the muslim minority in Thrace, indeed there is such a minority which is comprised by muslims of various ethnic groups and which numbers about 97,604 people or 0.95% of the total population.
If someone makes a little search he will find that there were muslim members of the Greek parliament in the recent years, that means that this "minority" had legal rights and many more rights also there are 235 minority primary schools and two Islamic theological seminaries also 0.5% of places in Greek higher education institutions are reserved for members of the minority, so it isn't so much depressed, unless depression for you means that the Greek Prime Minister isn't muslim :)
Maybe this will help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_minority_of_Greece

Also with a little google search about Human Rights in Turkey and in Greece, someone will see the differences and the violations, i wouldn't like to refere to the Kurdish minority in Turkey and the genocides of Armenians and Greeks in Turkey, such info can easily be found in google.
http://www.hrw.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_Genocide

About Human Rights and how Turkey behaved to the Greek minority in Istanbul maybe i should refere to the Istanbul Pogrom in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

I think that some days ago, Turkish police attacked Kurdish people who were celebrating the Newroz, 2 people were killed in this attack. Very interesting i didn't know that people in Turkey don't have the right to celebrate their customs and religions. Or shall i refere to the attack with 3 dead in a christian publishing house?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7310503.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Bible-Attack.php

At least in Greece we have the right to speak freely and not fear with our lives, maybe i have to remind you the writter Hrant Dink who was murdered outside his office.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/18/turkey17817.htm
Or shall i refere to Orhan Pamuk, who left Turkey because he spoke about the Armenian genocide?

Maybe it's the political system between our countries that don't let us cooperate and make something really great for this part of the world, Greece has a stable Democracy after the WW2 with a black stain of the junta (1967-1974) and in Turkey the army has intervened a bit more even in most recent years, very democratic right?
Also as i can read in articles the Governing party in Turkey is to be banned and the Prime minister to lose his political rights.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2462367,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7298291.stm

Even youtube is banned twice in Turkey
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1483840.ece
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15282

About the macedonian minority as you mention it, of course there is no macedonian minority in Greece, unless you mention the Macedonians who are named after the name of the Northern Greece Periphery. But they are Greeks and of course they speak the Greek language as also Alexander the Great spoke and the ancient Macedonians before him spoke. A little walk in the Vergina museum or in every single archaelogical site in Macedonia and generally in Northern Greece will help you understand many things.
Maybe i should also remind you that in Ancient Greece in the Olympic games, there could take part only Greek people. It's very interesting that the Ancient Macedonians took part in those games and also King Philip II who happened to be the father of Alexander the Great won 3 times in the Olympic games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians
http://www.antibaro.gr/national/marths_olumpiakoi.php
Here also is a litte list of inscriptions from Ancient Macedonia which happens to be in Greek.
http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/English/PageData/list_of_inscriptions.htm

Maybe the future will show all of us who is right and who is wrong because historical evidence hasn't shown it to all of us yet or some of us don't want to understand it yet.

I am sorry for being so much off topic and i am more even sorry if i am provocative or insulting for someone.

I trully would like this to end here and this topic go back in it's normal route. There is no point in arguing about who is better or who is right, i hope you agree with that.

[s3kiz]

Dear eliaslar:

1)You talk about a “pontian-Greek” genocide by Turks, but when you read objectively the link (wiki) you give as evidence, you find out that it was a population exchange between Greece and Turkiye, you deported majority of Turks from Greece, and we did the same with Greeks in Turkiye. If that’s genocide you are equally responsible for it. So easy to raise a finger and point at someone "guilty" without looking into the mirror.

“In 1923, a population exchange between Greece and Turkey resulted in a near-complete elimination of the Greek ethnic presence in Anatolia and a similar elimination of the Turkish ethnic presence in much of Greece.”
“The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey is the first large scale population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion in the 20th century. It involved some two million people, most forcibly made refugees and de jure denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia, in a treaty promoted and overseen by the international community as part of the Treaty of Lausanne. The document about the population exchange was signed at Lausanne, Switzerland in 1923, between the governments of Greece and Turkey. The exchange took place between Turkish citizens of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek citizens of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

2) You talk about the tradgic murders of Turkish-Armenian journalist Mr. Hrant Dink and the 3 Christian missionaries like its an everyday event. Many in the “west” dont know that Mr. Hrant Dink was a strong advocate of Turkiye-Armenia peace, always calling upon both countries to build a friendlier relations, this was something the Armenian diaspora (hanchacks and dashnacks) did not like very much, the Armenian diaspora uses and is fuelled by hate and anything and everything anti-Turkish which is a lucrative economy for them also, so the ideas put forward by Mr. Hrant Dink werent welcomed by them.

Sure a Turk (-citizen) pulled the trigger, but Armenian secret services are behind his murder, the 17 year old kid that was caught on tape and charged is named O. Samast, the word making up his surname does not have Turkish language rules to it, it is non Turkish word, i suspect that its an abbreviation of Samast-ian “-ian” is the equilavent of John-son (english), Ahmet-oglu (turkish) etc. He was just used.

No one in Turkiye cheered the murder of Mr. Dink, everyone protested including patriots like me because we know it, including the 3 Christian missionary murders are work of foreign services, giving them a chance to do international propaganda “Turks kill Christians-Armenian” etc etc like you are doing now eliaslar. Would the murder of an ethnic minority in Turkiye serve me a Turkish patriot? no, will it serve Greece and Armenia? yes.
www.tallarmeniantale.com

3) It seems no matter how much evidence I bring forward you seem to follow your Greek state policy to ethnically cleanse the Turkish minority in your country even in 2008. Against all the evidence I provided, even the 27 march 2008 ruling of European Court of Human Rights pointing out Greek persucution and violation of human rights of its Turkish minority, by holding on to a wiki-link that has the title “Muslim minority in Greece” you come to assumptions that you have the right to deny the presence of Turkish minority in Greece, however if you cared to read the the same wiki article it talks of this “muslim minority” been Turkish and the Greek objections to recognize them as that, you seem to miss that part, selectively showing what suits you:

“Another controversial issue was Article 19 of the Greek Citizenship Code, which allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of non-ethnic Greeks who left the country. According to official statistics 46,638 Muslims (most of them being of Turkish origin) from Thrace and the Dodecanese islands lost their citizenships from 1955 to 1998, until the law was non-retroactively abolished in 1998.

The final grievance is the Greek government's restrictions on the usage of the terms "Turk" and "Turkish" when describing the minority as a whole. A number of organizations, including the "Turkish Union of Xanthi", have been banned for using those terms in their title.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_minority_of_Greece

Greek human rights abuses over its minorities:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-fr

4) You talk about the hard times of democracy in Turkiye yet interpret the military juntas of Greece between 1967-197 as “normal”, just “a black stain” nothing more, dramatizing Turkish un-democratic past events and playing down Greek un-democratic past events.

The Greek military junta of 1967-1974 is more than “a black stain”. It resulted in the Greek invasion of Cyprus island, overthrowing the Cyprus Government co-founded by Turkish and Greek Cypriots there, the Greek junta ethnically cleansed the islands Turks into %3 percent which they used to live in 30% of the island and attempted genocide on the Turks which was one of the reasons why Turkiye interviened as one of the three guarantoor-state of this island states soveregnty when the international community did nothing. All because of the “stable democracy” in Greece that created juntas, invasions of soverign countries and ethnic cleansing of Turks. “A black stain” indeed.
http://www.ataa.org/reference/trnc/genocide_trnc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967-1974

5) You said that :
“I think that some days ago, Turkish police attacked Kurdish people who were celebrating the Newroz, 2 people were killed in this attack. Very interesting i didn't know that people in Turkey don't have the right to celebrate their customs and religions.”
Yet you forget to realize that Nevruz is actually a celebration of spring by all Turkish people from mongolia to the balkans for 5000 years, persians and kurds celebrate it as well. Its not like “ people dont have the right to celebrate their customs and religions” like you put it, the Nevruz celebration are been used by the internationally recognized seperatist marxist terror organization PKK, whos head was caught by American and Turkish secret agents in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi with a Greek-Cypriot passport on him.

PKK has a handfull of support locally, specifically buying few children and women in protests like this where they chant pro-terror organization slogans, with civilian dressed PKK members vandalising cars/shops and aim for a spectacle. Their aim isnt celebration, but a programmed propaganda and tactics to get a civilian collision. They are trying to get other people who had enough of them including Kurds to attack them so they can start a riot. Yet you cant see that on your side of the Aegean because Turkiye in turmoil is a Greek state/cultural policy.

Instead of trying to make smart claims like “i didn't know that people in Turkey don't have the right to celebrate their customs and religions.” You should search on how your state supports and fosters international terrorist that operate against your Nato ally, causing the deaths of 30 000 babies, children, women, doctors, teachers, civil servants and all. How the leader of PKK was caught by American and Turkish secret service personel in Greek Embassy in Nairobi with a Cypriot Greek passport on him, while he was deemed an international terrorist by UN. How the Greek army officers were in Syria and North of Iraq training PKK terrorist to blow up shopping centers, schools, tourist resorts in Turkiye killing anyone and everyone, whatever age and ethnicity, a considerable number of people killed by PKK are of Kurdish ethnicity.

While we have this going on in Turkiye, people in Greece are been put in prison for calling themselves Turk or opening a civil organization with the name Turk in it.

Interesting isnt it, on one side (Turkiye) we have a country against which you (Greece) support a terror organization, have it try to create civil unrest and call any reasonable effort been made by that country to bring law and order as undemocratic, and on the other hand we have (Greece) that puts people in prisons for calling themselves Turks.

Before you go ahead and start making propaganda that “Turkiye bans Nevruz” etc etc, inform your self of what it is before you try to use it for your political ambitions against Turks.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=221680
http://www.discoverturkey.com/english/kultursanat/h-nevruz-ortaasya.html
http://www.nevruzdc.com/nevruz.html
http://www.nevruz.gen.tr/nevruz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norouz
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/on-sayfa/nevruz.htm

6) Oppression of Macedonians:
Your obviously strıng denial claims is continued with these your words:
“About the macedonian minority as you mention it, of course there is no macedonian minority in Greece”

Wrong!

Greeks call the Macedonians under Greek rule as the “Grekomani” that’s is “pretending to be Greek, not Greek”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grkomani

“It should be noted that the Greek claims are a new political development. Just a few years ago the Greeks preferred not to use the name Macedonia at all. The Macedonian news magazine (Skopje, February 15, 1992, pp. 20-2 1) claims that "there were periods in Greece when use of the name 'Macedonia' was avoided with administrative measures.

After the Balkan wars (191213) the area of Macedonia under Greek rule was called ... the 'New territory' while the Ministry in Salonika was called the Ministry of Northern Greece. Whence such zeal to pre-empt the names 'Macedonia' and 'Macedonian' today when so recently they avoided them as the devil avoids church?"

“The name Macedonia was not used until the second century B.C., and it was applied to the country by the Macedonian king, not by a Greek. The term "Macedon' and the expression "land of the Macedons" were used long before that time, though there is debate about the origins of the word "Macedon."

Philologists are not certain of its derivation, though Greeks prefer to think that the word comes from Greek. In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek; thus the name the Macedonians used for their land must surely belong to them alone.”

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/MacedonianGreekConflict/shea.html
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/11.13.html
http://umdiaspora.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=9
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=gr...nt_limit=20,20
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece945.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=8_zeaeTOz6YC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=85&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3D%2522Who%2Bare%2Bthe%2BMacedonians%252 2%2BPoulton&sig=NobKDU7Unvc2AqCZLCn0vSM5VIo
http://www.florina.org/html/2000/2000_discrimination/2000_discrim_docs.html
http://www.florina.org/html/2006/macedonian_language_primer.html
http://www.florina.org/html/2007/2007_greek_irredentism.html
http://www.florina.org/html/2000/2000_minority_language/2000_minority_language.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mhrmc_2003.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mainpage.html

Macedonians trying to get their right back from the Greek government:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_resolution_2005.html

Greece's Continued Blacklisting of Ethnic Macedonians:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mhrmc_2003.html

“Exiles bring Greek guilt home” Scotland on Sunday:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/exiles_bring_greek_guilt_home.html?id=985302003

Macedonians Once Again Denied Democratic Rights by Greece:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_3_2003.html


As a Turk, no Turk will claim to be as pure as an angel, we are not, no nation, no human is, Greeks are not either. But your personal and national attitude towards history and politics seems like you hold yourselves above everyone else.

It would be a better world if the Greek attitude was to get off the hig-pedestal they see themselves on and see that they too have just as many “dirty sheets” as anyone else, especially just as much as the people they see as the enemy and build a national sense of beign on the hatred they breed against them.

For nearly a century in all around the world we had Greek migrants, getting educated, making money, improving themselves while assimilating into the local countries they live in, been active in the media and politics. I dont have the exact numbers but 11 million population of Greeks within Greece is less than the total Greek migrants outside Greece, if I remeber correctly Australian city Melbourne is home to more Greeks then Greek capital Athens is.

This diaspora of Greece has allowed them to explain the shared events of old and near regarding Turks, Macedonians subjectively, a one way road, Greek road, only presenting their view of history and events generation after generation, they managed to create generations of Greeks that get an “alergy” when they hear the words “Turk” or “Macedon” and also managed to create a scewed perception amoung westerners about Turks and Macedons. This was all because of the uncomparable largeness of Greek migrants in foreign countries compared to Turkish or Macedonian migrants.

Both Turkish and Macedonian migrants have started to occur but only recently in the last 30 years, been between 20-60 years behind Greek migration, who already hold more influential status then Turks and Macedonians combined, and multiple folded, in USA, Australia etc.

All this has resulted in a deep rooted psyche where everything and anything viewed/presented by Greek side is dominant, been the hero, at the same time as been the sufferers, completely innocent and angelic. But the reality couldnt be further from the truth. Its not going to happen, but with time the Greeks and those who got used to listening just their stories will come to realize that there is another version to the stories.

And perhaps one day, eliaslar and likeminded people and the Greek government will come to realize that there is an ethnic Turkish and Macedonian minority in Greece they until that point had rather not see, talk about, or think about, but only oppress and ethnically try to cleance them of their identity.

You said:
"I trully would like this to end here and this topic go back in it's normal route. There is no point in arguing about who is better or who is right, i hope you agree with that."
Yes so do I, but then why do you continue bringing up false arguments, previously you stating there were "no (Tatar) Turks in Greece" which I proved you wrong in the previous posts with facts, which you didnt like resulting in you to post the above writing of your with lots of Greek national propaganda of 3rd rate stuff trying to literally do "who is better", which you are requesting we dont do.

Thats not what I did, I presented facts about questions/false claims that came up by Chrom, you got it all wrong, and jumped in and you seem to be the only contender in the "who is better" race.

And lastly:
I don't have the intention to start another war here, but some things must be put in order. I don't want to blame you but you may don't know some things, of course a man cannot know everything.
-Whos "order"? or you mean by what you "like"? That I can understand, but can not accept, I'm all for reason & justice, not "putting in order", according to who? Not a good approach.

-And I never claimed to "know everything" and never will, but when I state something I make sure im certain of it. You try to do that too.
That way the thing you try "put in order" will be trutfull, just and good for world peace.

Not just pleasuring the "Greek sides' " ego & national politics.

Hoping you will see that too, we hope, for a better world.

Cheers.

[Atilla [TR]]

Also with a little google search about Human Rights in Turkey and in Greece, someone will see the differences and the violations, i wouldn't like to refere to the Kurdish minority in Turkey and the genocides of Armenians and Greeks in Turkey, such info can easily be found in google.
http://www.hrw.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_Genocide


My family is from this "Pontic" region of Turkey, and I live there right now. I know what happened here better then you who is 1000 km away. Let me tell you this, my family is part Georgian yet all the Georgians in Turkey (all most all live in the "pontic" region) are more nationalistic then a lot of the Turks, Georgians and Turks get a long really well as shown by my family as an example we are a mix why would enemies become one family? Laz (which are distant cousins of Georgians) live in this "pontic" region they are also very nationalistic and Turks and Laz get along really well. You think that if the Greeks and Armenians where nationalistic would they be making those fake allegations? If Turks where doing this ethnic cleansing wouldn't they have killed the Georgian minority in the "pontic" region? My great grandfather went looking for gold around the region I lived they did not find any gold and a only a few bones that where 1 to 3000 years old there are no mass grave sites here like are shown on the pictures of the allegations. Everyone is listening to the Greeks and the Armenians why does not anyone listen to the us Turks? Why is it that the Georgians who are Orthodox Christian have better relations with us Turks (Muslims) then there orthodox neighbors Armenia & Russia? Has anyone cared to think about this?

[Atilla [TR]]

Everything you write my friend s3kiz is very interesting even very provocative. I don't have the intention to start another war here, but some things must be put in order. I don't want to blame you but you may don't know some things, of course a man cannot know everything, personally i always try to learn new things and open my spiritual horizons and you help me in this direction.
The links i will refere to will be mostly from the wikipedia because i think it's a really reliable source from all sides.

About the muslim minority in Thrace, indeed there is such a minority which is comprised by muslims of various ethnic groups and which numbers about 97,604 people or 0.95% of the total population.
If someone makes a little search he will find that there were muslim members of the Greek parliament in the recent years, that means that this "minority" had legal rights and many more rights also there are 235 minority primary schools and two Islamic theological seminaries also 0.5% of places in Greek higher education institutions are reserved for members of the minority, so it isn't so much depressed, unless depression for you means that the Greek Prime Minister isn't muslim :)
Maybe this will help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_minority_of_Greece

Also with a little google search about Human Rights in Turkey and in Greece, someone will see the differences and the violations, i wouldn't like to refere to the Kurdish minority in Turkey and the genocides of Armenians and Greeks in Turkey, such info can easily be found in google.
http://www.hrw.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_Genocide

About Human Rights and how Turkey behaved to the Greek minority in Istanbul maybe i should refere to the Istanbul Pogrom in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

I think that some days ago, Turkish police attacked Kurdish people who were celebrating the Newroz, 2 people were killed in this attack. Very interesting i didn't know that people in Turkey don't have the right to celebrate their customs and religions. Or shall i refere to the attack with 3 dead in a christian publishing house?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7310503.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Bible-Attack.php

At least in Greece we have the right to speak freely and not fear with our lives, maybe i have to remind you the writter Hrant Dink who was murdered outside his office.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/18/turkey17817.htm
Or shall i refere to Orhan Pamuk, who left Turkey because he spoke about the Armenian genocide?

Maybe it's the political system between our countries that don't let us cooperate and make something really great for this part of the world, Greece has a stable Democracy after the WW2 with a black stain of the junta (1967-1974) and in Turkey the army has intervened a bit more even in most recent years, very democratic right?
Also as i can read in articles the Governing party in Turkey is to be banned and the Prime minister to lose his political rights.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2462367,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7298291.stm

Even youtube is banned twice in Turkey
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1483840.ece
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15282

About the macedonian minority as you mention it, of course there is no macedonian minority in Greece, unless you mention the Macedonians who are named after the name of the Northern Greece Periphery. But they are Greeks and of course they speak the Greek language as also Alexander the Great spoke and the ancient Macedonians before him spoke. A little walk in the Vergina museum or in every single archaelogical site in Macedonia and generally in Northern Greece will help you understand many things.
Maybe i should also remind you that in Ancient Greece in the Olympic games, there could take part only Greek people. It's very interesting that the Ancient Macedonians took part in those games and also King Philip II who happened to be the father of Alexander the Great won 3 times in the Olympic games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians
http://www.antibaro.gr/national/marths_olumpiakoi.php
Here also is a litte list of inscriptions from Ancient Macedonia which happens to be in Greek.
http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/English/PageData/list_of_inscriptions.htm

Maybe the future will show all of us who is right and who is wrong because historical evidence hasn't shown it to all of us yet or some of us don't want to understand it yet.

I am sorry for being so much off topic and i am more even sorry if i am provocative or insulting for someone.

I trully would like this to end here and this topic go back in it's normal route. There is no point in arguing about who is better or who is right, i hope you agree with that.

Let me tell you something. I talked to an Azeri man who told me this. "In Turkiye there are armenians and they have there churches and they go there when ever they feel like it. But in Armenia there are muslims and there are no Mosques and Azeri`s do not dare go there because they are scared."

[s3kiz]

Dear eliaslar:

1)You talk about a “pontian-Greek” genocide by Turks, but when you read objectively the link (wiki) you give as evidence, you find out that it was a population exchange between Greece and Turkiye, you deported majority of Turks from Greece, and we did the same with Greeks in Turkiye. If that’s genocide you are equally responsible for it. So easy to raise a finger and point at someone "guilty" without looking into the mirror.

“In 1923, a population exchange between Greece and Turkey resulted in a near-complete elimination of the Greek ethnic presence in Anatolia and a similar elimination of the Turkish ethnic presence in much of Greece.”
“The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey is the first large scale population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion in the 20th century. It involved some two million people, most forcibly made refugees and de jure denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia, in a treaty promoted and overseen by the international community as part of the Treaty of Lausanne. The document about the population exchange was signed at Lausanne, Switzerland in 1923, between the governments of Greece and Turkey. The exchange took place between Turkish citizens of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek citizens of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

2) You talk about the tradgic murders of Turkish-Armenian journalist Mr. Hrant Dink and the 3 Christian missionaries like its an everyday event. Many in the “west” dont know that Mr. Hrant Dink was a strong advocate of Turkiye-Armenia peace, always calling upon both countries to build a friendlier relations, this was something the Armenian diaspora (hanchacks and dashnacks) did not like very much, the Armenian diaspora uses and is fuelled by hate and anything and everything anti-Turkish which is a lucrative economy for them also, so the ideas put forward by Mr. Hrant Dink werent welcomed by them.

Sure a Turk (-citizen) pulled the trigger, but Armenian secret services are behind his murder, the 17 year old kid that was caught on tape and charged is named O. Samast, the word making up his surname does not have Turkish language rules to it, it is non Turkish word, i suspect that its an abbreviation of Samast-ian “-ian” is the equilavent of John-son (english), Ahmet-oglu (turkish) etc. He was just used.

No one in Turkiye cheered the murder of Mr. Dink, everyone protested including patriots like me because we know it, including the 3 Christian missionary murders are work of foreign services, giving them a chance to do international propaganda “Turks kill Christians-Armenian” etc etc like you are doing now eliaslar. Would the murder of an ethnic minority in Turkiye serve me a Turkish patriot? no, will it serve Greece and Armenia? yes.
www.tallarmeniantale.com

3) It seems no matter how much evidence I bring forward you seem to follow your Greek state policy to ethnically cleanse the Turkish minority in your country even in 2008. Against all the evidence I provided, even the 27 march 2008 ruling of European Court of Human Rights pointing out Greek persucution and violation of human rights of its Turkish minority, by holding on to a wiki-link that has the title “Muslim minority in Greece” you come to assumptions that you have the right to deny the presence of Turkish minority in Greece, however if you cared to read the the same wiki article it talks of this “muslim minority” been Turkish and the Greek objections to recognize them as that, you seem to miss that part, selectively showing what suits you:

“Another controversial issue was Article 19 of the Greek Citizenship Code, which allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of non-ethnic Greeks who left the country. According to official statistics 46,638 Muslims (most of them being of Turkish origin) from Thrace and the Dodecanese islands lost their citizenships from 1955 to 1998, until the law was non-retroactively abolished in 1998.

The final grievance is the Greek government's restrictions on the usage of the terms "Turk" and "Turkish" when describing the minority as a whole. A number of organizations, including the "Turkish Union of Xanthi", have been banned for using those terms in their title.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_minority_of_Greece

Greek human rights abuses over its minorities:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-fr

4) You talk about the hard times of democracy in Turkiye yet interpret the military juntas of Greece between 1967-197 as “normal”, just “a black stain” nothing more, dramatizing Turkish un-democratic past events and playing down Greek un-democratic past events.

The Greek military junta of 1967-1974 is more than “a black stain”. It resulted in the Greek invasion of Cyprus island, overthrowing the Cyprus Government co-founded by Turkish and Greek Cypriots there, the Greek junta ethnically cleansed the islands Turks into %3 percent which they used to live in 30% of the island and attempted genocide on the Turks which was one of the reasons why Turkiye interviened as one of the three guarantoor-state of this island states soveregnty when the international community did nothing. All because of the “stable democracy” in Greece that created juntas, invasions of soverign countries and ethnic cleansing of Turks. “A black stain” indeed.
http://www.ataa.org/reference/trnc/genocide_trnc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967-1974

5) You said that :
“I think that some days ago, Turkish police attacked Kurdish people who were celebrating the Newroz, 2 people were killed in this attack. Very interesting i didn't know that people in Turkey don't have the right to celebrate their customs and religions.”
Yet you forget to realize that Nevruz is actually a celebration of spring by all Turkish people from mongolia to the balkans for 5000 years, persians and kurds celebrate it as well. Its not like “ people dont have the right to celebrate their customs and religions” like you put it, the Nevruz celebration are been used by the internationally recognized seperatist marxist terror organization PKK, whos head was caught by American and Turkish secret agents in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi with a Greek-Cypriot passport on him.

PKK has a handfull of support locally, specifically buying few children and women in protests like this where they chant pro-terror organization slogans, with civilian dressed PKK members vandalising cars/shops and aim for a spectacle. Their aim isnt celebration, but a programmed propaganda and tactics to get a civilian collision. They are trying to get other people who had enough of them including Kurds to attack them so they can start a riot. Yet you cant see that on your side of the Aegean because Turkiye in turmoil is a Greek state/cultural policy.

Instead of trying to make smart claims like “i didn't know that people in Turkey don't have the right to celebrate their customs and religions.” You should search on how your state supports and fosters international terrorist that operate against your Nato ally, causing the deaths of 30 000 babies, children, women, doctors, teachers, civil servants and all. How the leader of PKK was caught by American and Turkish secret service personel in Greek Embassy in Nairobi with a Cypriot Greek passport on him, while he was deemed an international terrorist by UN. How the Greek army officers were in Syria and North of Iraq training PKK terrorist to blow up shopping centers, schools, tourist resorts in Turkiye killing anyone and everyone, whatever age and ethnicity, a considerable number of people killed by PKK are of Kurdish ethnicity.

While we have this going on in Turkiye, people in Greece are been put in prison for calling themselves Turk or opening a civil organization with the name Turk in it.

Interesting isnt it, on one side (Turkiye) we have a country against which you (Greece) support a terror organization, have it try to create civil unrest and call any reasonable effort been made by that country to bring law and order as undemocratic, and on the other hand we have (Greece) that puts people in prisons for calling themselves Turks.

Before you go ahead and start making propaganda that “Turkiye bans Nevruz” etc etc, inform your self of what it is before you try to use it for your political ambitions against Turks.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=221680
http://www.discoverturkey.com/english/kultursanat/h-nevruz-ortaasya.html
http://www.nevruzdc.com/nevruz.html
http://www.nevruz.gen.tr/nevruz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norouz
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/on-sayfa/nevruz.htm

6) Oppression of Macedonians:
Your obviously strıng denial claims is continued with these your words:
“About the macedonian minority as you mention it, of course there is no macedonian minority in Greece”

Wrong!

Greeks call the Macedonians under Greek rule as the “Grekomani” that’s is “pretending to be Greek, not Greek”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grkomani

“It should be noted that the Greek claims are a new political development. Just a few years ago the Greeks preferred not to use the name Macedonia at all. The Macedonian news magazine (Skopje, February 15, 1992, pp. 20-2 1) claims that "there were periods in Greece when use of the name 'Macedonia' was avoided with administrative measures.

After the Balkan wars (191213) the area of Macedonia under Greek rule was called ... the 'New territory' while the Ministry in Salonika was called the Ministry of Northern Greece. Whence such zeal to pre-empt the names 'Macedonia' and 'Macedonian' today when so recently they avoided them as the devil avoids church?"

“The name Macedonia was not used until the second century B.C., and it was applied to the country by the Macedonian king, not by a Greek. The term "Macedon' and the expression "land of the Macedons" were used long before that time, though there is debate about the origins of the word "Macedon."

Philologists are not certain of its derivation, though Greeks prefer to think that the word comes from Greek. In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek; thus the name the Macedonians used for their land must surely belong to them alone.”

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/MacedonianGreekConflict/shea.html
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/11.13.html
http://umdiaspora.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=9
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=gr...nt_limit=20,20
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece945.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=8_zeaeTOz6YC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=85&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3D%2522Who%2Bare%2Bthe%2BMacedonians%252 2%2BPoulton&sig=NobKDU7Unvc2AqCZLCn0vSM5VIo
http://www.florina.org/html/2000/2000_discrimination/2000_discrim_docs.html
http://www.florina.org/html/2006/macedonian_language_primer.html
http://www.florina.org/html/2007/2007_greek_irredentism.html
http://www.florina.org/html/2000/2000_minority_language/2000_minority_language.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mhrmc_2003.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mainpage.html

Macedonians trying to get their right back from the Greek government:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_resolution_2005.html

Greece's Continued Blacklisting of Ethnic Macedonians:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mhrmc_2003.html

“Exiles bring Greek guilt home” Scotland on Sunday:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/exiles_bring_greek_guilt_home.html?id=985302003

Macedonians Once Again Denied Democratic Rights by Greece:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_3_2003.html


As a Turk, no Turk will claim to be as pure as an angel, we are not, no nation, no human is, Greeks are not either. But your personal and national attitude towards history and politics seems like you hold yourselves above everyone else.

It would be a better world if the Greek attitude was to get off the hig-pedestal they see themselves on and see that they too have just as many “dirty sheets” as anyone else, especially just as much as the people they see as the enemy and build a national sense of beign on the hatred they breed against them.

For nearly a century in all around the world we had Greek migrants, getting educated, making money, improving themselves while assimilating into the local countries they live in, been active in the media and politics. I dont have the exact numbers but 11 million population of Greeks within Greece is less than the total Greek migrants outside Greece, if I remeber correctly Australian city Melbourne is home to more Greeks then Greek capital Athens is.

This diaspora of Greece has allowed them to explain the shared events of old and near regarding Turks, Macedonians subjectively, a one way road, Greek road, only presenting their view of history and events generation after generation, they managed to create generations of Greeks that get an “alergy” when they hear the words “Turk” or “Macedon” and also managed to create a scewed perception amoung westerners about Turks and Macedons. This was all because of the uncomparable largeness of Greek migrants in foreign countries compared to Turkish or Macedonian migrants.

Both Turkish and Macedonian migrants have started to occur but only recently in the last 30 years, been between 20-60 years behind Greek migration, who already hold more influential status then Turks and Macedonians combined, and multiple folded, in USA, Australia etc.

All this has resulted in a deep rooted psyche where everything and anything viewed/presented by Greek side is dominant, been the hero, at the same time as been the sufferers, completely innocent and angelic. But the reality couldnt be further from the truth. Its not going to happen, but with time the Greeks and those who got used to listening just their stories will come to realize that there is another version to the stories.

And perhaps one day, eliaslar and likeminded people and the Greek government will come to realize that there is an ethnic Turkish and Macedonian minority in Greece they until that point had rather not see, talk about, or think about, but only oppress and ethnically try to cleance them of their identity.

You said:
"I trully would like this to end here and this topic go back in it's normal route. There is no point in arguing about who is better or who is right, i hope you agree with that."
Yes so do I, but then why do you continue bringing up false arguments, previously you stating there were "no (Tatar) Turks in Greece" which I proved you wrong in the previous posts with facts, which you didnt like resulting in you to post the above writing of your with lots of Greek national propaganda of 3rd rate stuff trying to literally do "who is better", which you are requesting we dont do.

Thats not what I did, I presented facts about questions/false claims that came up by Chrom, you got it all wrong, and jumped in and you seem to be the only contender in the "who is better" race.

And lastly:
Quote: Originally Posted by eliaslar:
"I don't have the intention to start another war here, but some things must be put in order. I don't want to blame you but you may don't know some things, of course a man cannot know everything."

-Whos "order"? or you mean by what you "like"? That I can understand, but can not accept, I'm all for reason & justice, not "putting in order", according to who? Not a good approach.

-And I never claimed to "know everything" and never will, but when I state something I make sure im certain of it. You try to do that too.
That way the thing you try "put in order" will be trutfull, just and good for world peace.

Not just pleasuring the "Greek sides' " ego & national politics.

Hoping you will see that too, we hope, for a better world.

Cheers.

Atilla stop posting whole lengths of quotes just to write a one liner "emotions" like you did before.

Emotions when discussing issues with people who have a conflicting view with you will not help, bring forward facts, proofs, like my above if you want to add to this discussion pls.

Cheers.

[Atilla [TR]]

S3kiz read what i said carefully. Now can we go back to on the subject also remember people for Russia to launch an attack on Azerbaijan also means that Russia would have to pull troops from Checnyia which they cannot due or else the area will yet again unstabilized. You have to deal with the internal issues first. May I ask why was this thread started why would Russia attack Azerbaijan?

[s3kiz]

PART 1/4 OF MY LONG POST

;137952']S3kiz read what i said carefully. Now can we go back to on the subject also remember people for Russia to launch an attack on Azerbaijan also means that Russia would have to pull troops from Checnyia which they cannot due or else the area will yet again unstabilized. You have to deal with the internal issues first. May I ask why was this thread started why would Russia attack Azerbaijan?

Dear Atilla I have read your previous post and I understand you clearly, but you have to realize that neither sides to a conflict can over come their disagreements (whether it is a Turk-Greek one or of matters relating to other nations) with simple emotional claims you made there of an Azeri Turks statment, sure it is true, we know it like the “back of out hands” whats true and not, but when discussing your disagreements with others especially with those you are in disagreement with, merely mentioning emotional individual claims like that wont solve or get your contention too far.

This is because the opposing side can and does bring forward such subjective claims aswell, resulting into both sides to be emotionally burried in their perspectives, not solving the conflict at all, perhaps even escalating it.
Like the saying goes “TELL A LIE ENOUGH TIMES AND IT BECOMES THE TRUTH”, thats what has been going on with the many issues relating to the conflict between Turks and our neighbours Greeks, as one can see in the previous posts.

For example, many unknowing people of the world think and believe that Turks out of nowhere, with no reason, no justification, just out of pure agression and brutality invaded the island of Cyprus. We all know thats the public opinion that has been created fort he last 3 decades since Turkish intervention on the island. This is due to the many reasons I gave in the previous post, higlighting the propaganda machine the Greek state and Greek diaspora has done globally, similarly to what they are doing about the Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece that they have tried to ethnically cleanse even to our times in 2008, this effort to subdue minorities in Greece is continued on international level with the attitude towards Republic of Macedonia.

So merely writing about an Azeri Turks comments about their peoples situation under Armenian oppression, I think it would be beter to provide facts, links and proofs to support it, which is what I said before.
Going back on the “tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth” mentality, Turks are viewed as the agressors and invaders when the issue of Cyprus comes up right, but you cant overcome this with just claims you have to prove facts. How many people reading this thread or following this forum do you think know indept about the causes, history and developments regarding any of the problems discussed in this thread?

How many do you think have the complete Picture of the Cyprus problem? Do you your self Atilla as an 18 year old man know the below facts? Without knowing, recognizing and been objective on the causes of a disput, solutions can not be reached, it will only escalate and add to the continuation and further complication of such problems :

[continued on part 2/4 of my long post]

[s3kiz]

PART 2/4 OF MY LONG POST

Cyprus Conflict and the Distorted Facts
(or A POST-MODERNIST (STRUCTURALIST) STUDY OF THE DOMINANT GREEK CYPRIOT DISCOURSES)

Cyprus Conflict is one of the problematic and long-lasting conflicts that has kept the international community busy for a long time. The conflict has been in the UN's agenda for 30 years. The UN peace keeping forces (UNFICYP) have been in Cyprus to obstruct violent confrontation of the two communities since 1964.

In this paper, we are going to analyze some texts - mainly Greek Cypriot, and try to account on the type of discursive practices used by the Greek Cypriot governments both in the 1960's and in the 1990's.

We shall use discursive practices in a hermenutical approach to account on the change of the Greek Cypriot government's 1960's main discourse after 1974 (Greek coup d'Žat and the successive Turkish military intervention/invasion) which created a distorted reality and how the current discourse influences the negotiation process, between the two communities, under the auspices of the UN.

Before we analyze the texts it is useful to give a brief history of what happened in Cyprus between the periods 1960 and 1974 from the perspectives of two sides, so that the events and concepts in the texts will be clear to the reader.

In 1960 the island was granted its independence by the British. With the Treaties of Zurich, London and Nicosia, an independent, bi-communal state was established in 1960. The state, i.e., the Republic of Cyprus, was comprised of the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot communities which had the status of co-founders and equal partners, having 20% and 80% of the population, respectively. A constitution which safeguards the rights of the people of both communities was established. According to the constitution, the President was to be a Greek Cypriot and the Vice-President a Turkish Cypriot; the Turks was to get 30% of the seats in the parliament while the Greek Cypriots 70%; the President and the Vice-President was to have veto power separately on all governmental issues; each community was to have the right to decide by itself on issues concerning only that community; issues concerning both sides were to require separate majority of each community in the parliament.

It was a compromise solution by both sides among the other alternatives: two separate states, a condominium, division of the island between Greece and Turkey, or continued British rule.

The life of this partnership (i.e., the Republic of Cyprus), however, lasted only three years. It is very difficult to find the real story of what really happened after the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus. Each side has its own version of the history and the events in these two separate histories have internal coherence that make them logical within each version.

In 1963 the Greek Cypriot side wanted to make 13 amendments to the Constitution of 1960 which, according to the Turkish Cypriots, would deprive the Turkish Cypriots of the status of equal partner of the Republic. Even eight of them were so fundamental that they were included in the unalterable Basic Articles of the Constitution, such as that of [Turkish Cypriots'] having veto power over governmental decisions, of having their own municipalities, etc. The main objective of the amendments, according to the Turkish Cypriots was to put the Turkish Cypriots into the status of minority (from the status of co-founder and politically equal partner of the Republic) - i.e., to change the bi-communal republic into a unitary state in which the voting power [of the Greek Cypriots] would be paramount.*1.

However, according to the Greek Cypriots, the 1960 Constitution and the international treaties (London, Zurich and Nicosia) were imposed by the external powers (Britain, Greece and Turkey) and that they were signed by the Greek Cypriot leadership under force of the Guarantor powers.

The Turkish Cypriot leadership rejected the amendments. In one instance the Turkish Cypriots took the issue of "establishing separate municipalities" (Article 173) to the Supreme Constitutional Court. On 25th April 1963 the Court ruled that Article 173 had not been complied with, but [President] Archbishop Makarios declared that he would ignore it, and did ignore it (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63)*2. On 21st May the neutral President of the Court who was a West German citizen resigned. At that time, according to the Turkish Cypriots, Makarios dismissed the Turkish Cypriot cabinet ministers, members of the House of Representatives and all the Turkish Cypriot civil servants. He also discharged all the Turkish Cypriot diplomats at the United Nations and in foreign capitals3.

The story is again different from the Greek Cypriot perspective. They believe that the Turkish Cypriot cabinet ministers and the members of the House left their positions voluntarily in order to protest the Greek Cypriot proposal of the thirteen amendments, and that the Turkish civil servants were forced by those ministers to leave their jobs in order to form a separate Turkish Cypriot administration.

From 1963 to 1974 the Turks were forced or, according to the Greek Cypriot claim, chose to migrate and form their homogeneous enclaves. Due to this migration the Turkish Cypriots left their land and homes which constituted 30% of the registered ownership of the island in 1960 and migrated to the Turkish Cypriot enclaves which constituted 3% of the island.

On July 15, 1974 a coup organized and sent from the then military regime in Greece to Cyprus to overthrow the (Greek Cypriot) President and to unite Cyprus with Greece (Enosis). On July 20, 1974 Turkey, under Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee (1960) sent troops to the island to drive away the coup d'Žat from Greece.

In the 1960's the Greek Cypriot leadership wanted to unite the island with Greece (i.e., Enosis). For them, that was perfectly legal and justifiable since they formed 80% of the population. So, basically their struggle was not to establish a bi-communal Republic (of Cyprus) but to gain the right of self determination so that they can unite with their motherland (Greece).

However, the earlier mentioned Agreements gave the two communities the right of self governemnt separately and instead, gave both communities in the island the right of "sovereignty" to share4. The below texts clearly shows the type of discourse which was dominant among the Greek Cypriot leadership in the 1960's:

ENOSIS (union with Greece)discourse before 1974 :
"Unless this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..is expelled, the duties of the Eoka *5 can never be considered terminated." (President Makarios' Statement, Circa 1960's) (Negotiating for Survival. p. 7).
"The aim of the Cyprus struggle was not establishment of a republic. These Agreements only laid the foundations." (President Makarios' Statement, March 13, 1963).

"Union of Cyprus with Greece is an aspiration always cherished within the hearts of all Greek Cypriots. It is impossible to put an end to this aspiration by establishing a republic." (President Makarios' Statement, London TIMES, April 9, 1963).

"It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus to Greece." (President Makarios' Statement, Uusi Soumi of Stockholm, September 1963). "Freedom for us means only the integration of this souther outpost of Hellenism into the national entity..." (Tasos Papadopoulos' Statement, October 23, 1967).

"The struggle of Cyprus is the struggle of all Hellenism. Cyprus, where the Greek virtue is being tested, is today the place where the Greek history and Greek struggle are continuing..." (Foreign Minister Spyros Kyprianou's Statement, March 24, 1971).

As can be seen from the above texts, the island was claimed to be a Greek island by the largest of the two "partners". Since the 1963 constitutional crisis the Turks had been absent from the government and they had been living in their homogeneous enclaves. So the Greek Cypriot side was enjoying a de facto "unitary state" in terms of government machinery and territory. Also, the Turkish Cypriots were, then, the de facto "minority."
Clearly, there was "Enosis Discourse" which dominated the texts that were produced by the Greek Cypriot leadership.

However, when we look at the texts below which were also produced by the Greek Cypriot leadership - yet, this time in the 1990's, we should be able to distinguish a totally different discourse that dominates the texts:


INVASION AND INDEPENDENCE DISCOURSE AFTER 1974 :
"Independence came to the Cypriots after centuries of foreign rule and after a hard guerrilla war against the colonial power. Makarios, the leader of the anti-colonial struggle, and first President of the Republic of Cyprus, welcomed it as the herald of a new age for the people of Cyprus: According to the 1960 Cyprus constitution, which is still the constitution under which the Cyprus governemnt and house of representatives function and the courts dispense justice, the Turkish Cypriots were guaranteed a privileged position as a minority. They were guaranteed full cultural and religious autonomy and reinforced political representation..." (Cyprus After the Turkish Invasion, "They Make a Desert and They Call It Peace," 1991. p.37).

"For hundreds of years Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived in social harmony and economic interdependence in the villages and towns of Cyprus. This web of interdependence was only disturbed after protracted and violent attacks against it. Even after incidents, planned and instigated to prove that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could not live together, ordinary people again and again proved the opposite until they were torn apart by the Attila Operation*6 1974. [The Turkish Cypriots]' interdependence with the rest of the population of Cyprus is indicated by the fact that until 1974 they lived intermingled in towns and villages all over Cyprus. The mass of Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived and cooperated peacefully in an atmoshpere of religious and cultural tolerance." (Cyprus After the Turkish Invasion, "They Make a Desert and They Call It Peace," 1991. p. 26).

"The Cyprus problem primarily is a question of Turkey's attack on the Cyprus and invasion of part of its territory which was undoubtedly made possible by foreign powers and the coup which constituted a betrayal." (Letter from Greek Cypriot President Vassiliou to EDEK party leader Lyssarides, February 1988)

Here, we see that the "Enosis" discourse was replaced by the "Invasion" discourse. Makarios, who was giving clear and blunt "Enosis" messages and calling on Greek Cypriots to struggle for Enosis in the 1960's, is now shown as if he "welcomed [THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS] as the herald of a new age for the people of Cyprus" The Turkish Cypriots are portrayed as the lucky "minority" who enjoyed vast rights and privileges of living under the Republic of Cyprus until 1974, when the Turks from Turkey "invaded" the island.

The general picture one gets from the above texts is that there was "social harmony," "cultural and religious tolerance" and "interdependence" between the two communities, and that they were living together intermingled. So, the Turkish Cypriots are no longer the "this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..[should be] expelled" (1960's), but a happy "minority." There was also a little mention about the "coup d'Žat" that was sent by Greece to unite the island with Greece (Enosis) which caused the landing of the Turkish troops in Cyprus five days later (July 20, 1974). So, basically the Turkish "intervention" or "invasion" was shown to happen without any reason which also gives one the implication that it was an action of pure aggression and violence of an imperialist (expansionist) power.

The events which was portrayed above (1963-74) by the 1991 Greek Cypriot government are in great conflict with what Glafcos Clerides (present Greek Cypriot President) stated in his memoirs which were published in the early the 1990's:

CONTRADICTING DISCOURSES WITHIN GREEK CYPRIOT COMMUNITY :
"It was by the virtue of equality of powers vested in the Greek President and the Turkish Vice-President that the partnership of the two communities was created by the Zurich agreements." ("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [present President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.2, p. 382)
"The constitutional crisis of the year 1963 disrupted the constitutional order, the continuity, and the partnership status of the two communities, which was created by the the Zurich Agreements. Because of the disruption of constitutional order a peculiar situation was created by virtue of which the state authority, on the other hand, became under the absolute control of the Greeks, and though the government was recognized internationally, yet internally Turkish enclaved were created within the territory of the Republic which at first, an elementary organization for the purpose of governing the Turkish Cypriots was established, the main characteristic of which was the confusion of military and political powers and functions, and the prevailing of military power.

After the crisis of 1967 (Kophiniou Crisis) the above disruption of constitutional order became more clear and showed tendencies of permanency. Thus in December 1967, the elementary military-political organization of the Turks in the enclaves developed into a "temporary Administration" on the basis of a charter, and at the same time the political and military authorities were seperated.

In the years that followed a steady, stage by stage development is noted in the Turkish administration, with the seperation in its legislative, executive and judicial powers. An administrative organization is created, as well as police force and an army. The increase of the financial resources of the Turkish Cypriots through economic aid from Turkey permitted the functioning of their administration on a more permanent basis, a fact which they made clear, by renaming their "Temporary Turkish Cypriot Administration" to "Turkish Cypriot Administration.

Thus there exist today [END OF THE 1960'S] in Cyprus two poles of power on a seperate geographical basis i.e. the government of the Cyprus Republic, controlling the largest section of the territory of the state and internationally recognized, and the Turkish Cypriot administration, which controls a very limited area and is not internationally recognized, but has already taken almost all the characteristics of a small state." ("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [present President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3, pp. 236, 237).

The reality of what actually happened in the 1960's and 1970's in the above texts is in great conflict with the portrayal of the reality in the government's texts in the 1990's (presented before).
Clerides stated that "[A] lot of wrongs have been done to Turkish Cypriots" and that "the Greek Cypriot side has tried to do away with the agreements and to deprive the Turkish Cypriots from their rights," that "the Enosis road was followed". He also stated that the Turkish Cypriots were living in their homogeneous enclaves (3%) and that they were absent from the government of which they were once the equal co-founder *7. This argument is also in conflict with the reality pictured by the Greek Cypriot government in the 1990's: that the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots were living intermingly in harmony until Turkish "invasion."

The attempt of Greek Cypriot government to present the Turkish "military operation" similar to the "Invasion" of Kuwait by Iraq was also commented on by Clerides: "I am sorry that it is wishful thinking and a false dream to believe that we will be successful in such a thing. Such an evaluation is not realistic. Why? There is no Security Council resolution that recognizes that an invasion took place in Cyprus. The Security Council has not condemned Turkey as an occupationist so far. If we are lead to such a recourse, they will tell us at the Security Council that there was a (Greek) coup in Cyprus, the legal government was overthrown, the constitution was violated and Turkey (AS A GUARANTOR POWER) had the right of intervention. The things that count are arguments, not slogans."

[continued on part 3/4 of my long post]

[s3kiz]

[PART 3/4 OF MY LONG POST]


It is clear from all the above texts that there exists today an "Invasion" discourse in the Greek Cypriot government texts which portrays the "facts" of 1960's and 1970's very different from the government texts in the 1960's and early the 1970's which were mainly dominated by the "Enosis" discourse.

The "Invasion" discourse of the government is challenged by both some internal non-governmental (Greek Cypriot) texts, eg., Clerides' memoirs, and foreign texts, such as the dozens of UN Security Council Resolutions which agree on the need of UN peace keeping forces in Cyprus and Secretary General reports*7 since 1963.

The "Invasion" discourse puts the Turkish Cypriots into "minority" status and also makes it more difficult to reach a solution to the Cyprus Conflict, based on the UN Resolutions and Secretary General's "Office of Good Mission.7"
So, the question is "Why does the Greek Cypriot government pursue this discourse which portrays a distorted reality of the 1960's and 1970's, and makes the negotiation process harder?" There might be many different answers to that question drawn from many contemporary theories. However, this writer believes that the question can mostly be tackled with the "Realist Theory" - more specifically with the "Power Politics" - which many theorists and academicians believe to be already dead:

The Greek Cypriot government is still recognized as the legal government of the 1960 "Republic of Cyprus." With the 1983 Resolution 541, the Security Council "Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create an independent state in northern Cyprus.

... the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus." This shows that the Greek Cypriot side has a strong position on the table, i.e., being recognized by the UN as the legal government of the "Republic of Cyprus" and the other side (Turkish Cypriots) without any "governmental" title, or with an unrecognized state (i.e., "TRNC". The current "status quo" seems to be the Greek Cypriot side's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). To change the current "Invasion" discourse and sit for negotiations, based on the UN resolutions, would not satisfy its "interests" and would deprive it from a considerable power it now enjoys - as the "legal" government of the whole Cyprus.

If we look at the following text of the UN Resolution 649 (March 12, 1990) ;it will be clear to demonstrate what the Greek Cypriot government has to give up to change its present "Invasion" discourse which obstructs a solution based on the UN Resolutions:

The Security Council "Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutual acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects ... and to cooperate, on equal footing, with the Secretary General..." (UN Resolution 649, March 12, 1990).

Therefore, for a UN-based solution, the "Invasion" discourse should be modified to accommodate the following points of the UN Resolution: * give up the "unitary state" concept for a "bi-zonal" "federation" * give up its argument that the Turkish Cypriots are a "minority" and accept the concept of "bi-communality" and, negotiate with them on "equal footing" As can be understood from the above UN resolution (649), it would put the Greek Cypriot side into a troubled position if it pursued the Enosis discourse (union with Greece) in the 1990's. The "invasion" discourse, although in opposition with the UN Resolution, at least gives some room for modification in certain conditions8 and that it can be seen as 'one side is trying to strengthen its hand on the negotiation table' - that is, one can argue that it is giving up a lot in the negotiation, so that it can demand more concessions from the other side. As a matter of fact, in the actual negotiations the Greek Cypriot side is demanding territory from the Turkish Cypriot side in return to what it seemingly gives up (unitary state for a federation).

As we stated earlier, the "Invasion" discourse can be modified to accommodate itself to a UN proposed solution in certain cases. However, there is another powerful discourse within the Greek Cypriot community which, although not widely popular, is capable of blocking the way to a negotiated solution. This discourse is a mixture of the 1960's Enosis discourse and the government's post-1974 "Invasion" discourse. It borrowed the idea of "union of Cyprus with Greece" from the Enosis discourse and the claims that "Turkish invasion was an act of pure aggression and violence" from the "Invasion" discourse:

CONTINUATION OF PRE-1974 DISCOURSE INTERTWINED WITH THE INVASION DISCOURSE TODAY :
"Turks are a barbarous people. They are the last barbarians of civilization. A people with violent instincts and a thirst for blood. We rather live with savage animals than the Turks. Until the Turks digest that Cyprus is Greek they can live in this country only as a minority. And our slogan can not be anything else but "best Turk is a dead Turk." The union of Cyprus with Greece is the only democratic solution for the Cyprus problem. No to the talks, no to the federation, Enosis and let channels fill with the flow of blood." (Excerpt appeared in Philelephteros, November 11, 1990)

"If the Cretan Greeks were living in Cyprus today not a Turkish Cypriot would have been in the north....I see the fate of Greece and Cyprus as being intertwined. It would not be realistic to think that Cyprus can today fight for a prolonged period of time without Greece or that Greece is not interested in the fate of Cyprus. Because what is Cyprus? is it not Greece. I say to the Greeks who come here "The place that you have come to is not a foreign place, it is Greece.'" (Statement of the Commander of the Greek Cypriot National Guard Commander General Siradakis, Selides Magazine, October 3, 1992).

The discourse in the above texts (especially the first one) is much more dangerous than the "Invasion" discourse. Here, there is no room for a negotiated solution based on the UN proposals. Instead it suggests a very "BLOODY" solution in the name of "DEMOCRACY" - i.e., "Enosis." It makes one think of 'how a "barbarous", instinctively "violent", less-than-the-"savage"- "animals," "Turks" such as this writer, can be incorporated as a "minority" in a "democratic solution"! The answer has already been provided: by a "bloody" way. Although the above discourse is not widely popular among the Greek Cypriots, it is not discouraged by the government either. That gives the impression to the "other side" (Turks) that the Greek Cypriot government is actually supporting that discourse, which also plays a big role in the failure of the negotiations.

From the above study we got the evidence that there is at least one main "discourse" that dominates a government's global policy towards a certain issue:

In the 1960's and early the 1970's the dominant discourse in the Greek Cypriot government policies towards the Cyprus Conflict was the "Enosis" discourse. It greatly helped to prepare and execute the 1974 coup sent by Greek military regime. Failure of that action (the coup) or, rather the defeat of the coup by Turkish military operation created another powerful discourse (the "Invasion" discourse) that dominated the future policies of the Greek Cypriot government. Although we mentioned about a "main discourse" that dominates the global policy of a government on a specific issue, we are also aware of the other discursive practices that strive to influence a government policy. However, the scope of this paper is too small to deal with all the discursive practices that shape a policy. Instead, we talked about major non-governmental discursive practices that oppose to the "reality that the government's dominating discourse create.

We tried, also, to account on the failure of the UN sponsored negotiations in terms of the Greek Cypriot "Invasion" discourse. However, that is only part of the explanation. In a more comprehensive paper the dominant discursive practices of the Turkish Cypriot, Greek and Turkish governments and non- government texts should be studied to obtain a more complete picture.
Because there are many discursive practices within the above mentioned Turkish, Turkish Cypriot and Greek texts (especially government texts) that are in opposition to the UN proposed solution to the Cyprus Conflict. As a matter of fact, the most recent proposal of the UN to the two communities of Cyprus is to implement a series of "Confidence-Building-Measures" that will decrease the lack of trust between the two communities which, according to this writer, fostered by the "dominant discourses" of the two communities leaderships.

The Confidence-Building-Measures of the UN call on the two communities to give more chance to their people to come together and establish more channels of communication through "joint committees," "joint workshops," "joint cultural events," etc. This, we believe, is an implication that the first-tract diplomacy of the political leaders has failed due to its dominant discursive practice. The second- and third-tract diplomacy of the people (rather than the leaders) might help to create new discursive practices that can open the way to a successful negotiated solution.

1 Stephen, Michael (1986). "Cyprus, Two Nations in One Island", Bow Educational Briefing, No.5, G. Britain.
2 Stephen, Michael (1986). "Cyprus, Two Nations in One Island", Bow Educational Briefing, No.5, G. Britain.
3 To cut the channel of the Turkish Cypriots to present their case to the world.
4 Each community didn't have the right of "self determination" separately. An indivisible "sovereignty" was given to both communities to share.
5 The Greek Cypriot guerrilla organization which was originally formed to drove the British colonizers away from the island.
6 The name of the July 20, 1974 Turkish military operation.
7 "Cyprus is the common home of the Greek Cypriot community and of the Turkish Cypriot community. Their relationship is not one of majority and minority, but one of two communities in the State of Cyprus. The mandate given to me by the Security Council makes it clear that my mission of good offices is with the two communities. My mandate is also explicit that the participation of the two communities in this process is on equal footing" (The UN Secretary General's report to the Security Council, S/21183, March 8, 1990).
8 In 1986, some Muslim countries, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, threatened to recognize the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)" if the negotiations fail to give a solution. So, the possibility of a recognition of the "TRNC" is a condition which forces the Greek Cypriot government to modify its "Invasion" discourse to reach a UN-based solution - since the recognition of the "TRNC" is worse than the current UN proposed federal solution for the Greek Cypriot side.


[continued on part 4/4 of my long post]

[s3kiz]

[PART 4/4 OF MY LONG POST]

The above analysis was written some years ago, giving an objective detail of the events that lead to the “barbaric Turkish invasion” of the island as some have made the world believe as, showing a diffent perspective to what many laymen perhaps including many members of this forum did not know of.

Many efforts were made by Turkiye, Greece, USA, UK and namely the United Nations to find a just solution to the problem on the island, to reunite the two communities with a win-win scenario for both sides, but they were all rejected by the Grek Cypriot side. The latest such effort was the United Nations plan to reunify the island prior to its accession into the EU, organized by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. And the out come:

“25 April 2004 -- The United Nations says it will close the office of its peace envoy in Cyprus following the overwhelming rejection by Greek Cypriots of a UN plan to reunify the divided island. Meanwhile, the United States and senior European Union officials are expressing disappointment about the rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots.


In a referendum yesterday, more than 75 percent of Greek Cypriot voters voted against the UN plan to end the 30-year division of the island. In a separate vote on the northern side of the island, nearly 65 percent of Turkish Cypriots supported the UN plan. “
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/4/18E40B54-602E-409F-8E77-99213BEBF08E.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/25/cyprus.unitednations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3656553.stm


http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/bargaining-season-opens-cyprus-eu/article-109929

Prior to the referendum, the EU vehimently claimed that they want to take the island united and resolved as a member of the EU with both its Greek and Turkish populace in peace, and if this unification was not to be succeeded they stated that they will not take either side in and recognize the Turkish Cypriot Government and establish economic ties with them. What happened? Greek side rejected the peace offer, got into the EU and the Turkish side is still isolated and not politically recognized as promised under great embargo.

http://www.kktcb.eu/index.php
http://www.trncinfo.com/
http://www.northcyprus.cc/

And people still thinks Turks out of no reason, due to their “barbaric instincts” (as some would want the world to believe) invaded the island in 1974. Fogetting the above events, aims, ambitions, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the islands Turkish people by the Greeks, even neglegting the fact that Turks have been co-inhabitants of the island since 1571.

If every people who settled in new lands in the 1500s were to relinquish those lands, then there would not be USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and many EU countries etc etc etc.

So thats why Atilla i requested you to provide facts and proofs showing the problems been discussed whether they be Turkish-Greek related or the possibilities of Russian military efforts involving a possible invasion of Azerbaijan, and steer away from “emotional” comments like you had made.

Its through objective understanding of the opposing sides in a conflict can a clear picture be viewed of the situation and just solutions be found.

Otherwise it will all just be nationalistic/emotional “you did this to us”, “you are this, you are that” kind of political slander, resulting in more complications and allowing the saying “tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth” to become real, like we are experience in the balkans and the caucusus.

The world doesnt need more lies, but instead peace.

Cheers.


[PS: Althought the development of this thread went way off from the scope of the initial topic, nevertheless while keeping our mutual respect we have touched on various issue relating to the conflicts and balance of power in the balkans and the caucusus and how this related to the USA-Russian rivalry.]

[eliaslar]

@s3kiz
Truth has two sides, maybe you want to show us only the one? Especially in the macedonian issue, your links are only from FYROM's side, even the Greek links, very interesting. I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.

Hopefully the politicians of our countries don't think the same and cooperation between our countries is moving forward. I would also like to remind Mr Karamanlis and Mr Erdogan personal relations.

Especially about this topic, which is a discussion about Azerbaijan and not about the relations in the balkans, the Azeri gas will travel through the TGI pipeline to Europe. This will make the relations between our two countries even better, if there is no implication with the last days political situation and instability in Turkey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/europe/19greece.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://en.rian.ru/business/20070726/69748386.html

s3kiz i am sorry but i have to ask you in which axis of the alliances, of the ones you mention in your posts, you would place the EU, i see that most of EU countries are the final destinations of pipelines that start from Russia.
Also Greece and Cyprus are allready members of EU and the European Monetary Union, thus Greece's and Cyprus interests are the same as EU's and also Serbia is coming even closer to join the EU.

This is also a matter i have placed my opinion in this thread and in the other thread about Balance of Power
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

[s3kiz]

@s3kiz
Truth has two sides, maybe you want to show us only the one? Especially in the macedonian issue, your links are only from FYROM's side, even the Greek links, very interesting. I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.

Dear eliaslar, I personally do not think truth has “two sides”, thruth is one, but of course a singular truth can have multiple interpretations and manipulations applied to it, nevertheless not changing the “truth”.

When you claimed that “truth has two sides” I remembered the definition “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue” which dates for centuries. If we are to recall what it means, here are some explanations to it:

“characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue, esp. for the gaining of political power or favor”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/byzantine

“byzantine, of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Byzantine

“To form a plot or scheme; to contrive to accomplish a purpose by secret artifice…Byzantine intrigues”
http://www.jgames.co.uk/dictionary/intrigue.html

“Characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue. Devious. "Byzantine methods for holding on to his chairmanship"; "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements"
http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/byzantine.htm

“That term, used for a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operating, or for something labyrinthine, derives from the style of bureaucracy and internal politics—think roiling intrigue, coups, and backstabbing—of the Byzantine Empire.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?052906

“characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue; devious; "Byzantine methods for holding on to his chairmanship"; "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements"”
http://dictionary.die.net/byzantine

To get to “truth” one needs to steer away from been subjective in observation, and take into consideration all current versions of interpretation of this “truth”. If we are to consider the Turkish and Macedonian minority in respect to only the Greek interpretation, the “truth” we’ll get is there is no such thing. Which has been the Greek government stance, supported by many Greek nationals as also presented in your statements in previous posts here denying it.

But like I said to gain “truth” one needs to look into and be objective of all the possible variations of its interpretation that is present.

That is the reason why I provided proofs from various websites in the previous posts, including ones from the European Court of Human Rights (EU Court), Human Rights Watch Organization, Macedonian (and even Greek websites like you recognize) that show and present a contrary view to Greek government and your opinion on the existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities and the oppression they are suffering under Greek government.

To which you deem as: “I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.”.

I hardly think presenting ideas and links opposing the Greek governments (and your) stance is propaganda. Its not. Unless we are not attempting to reach to the “truth” but only settle for the Greek interpretation, which would not do justice to truth it self, but be one-sided and most likely distant from truth and anything besides it. Remember that a one-sided Greek interpretation can it self be classified as propaganda too.



@s3kiz
Hopefully the politicians of our countries don't think the same and cooperation between our countries is moving forward. I would also like to remind Mr Karamanlis and Mr Erdogan personal relations.

Yes I too support and wish for further cooperation between Turks and Greeks, be it on political level, or on civil level like you and me here. We need further mutual understanding between ourselves, and take into opposing views without trying to label views opposing us as “propaganda” no matter how nationalistic feelings we may have as obstacles. We have mutually suffered a lot, we need more peace.



@s3kiz
Especially about this topic, which is a discussion about Azerbaijan and not about the relations in the balkans, the Azeri gas will travel through the TGI pipeline to Europe. This will make the relations between our two countries even better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/europe/19greece.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://en.rian.ru/business/20070726/69748386.html


I too have high hopes of the TGI pipeline project you mentioned, TGI been Turkiye-Greece-Italy. We had some media coverage of the TGI here in Turkiye, it was stated that the BTC (Baku-Ceyhan-Tiblisi) pipeline will be connected to the TGI pipeline delivering Turkistani oil and gas through it. I think its a good project, both fort he Turkistani countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakistan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizistan and Turkmenistan) to form their economic independence away from possible Russian dominance and agression, also providing further inter-dependability between Turkiye and Greece, hopefully reducing tensions and increasing cooperation for peace.




s3kiz i am sorry but i have to ask you in which axis of the alliances, of the ones you mention in your posts, you would place the EU, i see that most of EU countries are the final destinations of pipelines that start from Russia.
Also Greece and Cyprus are allready members of EU and the European Monetary Union, thus Greece's and Cyprus interests are the same as EU's and also Serbia is coming even closer to join the EU.
This is also a matter i have placed my opinion in this thread and in the other thread about Balance of Power
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459


Like I tried to detail my personal views on the current and projected balance of powers and axis of alliances in future in the “Balance of Power” thread and also here on this thread, I see EU, with the condition everything going right for it self, transforming into a European Empire. An independent global power on its own in time been rival to USA and China. Of course I view Russia and some aspects of the current EU political-mass trying to establish a European Empire-Russian block, but that is for the distant future with many variables affecting it currently.

Yes Greece and Greek Cypriot section of the island is part of EU, with Serbia having the potential to join in aswell in the coming decades, thats true. I do realize that as I have already highlighted the “feeling of alliances” between Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia and how its rivalling Turkiye-USA-UK alliance and how this takes place in the development of a possible future European Empire-Russia block, again in rivalry with Turkiye-USA-UK alliance in the future.

Of course these are all scenarious, albeit based on historical/current occurances, none of this might happen, we could be hit with a big meteor and the world as we know it might cease to exist tonight. :)

But nevertheless good food-for-thought.

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

I liked the second part of your post more than the first part.

As first part i take the Byzantine and minorities part and as the second part, everything after our politicians relations etc.

I respect you for your thoughts and beliefs but i have to admit that some of them might be wrong or being seen under a certain prism. Of course i have no intention to prove something to you by posting links about Greek beliefs and history, that's a job for dedicated and probably wise men to do in a way to keep the truth and history clear and pure.

As Sir Steven Runciman said the historian must "to record in one great sweeping sequence the greater events and movements that have swayed the destiny of man"

I didn't say that Byzantine Empire was a holy empire, of course there were dark ages in it's 1000 years life, but i think you have to admit that there were also years of light and purity. If there weren't then it shouldn't live for over 1000 years.

I cannot prove something to you by posting links about Greek ideas and history, because simply you will reject them.
I tried to show you the connection between the ancient and modern macedonia in my links on my posts, is there any better indication and proof from the Greek letters found on the ancient ruins in Macedonia?

Or even better is there any better proof than the names of the Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander themselves?
If we try to find what their names mean then we will easily find that Alexander or even better Alexadros comes from the Greek it's the same in modern and ancient Greek, "Alex" (αλεξ) which means protector and "andros" (ανδρός) which is the genitive of the word "anir" (ανήρ) which means man. So his name means "protector of men".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=alexander
And Philip or even better in Greek Philippos comes from the words "phil" (Φιλ), which means friend, and "ippos" (ιππος) which means horse, so in some kind of words his name means the man who is friend with the horses.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=p&p=14

Isn't it very interesting that the names of all, there is proof about every name, ancient Macedonians have the same roots with modern Greek? And the most interesting is that the letters that they are written are the same.
This can be found easily on every ancient Macedonian coin and ancient scripts even in stone.

Of course slavic alphabet has most of its letters same with the Greek letters because in the times of Byzantine Empire Cyril and Method, who were Greeks used the Glagolitic alphabet or Glagolitsa, based primarily on the Greek uncial writing of the 9th century to create the slavic alphabet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cyril

I think i have told you again, if you visit North Greece you will find yourself in the heart of macedonia, with all it's Greek glory.

About the truth that's easy for someone to find if he reads the proper books and link himself to the proper links in the internet. I think you agree that truth is hard to find and we must search for it.

History has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed.

[s3kiz]

I liked the second part of your post more than the first part.

As first part i take the Byzantine and minorities part and as the second part, everything after our politicians relations etc.

I respect you for your thoughts and beliefs but i have to admit that some of them might be wrong or being seen under a certain prism.

Thank you, I respect you too.

I hope in time, you will “like” the first part of my above post too.

Byzantine/Greek Intrigue is a term that has gone into the english language and politics due to the centuries old art form of “manipulative, devious, scheming” of Byzatine Greeks as shown in the many dictionaries and thesauri. It naturally came to my mind when you implied there can be two truths to a one issue, namely to your claim of the non-existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece.

Anyway I hope, in time, will recognize the presence of Turkish and Macedonian minorities currently under Greek state persucution, (both on personal and state level).

As with the evidence below, I hope you will realise that my statements of the Greek state oppression and human rights violations of her Turkish and Macedonian people are not “wrong” and solely not pertaining to my “certain prism” like you claim.

Its everywhere, even in the EU courts/parliament, condeming the Greek state oppression.

Just a few examples:

European Court of Human Rights ruling finding Greece quilty for oppressing ethnic Turks:
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
European Parliament-International Panel on the Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2008/march31_e.asp
Human Rights Watch report: The Turks of Western Thrace:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
HRW report: Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Turks of Greece:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
HRW report: Turkish Minority; Problems Remain:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf
2008 Annual Report-The Macedonian Minority in Greece:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2008/january27_e.asp
Macedonia in Nato-Donald Rumsfeld: Greek Intimidating Tactics Getting Old:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2008/march28_e.asp
Macedonians denied democratic rights by Greek government:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_3_2003.html
HRW report: Denying Ethnic Identity-The Macedonians of Greece:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece945.pdf
HRW report: Free Speech on Trial-Government Stifles Dissent on Macedonia:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece937.pdf
HRW report: Greek Government Charges Against Ethnic Macedonians:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1997/10/09/greece1523.htm
Blacklisting of ethnic Macedonians by the Greek government:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mhrmc_2003.html
HRW report: Greek Immigration Bill biased against ethnic Turks and Macedonians:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/11/16/greece581.htm




Of course i have no intention to prove something to you by posting links about Greek beliefs and history...……..I cannot prove something to you by posting links about Greek ideas and history, because simply you will reject them.
If you have no intention to prove something/anything to me then what are we discussing for so long? and why are you adressing me in your posts?

And please dont be so judgemental on me. I only reject things if I can prove them wrong. Like your previous contentions that there is no Turks or Macedonians in Greece, which I have (yes according to me and the vast majority of international community) proven as false in the many post in this thread.



I tried to show you the connection between the ancient and modern macedonia in my links on my posts, is there any better indication and proof from the Greek letters found on the ancient ruins in Macedonia?
Or even better is there any better proof than the names of the Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander themselves?
If we try to find what their names mean then we will easily find that Alexander or even better Alexadros comes from the Greek it's the same in modern and ancient Greek, "Alex" (αλεξ) which means protector and "andros" (ανδρός) which is the genitive of the word "anir" (ανήρ) which means man. So his name means "protector of men".
And Philip or even better in Greek Philippos comes from the words "phil" (Φιλ), which means friend, and "ippos" (ιππος) which means horse, so in some kind of words his name means the man who is friend with the horses.
Isn't it very interesting that the names of all, there is proof about every name, ancient Macedonians have the same roots with modern Greek? And the most interesting is that the letters that they are written are the same.
This can be found easily on every ancient Macedonian coin and ancient scripts even in stone.
Of course slavic alphabet has most of its letters same with the Greek letters because in the times of Byzantine Empire Cyril and Method, who were Greeks used the Glagolitic alphabet or Glagolitsa, based primarily on the Greek uncial writing of the 9th century to create the slavic alphabet.

I think i have told you again, if you visit North Greece you will find yourself in the heart of macedonia, with all it's Greek glory.
If you had “no intetion to prove anything” to me and believed I would “simply reject”, then why the above attempt at history lesson?

Well considering you have changed your mind and seem to have “an intention to prove something” with your history lesson, I shall firstly underline that I respect the Greek glory, as I respect the glory of all nations.

Now please allow me to provide you with 3 simple ideas that could very well contradict your presented opinion:

1) Names like you say do play an important role in history, fair enough. But the Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis is named after a Turkish municipality, Karaman (municipality website: http://www.karaman.bel.tr with a current population of around 100 000), deriving its name from a 13th century tribe Karaman Turks’ city-state the “Karaman Beyligi”. Mr Kostas Karamanlis surname simply means “Karamanli” in Turkish, that is “from-Karaman” with an “s” added at the end to suit Greek pronounciation. Hes family is from this region of Turkiye, Karaman township , now does this make Mr Kostas Karamanlis Turkish? I think not. Same applies with the examples you gave. Its not so simple.

2) “If for the Greeks the "name" issue represents "Support for the State Philosophy" which is overly excessive, then for the Macedonians it represents a risk of "losing their country and ethnic existense". Macedonians have been using this name for at least 1,500 years or since many tribes settled the Balkans and mixed with the indigenous people. Greeks on the other hand have gained Macedonian territory, specifically their northern province which for the longest time they called "Northern Greece" only 95 years ago when they took possession of 51% of Macedonia in 1913. Only in 1989 did Greece change the name of its northern province to "Macedonia" under the motto "Attack is the best defense".

It is absurd that Macedonians are even talking to the Greeks knowing that they have little chance of making progress in these unfair negotiations. Thanks to Greece's threat of veto and its irresponsible use of it as well as its position in NATO and the EU it has all the help it needs from the European Community to hold Macedonia back as long as it wants.

Greece very cunningly and abruptly rejected Macedonia's name in 1992 in Lisbon before anyone had a chance to "examine the facts". This rejection also came with misinformation and confusion leading the unaware European ministers to come to the wrong conclusion. Greece lead the European Community into believing that the name "Macedonia" was of no importance to the Republic of Macedonia because allegedly this was a name created by Tito when Yugoslavia became a state of republics in 1944. Thus Greece's strong objection to the name was laid on a foundation of lies. The EU states, without consulting historical data and without examining the facts, were quick to take Athens's side. A similar scenario was repeated in 1993 when Macedonia applied for membership into the United Nations. It seems that justice is not important these days and the sacred Greek might is always placed ahead of Macedonia's right.

If we examine past approaches to the name issue taken by our American "mediator" of the UN, we will find that the whole process is biased in Greece's favour. Actions taken during briefings in Skopje in 1994 and 1995 at best can be described as "desperate". With the exception of naming the Skopje Airport "Alexander the Great", every gesture Macedonia made in Greece's view should be positive but from what experience has shown Greece has been relentless and has, without thinking twice, used all ammunition delivered to its hands against Macedonia.

Macedonia on the other hand has a great heritage which modern Europe considers to be the cradle of western culture. Ironicaly even though it is well known that Alexander the Great was Macedonian, no one complained when Greece named its airport "Alexander the Great" in late 1989. What justification did the Greeks have? That Alexander the Great spread "Hellenism" to the world during his expeditions? If that were true, and no one can deny that modern Europe in its entirety has profited immensely from Hellenism, then why is there not a single European nation (besides Greece) Greek today? Why is there not a single nation outside of Europe, where Alexander ventured, Greek today?

When Slav tribes were settling the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD the ancient Greeks had already abandoned Greece and others settled in their place. For well known reasons the Greeks left Greece at the end of the 4th century but the descendents of the ancient Macedonians remained all while Macedonia was a Roman province. Thus the descendents of the ancient Macedonians lived in Macedonia as the descendents of the ancient Thracians lived in Thrace and as the descendents of the Ancient Epirians lived in Epirus. In time these people assimilated with the Slav tribes who in turn adopted those lands as their home and left their genetic markers in the modern populations. So today we have Slav and ancient Macedonian genetic markers in the blood of the modern Macedonians.

Further forward in time, during the 9th century according to George Shtatmiller author of the book "History of South-Easter Europe" the Greeks, drawn by the Slav settlements of Greece, returned to their former fatherland and assimilated the Slavs and Albanians settling that region. So how can the Greeks then claim to be related to the ancient Macedonians?

Contrary to any Greek assertions, Greeks in reality never settled Macedonian territories, not in ancient nor any other time until the 20th century. Macedonians on the other hand have conquered and have occupied Greek lands. The ancient Macedonians, through the League of Corinth, held hegemony over the Greeks for over 120 years during which time they also occupied Athens for a short period.

Thus prior to the 20th century Macedonia was never Greek, not during Roman times when both Macedonia and Greece were Roman colonies, not during the Middle Ages, not during Ottoman times and certainly not until after the 1912, 1913 Balkan Wars when Greece, for the first time, by virtue of conquest, was awarded Macedonian lands including Solun and parts of Thrace. And this Greece did not do alone but with help from its neighbours Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro and with the blessings of the Great Powers.

It is sad to say that Macedonia's annexation in 1913 happened with the blessing of International right which now reminds it of the shame it committed. It is not fear of the Macedonian hammer that Greece is afraid but of the fear of facing its own shame in public.”

Hans Lothar Schteppan, a former German Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia and author of the book "Macedonian Knot".

3) Considering you too are fond of ancient history like me, check out the following links if you like. Roughly detailing petroglyphs remnants of Turk history all the way back from 15th century BC to the Xiongnu Turks going back to 9th century BC to the Turkish settlement in the caucasus in the 5th century BC, and various information showing the possibility of Greeks-Turks living close to each other a few millenium before than the Otoman Empire.

Just simple examples, nothing heavy:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1145.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
http://www.kafkas.org.tr/english/analiz/karacaylarin%20tarihi2.html
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/tur1.html
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/tur2.html
http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/index.htm
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/ata_anain_natlangs.html

I mentioned this to show that;
a) your version of history might not be the only one and the correct one,
b) if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck,
c) and no matter how much either of us try or do think differently, we are still related if we go back enough in time, to Adam & Eve (peace and blessings be on them).




About the truth that's easy for someone to find if he reads the proper books and link himself to the proper links in the internet. I think you agree that truth is hard to find and we must search for it.

History has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed.
Simply dismissing an opinion that opposes your opinion as “un-proper” is not very “ancient-scholar-Greek” like, rather more “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue” kind of an attitude dont you think?

I even gave you links from the European Union courts and parliamant, which are a governing body over the Greek state. What kind of EU membership is this? using EU when you are politics-bargaining with your neighbours trying to pressure and persuade them for what you want and not accepting EU legistlations when it doesnt suit you. With all respect eliaslar I suspect a lot of Byzantine/Greek Intrigue in this.

I know that “history has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed” that is why I want the Turkish and Macedonian heritage under Greek rule to not diminish and be destroyed.

Anyway, dear eliaslar, we are close geographically, get on a plane, come over to Turkiye, we can talk all we want while enjoying the beautifull view of the Istanbul bosphorus and feeding on some delicious kebabs, yoghurts and then some baklava, topped with turkish coffee. This is what we need my friend not bickering on this thread and going offtopic . :D

With best wishes.

Cheers.


[PS:everyones invited, but bring your own bathing suites! :party ]

[eliaslar]

According to HRW Turkey has many violations according to the freedom of speech, prosecutions of publishers even for translating books which according to Turkey aren't right and the list goes on. Some examples are here and even more can be found in HRW's page.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/turkey/
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/01/turkey12134.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/08/turkey12174.htm

and also there is a publication about Greek minority in Turkey which is dwindling, elderly and frightened
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe_pub&c=turkey&document_limit=20,20
also i have already put a link in one of my previous posts, about the Turkish pogrom in 1955 and how Turkey acts against minorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

I thought that you had a spherical view about such matters but now i am in deep thought if all books are published in Turkey or just the ones that according to the Turkish state are right.

Maybe this link will make you think better about Greek conflict with FYROM it has some quotes from Britannica encyclopedia, i hope that Britannica is still a reliable encyclopaedia in Turkey
http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/ecyclopaedia-britannica-about-fyrom/

or even these will help even better to see some of the truth
http://truth.macedonia.gr/discoveries.html
http://history.macedonia.gr/main.html

Also about the relations between the EU and Greece follow this link
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8630/
But that will make not such a good sence in Turkey since France has recognised the Armenian genocide and since Turkey warned France about that!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/102803.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/turkey.eu

The guardian's article states "Ankara has deemed it ironic that France is preparing to punish those who express a particular view of history", maybe France is right with my opinion and thus to Greek opinion?

About Turkish settlement in Caucasus i have no doubt about that, also i have no doubt about Turkish origin.
About the relations between Turkish tribes and Byzantine empire there are lots of examples from history that Byzantines/Greeks had Turkic or Turkish tribes as mercenaries a long time before the Ottoman Empire.
That means also that the relations between the Byzantines/Greeks and the Turks were most of the time at least friendly at that time of period.
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/2398/bginfo/social/merc.html

My best wishes also dear s3kiz

[s3kiz]

Dear eliaslar,

Lets take a step back and realize that the thread is about the possibilities of a Russian agression towards Azerbaijan, and the possible outcomes to such military conflict in the region.

But firstly, lets do a summary of the discussions here and step by step detail the development of discussions of this thread:

-In post #1, wormbyte started the thread with a question:
“If Russia was to attack Azerbaijan because of it's military reserve, would this cause a military response from any other country? Especially military powers in the west.”

-In post #2, Chrom responded along the lines of:
“Certainly, regular army in all ex-USSR countries (including Azerbaijan) are no match for russian army. It will be no show. But unregular combatants resistance - is a whole another matter.”

-In post #7, Yasin20 stated that:
“you know there are states that have signed a pact to defend each other like kazakistan azerbaijan turkmenistan uzbekistan tajikistan kirgistan as well.”

-In post #12, Atilla[TR] further added that:
“If there was a military inrcusion into Azerbaijan then her Turkish neighbors would help from on both sides of Azerbaijan, I dunno but something like that happened to Azerbaijan, and the neighbors helped a huge greater Turkism would erupt and even if Russia captured Azerbaijan and a few of other Turkish nations manly to the east of Azerbaijan you would see rebellion far worse then Chechnya and even the Tatars in Russia might get worked up.”

-In post #13, Chrom commented that:
“lol. They are completely different entity (referring to Tatar Turks). If they didnt rebelled during Chechens war - then they will not be upset about Azerbaijan either. I repeat, they are COMPLETELY different.”

-In post #14, Atilla[TR] objected with:
“You are so wrong! Tatars are Turkish decent(In fact during the soviet union they where hated by Russians because the Soviet Union said they where Turkish spies)”

-In post #15 & 17, Chrom further objected with:
“Lol. Tatars are turkish? In historical aspect - somewhat true. Current tatars living in Russia have very little in common with Turks.”…” And right now 99% tatars in ex-USSR (let alone Russia) have absolutely no connection with turks.”

-In post #18, I provided info on the Tatar Turks and provided such facts and links as proof:
“They (Tatar Turks) continually participate in all the official and NGO events that are held annually like the "world Turkish people" confrences and congresses regarding cultural and political cooperations between all the Turkish people from all corners of the world whether they live in an independent, autonomous countries/states or in lands under foreign rule, like those in Russia, China, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Moldovia, Ukraine, Romania, Iraq, Iran, Georgia.”

With many historical and factual links supporting this at:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137323&postcount=18
And further explained and backed up the situation in posts# 19 & 21:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137332&postcount=19
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137336&postcount=21

-In post #22 eliaslar you claimed that:
“There is no autonomous tatar Crimean state”
“Also if there are Tatars in Greece, their number is so small, even smaller than 0,5% of the whole population.”
“Maybe your political and historical links are inacurate or have other goals than to inform people in the right way.”
-Claiming the non-existance of an autonomous Tatar state.
-Showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Turkish minorities in Greece, and accusing me of providing inaccurate information & links and dishonest ambitions.

-In post #23, I provided various facts to prove your accusations wrong:
Showing the historical outline of the Tatar Turks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
The historical Tatar Turk State between 1441-1783 and their connections to the Otoman Empire after 1783
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
The ruthless ethnic cleansing the Tatar Turks faced under Soviet Russian regimes
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html
http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2007/11/19/9451.htm
The presence of a Tatar autonomous states both in Crimea and under Russian rule in our days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mejlis_...n_Tatar_People
www.tatar.ru
And the presence of and also the oppression of Turks under Greek state in our times in 2008-04-01
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf

-In post #26&27, I tried to bring the discussion back onto the topic of Russia vs Azerbaijan:
Touching on the Turkiye-Azerbaijan-Georgia cooperation backed by the USA-UK and the diffuculties Russia would have with such an agression towards Azerbaijan and the Russian-Greek-Serb-Armenian covert alliance:
“There is a close coorperation between Turkiye and Georgia (and Azerbaijan), with many Georgian officers training at Turkish defence academies.”.
” Lets not forget the Baku(Azerbaijan)-Tiblisi(Georgia)-Ceyhan(Turkiye) pipeline.”
“Russia is very much unwanted in the caucauses, only supported by Armenia”
“There is too much obstacles, not only to deter it, but even stop it if needed be.”
“If such a Russian-Greek-Armenian-Serbian orthodoxy axis gets hyper-excited, not just the caucasus but whole of humanity will be walking on thin ice.”

-In post no#29, eliaslar you further commented on the importance of energy resources and provided and supported a simple example that shows the Russian-Greek-Serb-Armenian alliance:
“the South stream pipeling, which will deliver Russian gas and gas from central Asia to Europe, through European countries, leaving Ukraine and Turkey (USA allias) outside of the energy transfer game and which is obviously backed from Russia.”
“So the countries that the South stream will pass from are Greece….,Serbia,”

-In post #30, I further explained the importance of Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the underlaying startegy behind the South Stream Pipeline envisaged by Russia:
“The countries themselves though have been trying to use the involvement as a counterbalance to Russian and Iranian economic and military dominance in the region. It is seen similarly by Russian specialists claiming that the pipeline is aimed to weaken the Russian influence in Caucasus. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tb...eyhan_pipeline
“Russia is been supported by Greece and Serbia for the "South Stream Pipeline". The USA-UK-Turkiye-Azerbaijan-Georgia alliance is targetted by an opposing axis involving Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia alliance like i mentioned in my previous posts.”
“This "Russian front" been strategically supported by Greece, Serbia and Armenia is aiming to weaken USA-UK-Turkish power balance in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and strengthen the Russians on all fields, as both Greece, Serbia and Armenia see Russia as an "orthodox-big-brother", their "member-of-family" and their counter against USA-UK-Turkish presence in these regions and their gaurantee for their possible military conlicts in the region.”
“This is an interesting picture considering Greece is a member of Nato, however aligning her self with Russia to support Russian involvement in the Balkans and Caucasus to counter even USA when it sees it necessary. Alliances are changing and will become more evident in time.”

-In post #31, I further commented on this “chaging of alliances” and my projected views on the balances of power in the region been tried to be established on the Russia-Greek-Serbia-Armenia front opposing Turkiye-USA-UK front, and how all this ties in with the possible future world players, namely USA, European Union and China.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137665&postcount=31

-In post #32 I provided a recent development that happened on 27 March 2008 at the European (Union) Court of Human Rights, detailing and finding guilty the Greek state denial and oppression of her Turkish minority, as further evidence to your previous accusations of me providing inaccurate information and been dishonest and also showed that that this Greek opression is going on against her Turkish and Macedonian minorities:
"Anyway on 27 march 2008 the European Court of Human Rights has heard one of the complaints of the Turkish community in Greece and has found and prosecuted Greece guilty of human rights violations against her Turkish minority which she rejected to recognize.
The details of this matter can be found at:"
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-fr
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf

[s3kiz]

-In post #33, eliaslar you claimed that:
“Everything you write my friend s3kiz is very interesting even very provocative. I don't have the intention to start another war here, but some things must be put in order.”

And tried to “put things in order” with your continual denial of the Turkish and Macedonian ethnicities, in line with the Greek state policy of ethnically cleaning her of non-Greek ethnicities, in our century all the upto our days in 2008.
You continued on with the immense evidence presented by the EU and NGO organizations, especially the European Union top court on human rights ruling and condemning Greece of her ethnic cleansing of Turkish minorities, and give links of Wiki as solid proof to say “yeah but Turkiye is this Turkiye is that”, this mentality is nothing but a futile effort on your behalf to try to cover up the factual Greek sides ethnic cleansing, like “throwing mud so even if it doesnt stick it leaves a mark behind”.

Perhaps deep down realizing that you were been provocative and insulting to some, especially those who the Greek government opresses and tries to ethnically cleanse, and those who intellectually can see this, you added:
“I am sorry for being so much off topic and i am more even sorry if i am provocative or insulting for someone.”
And further commenting that:
”There is no point in arguing about who is better or who is right, i hope you agree with that.”
Not realizing that it is only you who is “arguing who is better”, while I was objectively providing facts and information about your denial of the existance of the Turkish and Macedonian minorities under Greek state/cultural oppression.

-In post #34, I detailed and gave proof that show:
Your efforts in your race “arguing who is better”, thus bringing politically driven artificial claims like “Turks did this, Turks did that” are infact not wholly accurate, like your fabricated claims based on the hypothesis carried on Wiki of the alleged “pontian-Greek genocide” by Turks.

I showed that if you read well into the article there it clearly mentions of an 1923 Lausanne agreement signed by Turkiye and Greece for population exchange. That it was a mutual agreement on the cross migration of the two people, and how the Greek government uses this with her political ambitions using the influence of Greek diaspora and politics in other countries to manipulate it into something totally different:
“In 1923, a population exchange between Greece and Turkey resulted in a near-complete elimination of the Greek ethnic presence in Anatolia and a similar elimination of the Turkish ethnic presence in much of Greece.”
“The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey is the first large scale population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion in the 20th century. It involved some two million people, most forcibly made refugees and de jure denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia, in a treaty promoted and overseen by the international community as part of the Treaty of Lausanne. The document about the population exchange was signed at Lausanne, Switzerland in 1923, between the governments of Greece and Turkey. The exchange took place between Turkish citizens of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek citizens of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...ece_and_Turkey
www.tallarmeniantale.com

Your many “mud-throwing” attempts in your “who is beter race” is answered and addressed individually, even in the links you provide as proof of your claims, perhaps you are selectivelly reading what suits you, and acting blind on what doesnt? All detailed in post #34
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137898&postcount=34

-In posts #39 to 42, I further provided a specific example of how the Greek state/cultural policy has managed to twist facts, resulting in a false perception even in our days:
In reference to the Cyprus Conflict, a great mass of the people think that the island went through a Turkish military offensive in 1974, out of no reason, just pure agression. I provided exact, concise and facts from the Greek side showing that this was not the case, That Turks have been co-inhabitats of the island since the 1500s, that there was a 1960 constitutional Republic of Cyprus been co-founded by Turkish and Greek inhabitants of the island and internationally recognized, that this sovereign country changed in 1963 on onwards when there was an ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide by the Greeks on the Turks of the island forcing them to leave their officail 30% owned parts of the island into enclaves making 3% of the island, that the Greek mainland military regime sent forces from Greece to the island to annex it on 15 July 1974 and five (5) days later on 20 July 1974 resulting into Turkiye to interneve to stop the attempted genocide of the islands Turkish population under Greek hands and as been one of the rightfull guarantor powers in the constitution and international agreements on the founding of Republic of Cyprus.

And to prove all this I provided facts from the Greek side, not the Turkish side, clearly detailing the manipulative, twisting Greek politics is capable of. I think its a good example for any and every strategist/politician/historian/military men alike, its a perfect example of how international politics can be based on deceptive his-story (not history) and ambitions.

Clearly detailed at the thread Cyrus Conflict:past,present and future:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7603

-In post #43, you once again stated and accused me with:
“Truth has two sides, maybe you want to show us only the one? Especially in the macedonian issue, your links are only from FYROM's side, even the Greek links, very interesting.”
I showed in the many links i gave in the posts I wrote that are not only Macedonian, that are Greek and international links, even like you accepted Greek links.
You even neglect the European Union court land NGO links proving the existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece and under oppression, and still deny their situation. And like I said before truth doesnt have two sides, only one truth with an independent interpretation and a Greek state policy interpretation deny these minorities in order to ethnically cleanse them.

“I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.”
Yeah right, everyone but those not following the Greek state policy towards ethnic cleansing are making propaganda, including the European Court of Human Rights.

-In post #44, I detailed how what we are programmed to perceive might not be the fatual reality, higlighting the art of manipulation, referring to the term “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue” that has thousands of years of operation in history, and how it has become part and taken its place in modern day politics, interpretation of history resulting into something different his-story, and how it is complicating the various international issues including defence related matters due to this Byzantine/Greek Intrigue, an “art form” in “manipulating, twisting and devious” altering our perceptions of the facts of reality as detailed in many dictionaries and thesauri.

And tried to touch again on how the historic/future alliance :
“between Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia and how its rivalling Turkiye-USA-UK alliance and how this takes place in the development of a possible future European Empire-Russia block, again in rivalry with Turkiye-USA-UK alliance in the future.”
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138061&postcount=44

-In post #45, eliaslar you replied with:
“I liked the second part of your post more than the first part…(not the first part detailing the Greek attempts at denying and ethnically cleansing her Turkish and Macedonian minorities)”
Yes I dont like it either.

“About the truth that's easy for someone to find if he reads the proper books and link himself to the proper links in the internet.”
Again a continued denial in line with the Greek state policy against her Turkish and Macedonian minorities. I guess you dont accept the European (Union) Court of Human Rights as a “proper” authority, and merely as an “dishonest inaccurate propaganda” link I had given?

“History has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed.”
Like how the Greek state policy has destroyed the Turks of the island of Create, Dodoneaceas, Lemnos and attempted to do genocide on the Turks on the island of Cyprus, and how Greece is trying to ethnically cleanse Turks and Macedonians in current day Greece, even simply reflected on them been put to prison for calling themselves and their community organizations “Turks” or “Macedonian”? Yes I can see how people are been forced to be diminished and destroyed, even in our current day EU member Greece.

[s3kiz]

-In post #46, while answering your many denials and “mud-throwing” attempts in your “who is better race” solely been contented by yourself, I try to mediate with you with common sense, and reach my hand towards you:
“a) your version of history might not be the only one and the correct one,
b) if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck,
c) and no matter how much either of us try or do think differently, we are still related if we go back enough in time, to Adam & Eve (peace and blessings be on them).”

“Anyway, dear eliaslar, we are close geographically, get on a plane, come over to Turkiye, we can talk all we want while enjoying the beautifull view of the Istanbul bosphorus and feeding on some delicious kebabs, yoghurts and then some baklava, topped with turkish coffee. This is what we need my friend not bickering on this thread and going offtopic”
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138106&postcount=46

-In post #47, you come back again bringing all sorts of arguments to neglegt and deny the existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece under state policy of ethnic denial and cleansing. Without even touching on them, even against historically proven facts, internationally proven proofs and common intellectual sense.

Peace is a virtue of intelligent men, if we are to continually to throw mud at each other like you are doing, we will only be bogged in the superficial feelings of anomosity. I brought many historical and factual proofs against Chroms non-recognition of the bonds between the various Turkish people in context of the possibilities of Russian brute against Azerbaijan.

You did not like this as it also showed the presence of the Turkish and Macedonian identity in Greece, which the Greek state/cultural policy is to deny and deprive them of their identity resulting in an ethnic cleansing.

To prove this, I brought information and evidence from many and varied sources of authority, even the European (Union) Court of Human Rights. Again dismissed, denied and merely labelled as “inaccurate, dishonest, propaganda” link by you, again in accordance with the Greek state/cultural policy.

Unfortunatelly, all this to me once again proves how deep-rooted the Byzantine/Greek Intrigue is in the Greek psyche. Like I said peace is a virtue of intelligent men, and both I and you are capable of this, as long as we manage to overcome any such “intrigues” due to nationalistic ambitions we are programmed with and be objective.

I leave you with the words of Hans Lothar Schteppan, former German Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia commenting in his book "Macedonian Knot", referring to the Greek state/cultural denial and ethnic cleansing of her minorities and her international politics in accordance with this policy:

“…. Greece is afraid…of the fear of facing its own shame in public.”

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

Maybe you should think better instead of making a summary of your mind, which is obvious with what temper and manner it happens. Whoever wants to know what was said here doesn't need a summary or a review, he can easily follow the pages and the links we both posted, the truth lies there.

Especially when you describe my Britannica encyclopaedia, the wikipedia and ancient Macedonian ruins and coins with Greek inscriptions links as inaccurate, thus making most civilized men wonder what evidence might be accurate by you.

Even the people of FYROM declare what Greeks claim, this is very interesting

The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

Maybe the truth lies somewhere before the foundation of Yugoslavia, if we take a look of a map of Yugoslavia in 1929, we will see something very interesting, there is no Macedonia as a state and in it's place there is the Vardar Banovina, which translated means "province Vardar", named after the Vardar river.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kartashs.jpg

Or also if you can say that this is not accurate, there is a stamp of 1939 which shows the same.
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/images/stampVARDASKA.jpg

Also according to the constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1931
"The Vardar Banovina is bounded on the north by the boundaries ... of the Zeta and Morava Banovinas, and on the east, south and west by the State frontiers with Bulgaria, Greece, and Albania."
http://www.answers.com/topic/vardar-banovina?cat=travel

This post has gone too far, to show how Tito made the today's FYROM macedonia, but it's not so difficult to prove it.

I am happy that most of the people i know from Turkey and i know a lot, don't share the same opinion with you, they don't offence and they don't act as Greece is the hattred enemy. This gives me hope of the future relations between our countries.

I will leave you with the most interesting fact about how Greek Macedonia is,
i hope you will not prove the ancient historians Herodotus and Polybius as inaccurate...

In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says:
"... I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery ..."

Polybius calls Macedonia "the advanced line of defence" and pays tribute to the Macedonians for fighting the barbarians ('non-Greeks') to preserve the security of the (other) Greeks" (Polybious, Historiae, Leipzig 1898.).

Scripta manent my friend and truth always is proven

[s3kiz]

Maybe you should think better instead of making a summary of your mind, which is obvious with what temper and manner it happens. Whoever wants to know what was said here doesn't need a summary or a review, he can easily follow the pages and the links we both posted, the truth lies there.
-I made a summary of the dialogue that has been going on in this thread so that we can clearly see how the discussion branched out into various topics, some far and away, from its initial scope “Russia vs Azerbaijan”. And also to show how you continually use different tactics to deny, reject and censor the facts that show there is a Turkish and Macedonian minority in Greece under state/cultural ethnic cleansing. Also, I did not change what I quoted in the summary, they are in their original definitions.

-So, what do you mean by “summary of your mind”? And whats this with “temper and manner” comment? are these in addition to your “inaccurate, implied-‘dishonesty’ and propaganda” words you deemed right for me. Please be more objective and respecting. Critize me but bring proof, showing what I say is wrong and what you say is right (but the contrary has happened, look at the thread/summary posts).

-Why are you deciding on behalf of the “whoever” that might reads this thread? I wasnt concerned about the “whoever”, I was concerned about you and wanted the points I mentioned in the above paragraph to be understood by you.

-Anyway why do you worry so much about others who might read this thread? Do you worry that they might start learning things about the Russian vs Azerbaijan issue and how it reflects regionally and globally or that they might start to learn things that go against the Greek state policy; about Greek states ethnic cleansing policy towards Turkish & Macedonian minorities in our days, or such passed Greek atrocities in the past or the attempted genocide of Turks by Greeks on the island of Cyprus and Greek efforts to annex the island resulting in a Turkish intervention? I will not detail them again for the readers, they are all in the following 3 links, the summary of the discussions going on this thread from the beginning, yes the truth (like you say):
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138143&postcount=48
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138144&postcount=49
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138146&postcount=50




I will leave you with the most interesting fact about how Greek Macedonia is, i hope you will not prove the ancient historian Herodotus as inaccurate...
In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says: "... I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery ..."
Macedonia is not Greek. And yes I can prove it.

Herodot although been called the “Father of History” by some (since the “west” had to base her origins on something, that been Greek, thus increasing the “grandeour” of Herodot to such a level), is also called the “Father of Lies” by many historians and academicians, all the way from ancient times from Lucian Samosata (AD120-180) to Detlev Fehling in our times. So you cant just take a simple text like that as been true and claim the Macedonians as Greeks, when there is an immense contrary evidence and proof from numerous historians and academicians who are not Macedonians, not Turks or in anyway affiliated with me, who tell otherwise.

Proffessor Ernst Badian from Harvard University (and Oxford University, Victoria University and Canterbury University College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Badian) writes: "It is chiefly Eugene's (N. Borza) merit that recognizably historical interpretation of the history of classical Macedonia has not only become possible, but it is now accepted by all ancient historians who have no vested interest in the mythology superseded by Eugene's work. Needless to say, I welcome and agree with that approach and have never disagreed with him."

“Eugene N. Borza was a professor emeritus of ancient history at the University of Pennsylvania. He has written multiple works on ancient Macedon and is regarded an expert on the overall subject.”

1962 - The Bacaudae: A Study of Rebellion in Late Roman Gaul (University of Chicago,Dep. of History)
1974 - The Impact of Alexander the Great (Dryden Press, ISBN 003090000X)
1990 - In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691008809)
1995 - Makedonika (Regina Books, ISBN 0941690652) “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Borza

Who Were (and Are) the Macedonians?

What were a people's origins and what language did they speak? From the surviving literary sources(Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive.

On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks. (Thracians&Dacians were not Greek just like the Macedonians werent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians )

What did others say about the Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes),
based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.

Macedonians…emerged as a people distinct from the Greeks who lived to the south and east. In time their royal court--which probably did not have Greek origins (the tradition in Herodotus that the Macedonian kings were descended from Argos is probably a piece of Macedonian royal propaganda).

Greeks and Macedonians in the Balkans is characterized by both sides reaching back to antiquity to provide an often false historical basis to justify their respective modem positions.

On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians:

1)Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks. On the composition of Alexander's army:

2) "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."

3) "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks."

4) "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."

5) On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be."

6) On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest.".

7) On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."

8) On Alexander's dismissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."

9) On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence."

10) On the Macedonian language: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
"The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically."
"The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."

11) On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped.” “Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different." "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)." "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity."
"In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive."

12) "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities."

13)"They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."

"It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."
Prof: Eugene N. Borza

http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/96program.html
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~clio/aah/aah.publications.makedonika.html
http://www.makedonika.org/borza.htm
http://www.gate.net/~mango/borza1.htm


“The Liar School of Herodotus”: Michelle Kwintner, Cornell University

“Die Quellenangaben Bei Herodot : Studien Z. Erzahlkunst Herodots” Detlev Fehling, Jan, 1971 ISBN-10: 3110036347

“Greeks and Macedonians”: Professor Ernst Badian, Hardvard University, Department of History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Badian
http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm

“Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgeschichte”: Professor D.Brendan Nagle, Professor of History University of South California
http://college.usc.edu/faculty/faculty1003022.html
http://www.makedonika.org/nagle.htm

“The Cambridge Companion To Herodotus” Professor John Marincola, Florida State University & Professor Carolyn Dewald Berkley,Stanford and USC
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=05218300X&ss=exc
http://www.fsu.edu/~classics/people/professors/marincola.html
http://inside.bard.edu/academic/programs/classics/faculty/dewald.shtml

“The Religion of Herodotus”: Thomas Harrison,Oxford University Press;
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-815291-4.pdf

From old-to-new Macedonia, very informative.
http://www.mymacedonia.net/

Also note that what Yugoslavia called Macedonia lands during its reign, or what Tito called it under his preference doesnt change anything. During the Otoman Empire we called the current lands that makes up most of Greece as “Rumeli (from the word Rum=Roman,eli=hands/holdings/lands)”, does that mean that most parts of current Greece is not ancient Greek lands? No it doesnt. Your such contentions to deny Macedonia are not logical nor scientific, just like your continual denial and ethnic cleansing of Turkish minorities since creation of Greece.

[s3kiz]

I am happy that most of the people i know from Turkey and i know a lot, don't share the same opinion with you, they don't offence and they don't act as Greece is the hattred enemy. This gives me hope of the future relations between our countries.
On top of using such words as “propaganda” and impliying “dishonesty” for the many facts I provided that proves my claims, now you are trying to single me out?

Well good luck, because, I wouldnt be wrong if I said, all of the people in Turkiye share the same/similar views as me. We all want the Greek ethnic cleansing of Turkish and Macedonian minorities to end, we all want the Greek support for international terror to stop, we all want a just solution to Cyprus, we all want peace, but justly and fairly, not only serving Greek interests, because that results in our suffering as it has done so in past and present, like the ethnic cleansing of Cretean Turks, Dodecanese Turks, Cypriot Turks, Western Thracian Turks as just a few examples.

Nobody sees Greece as the hated enemy here in Turkiye eliaslar get over this psychology please, not this country, yes we have quarelles, yes we have casus belli (violation of sovereignty is casus belli for all countries) but we do not “hate” you, yes I critique some of your claims because I can prove them wrong but that doesnt mean I “hate” you. For you to say this is a reflection that might need a deep analysis. But we can summarize and say that perhaps you are regurgitating all the hate they teach in the Greek public-education and popular culture, about “hate the Turks and act on it because if you dont, they will kill you”. Its with such mentality, generations of Greeks have been brought up, both through government education system and cultural acceptance.

Official Greek history books and education curriculum are full of intricately woven hate-filled mental imprinting affecting generations of Greeks, which could be reason why there is Greek-Turk, Greek-Macedonian, Greek-Albanian, Greek-Bulgarian even Greek-Italian tension, and im not talking about "political shop-front view", im talking deep-culturally.

Just as a latest, single and simple proof to show this, I want to remind the commotion that went in Greece last year in 2007, where the proposed revised official Greek 6th Grade history book to be used across the Greek classrooms created a big political and public stir, Because it was not deemed “right” as it depicted “not enough bloody” of Greek history/suffering/victory etc.

Sure there was a couple of historic mistakes in the book, but the main reason the Greek church, the right and left parties, the majority of the public in Greece went in uproar and literally burned this proposed history book was because it provided a more objective account of the history minus the Greek exaggeration of “and they killed us, they butchered us, they raped us, we were 300 men they were 10 000 men but we destroyed them in supernatural heroism, becsaue we are god” etc etc kind of things.

I mean one of the criteria/reason given for such an outburst as whole of the country for this book was that it mentioned Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as “the leader of the Turkish liberation struggle” and perhaps for not been depicted as a mad-blood thirsty-barbaric-Turk. All these reason was seen and commented by many Greek politicians and religious leaders as a “threat to Greek nationalism and self worth”, thats not normal. And in EU.

Now thats what I call hate. Whats the result all of this? Well look at the feeling of rivalry you feel against me, although intricate its evident in your own posting manner and wording, but im not going to put my weight on you too much, thats not my aim.

Look at the World Wide Web, type in the words “Turk” or both “Turk and Greek” in any search engine, you get thousands and thousands of forums/links/tube vids/pseudo-discussion-channels most authored/orchestrated by Greeks and mainly inhabited by Greeks, who talk about “Turks this, Turks that” and they rank high on the search result lists too. Interesting isnt it. Look at wiki (or likeones), a considerable amount of articles there about Turkish-Greek issues have been penned and edited by Greeks, even articles relating to only Turkish history are been penned/edited by Greeks. Strange.

This is an obsession on a grand scale, its not normal, this is not a normal human behaviour. And all this is due to the Greek state/cultural policy like the “6th grade history book controversy” that intricately weaves hate and fear in the Greek psyche since childhood, “if you dont kill them they will kill you”, so we have a mass army of pro-active Greeks on the media, whether its in international press or WWW with their “Turks this, Turks that blah blah”. While on the other hands most Turks are busy on the internet in pursuit of a hobby/mate or playing online games while listening to music.

Just a simple, and hopefully an isolated example, I was in Greece a few months ago, in Athens travelling from one address to another, hailed a taxi, we exchanged “kalimera-kalimera” , got in, the taxi driver aged around 45 asked where im from in Greek I answered with a smile in English “We are neighbours, I’m from Turkiye”, he stepped on the brakes started waving his hands telling me to leave his taxi.
Either he doesnt know english or he hates Turks, im sure i didnt have garlic for breakfast, i know it wasnt that.

Anyway, look at the “6th Grade History Book Controversy”:

Athens News
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/battleroyal.html
Ekathimerini
http://users.auth.gr/~marrep/html/intro/articles/History%20book%20divides%20opinion.pdf
Journal of Turkish Weekly
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=43947
Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=76181
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6525899.stm
Herald-Tribune
http://users.auth.gr/~marrep/html/intro/articles/HERALD%20TRIBUNE.pdf

While the above is going on in Greece, here in Turkiye we hear Greek music (amoung all world music) in cafes (I personally like Greek "Rebetiko”), we have television soaps with actors playing Turkish and Greek characters in such scenarios as living in an old-times village or modern day apartment, getting along and sharing the good and bads of life as neighbours, even some programs where a Turk and Greek gets married and lives happy etc. We have nearly every summer in many cities and municipalities Turkish-Greek Friendship concerts/festivals, with Turkish singers and guest Greek singers (famous or not i dont know, im not much of a paparazzi).

Countries are like individual people, they have their unique character, (I will not comment on Greek side as its sensitive) so (of course not all) but most of us Turks are straight forward, we are direct people, we forget tradegies very quickly (which has a good and bad side), and we accept people on their face value, trust them only until they do us wrong, and we usually dont complain much until they do us great wrong and after a time forget their wrongs too, we take in and accept eveything like as if they are “we”, with the many numerous qualities I can mention, I wont, but we are a simple people, naive people, sometimes goofy people but we are not know to hold grudges. We dont hate you, we hate double standards, Byzantine/Greek Intrigue and injustice.

No two people are the same and no two nations can be the same. But there can only be one peace and that is a mutual peace, with both sides playing the other sides music, and been just and objective, in a taxi and also in history books that mould young minds of the adults of tomorrow, generation after generation.

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

Is is very interesting, though i was waitting for this to happen, that you claim Herodotus and Polybious as false.

Professor Eugene N. Borza, which you refere to, claims the following

"The macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples."
E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), page 84

"The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival."

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émi-grés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity."

"It is difficult to know whether an independent Macedonian state would have come into existence had Tito not recognized and supported the development of Macedonian ethnicity as part of his ethnically organized Yugoslavia. He did this as a counter to Bulgaria, which for centuries had a historical claim on the area as far west as Lake Ohrid and the present border of Albania."

“Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors

I hope you will not claim the historian you refered to as false my friend s3kiz

About the taxi driver, maybe he wasn't Greek? I think there are some Kurdish taxi drivers in Greece.

[s3kiz]

Start Part 1/2:

Professor Eugene N. Borza, which you refere to, claims the following

"The macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples."
E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), page 84

I have a few opinions to answer to your above quote:

1) The remark in your quote does sound like the beginning of a sentence/paragraph, as scientist do, providing/accepting the possibility of everything and anything before coming to a conclusion, just like "The Macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced Greek people BUT with the latest finding we can ascertain that they are not”… etc etc

2)Have you considered that Professor Borza in the paragraph could have been qouting someone else words, in order to argue against it with his findings, like “Professor Eliaslar claims that the Macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples BUT with the latest finding we can ascertain that they are not”… etc etc

3)Well, if you had read that book you are quoting from as evidence you would also know the book has these, and I’ll give you the page numbers for you to check:

"Thus, long before there was a sufficient ancient evidence to argue about the ethnic identity--as revealed by language--of the ancient Macedonians, there emerged a "Greek" position claiming that the Macedonian language was Greek, and that thus the inhabitants were Greek."
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

The modern Greeks have therefore, developed a position that the Macedonians were Greek, long before there was sufficient ancient evidence to argue about their ethnicity. Yet although modern historiography had long abandoned this prematurely established "Greek" position, modern Greeks are still its most zealous defenders despite the overwhelming evidence available today, which overwhelmingly shows that the Macedonians were not Greeks but a distinct nation. Borza continues:

"For example, recent work describes the funerary stelae found in the tumulus covering the royal tombs at Vergina. These stelae date from the fourth and early third centuries, and the preponderance of names are Greek… The excavator of Vergina, Manolis Andronikos(owner of the underlined words), in a useful summary of the epigraphic evidence, writes: "In the most unambivalent way this evidence confirms the opinion of those historians who maintain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, like all the others who lived on Greek territory, and shows that the theory that they were of Illyrian or Thracian (as they arent Greek) descent and were hellenized by Philip and Alexander rests on no objective criteria."
Manolis Andronikos Vergina:The Royal Tombs, 83-85."”
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

"This argument is true enough only as far as it goes. It neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occurred earlier then the age of Philip and Alexander, and can not therefore serve as a means of proving the Macedonians were a Greek tribe”
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

Indeed, not only Andronakis was obviously wrong to conclude that the Macedonians were Greek, but also notice how the Greek archeologist does not point that the Macedonians might have been a separate nation. Instead he prefers to call it if not Greek, either Illyrian or Thracian, two ancient nations that can not be associated with the Balkans politics surrounding Greece, resulted from the 1913 partition of Macedonia. Also notice how Andronikos used the term "like all the others who lived on Greek territory". It’s like he wants to convince the reader that Macedonia has always been a "Greek territory", which is exactly what he uses as a base for his inaccurate conclusion.

We can see a trend among the Greek scholars (Andronikos, Martis, Daskalakis, Kallaris, and Sakellariou) who desperately want to show the world that the Macedonians "were Greeks", though unsuccessfully.

And here he gives more examples of Greek writers and proves their claims wrong:

"The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study of the Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 488-531, in which alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined exhaustively. A more chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be found in Daskalakis, Hellenism, esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that venerable society of scholars. 44-63."
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

Anyway we also know that Thucydides, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite the myths created on non original works, like the ones he only transmits. Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hellenes):

"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124)
"Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states"
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.96)

In 1913 when Macedonia was partitioned after the Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part 51%. There was nothing in Macedonia then that connected that land with Greece, apart from the small 10% Greek minority scattered in southern Macedonia among the overwhelming majority of Macedonians who lived throughout the country. That is exactly why the Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek", so that if in ancient times there was a Greek tribe (supposedly Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is Greek.

The above condition of quoting out of context applies to rest of your post, there too quotes are taken out of context. But I dont blame you, in the rush to provide “evidence” againt what I wrote in my previous posts you acted hastily.

But your quotes are wrong. And you are not the only wrong one.

I found over 50 Greek forums and websites that use the exact quotes in the exact order as proof (I got tired so stopped looking, who knows there could be thousands of this false propaganda out there)

Obviously nationalism can blind intellectualism. I suspect this “out-of-context fake quote” was spread amoung Greeks as propaganda material via forums/emails, as ammunition to fire at any opposing view.

But the way it is, its all fake, nothing more than “manipulative, devious, twisting” like the Byzantine/Greek Intrigue is, as deemed in thesaurusi.

Anyway, although the information I provided clearly nulls your previous post, just so you are competely convinced that what you brought as evidence is fake, I can further inform you that the below statements are from Professor Borza at the American Philological Association- Annual Meeting of 1996. 1996 yes, 6 years after the book he wrote which you incorrectly quoted. Reading the below evidence, you can see he hasnt changed his mind that Macedonians and Greeks are two different nations:

"Macedonians…emerged as a people distinct from the Greeks who lived to the south and east. In time their royal court--which probably did not have Greek origins (the tradition in Herodotus that the Macedonian kings were descended from Argos is probably a piece of Macedonian royal propaganda).

On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians:

1)Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks. On the composition of Alexander's army:

2) "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."

3) "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks."

4) "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."

5) On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be."

6) On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest.".

7) On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."

8) On Alexander's dismissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."

9) On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence."

10) On the Macedonian language: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
"The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically."
"The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."

11) On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped.” “Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different." "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)." "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity."
"In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive."

12) "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities."

13)"They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."

"It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."
Prof: Eugene N. Borza, 1996 (Abstract from a paper presented at the 1996 Annual meeting of the American Philological Association)
http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/96program.html)
http://www.gate.net/~mango/borza1.htm

And this American Philological Association meetings are nothing small, with Profs, Docs and all sorts of academicians/pipes/cardigans from dozens and dozens of institutions, with just 5 examples below:

Harvard University
Oxford University
Yale University
Xavier University
Loyola University

End Part 1/2

[s3kiz]

Start Part 2/2

But a Greek rightfully can say “but ancient Macedonians are different to current ones, the current ones are Slavs who came in the 6th Century to the area, very true, but the below can provide the answer to that too:

“If for the Greeks the "name" issue represents "Support for the State Philosophy" which is overly excessive, then for the Macedonians it represents a risk of "losing their country and ethnic existense". Macedonians have been using this name for at least 1,500 years or since many tribes settled the Balkans and mixed with the indigenous people. Greeks on the other hand have gained Macedonian territory, specifically their northern province which for the longest time they called "Northern Greece" only 95 years ago when they took possession of 51% of Macedonia in 1913. Only in 1989 did Greece change the name of its northern province to "Macedonia" under the motto "Attack is the best defense".

When Slav tribes were settling the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD the ancient Greeks had already abandoned Greece and others settled in their place. For well known reasons the Greeks left Greece at the end of the 4th century but the descendents of the ancient Macedonians remained all while Macedonia was a Roman province. Thus the descendents of the ancient Macedonians lived in Macedonia as the descendents of the ancient Thracians lived in Thrace and as the descendents of the Ancient Epirians lived in Epirus. In time these people assimilated with the Slav tribes who in turn adopted those lands as their home and left their genetic markers in the modern populations. So today we have Slav and ancient Macedonian genetic markers in the blood of the modern Macedonians.

Contrary to any Greek assertions, Greeks in reality never settled Macedonian territories, not in ancient nor any other time until the 20th century. Macedonians on the other hand have conquered and have occupied Greek lands. The ancient Macedonians, through the League of Corinth, held hegemony over the Greeks for over 120 years during which time they also occupied Athens for a short period.

Thus prior to the 20th century Macedonia was never Greek, not during Roman times when both Macedonia and Greece were Roman colonies, not during the Middle Ages, not during Ottoman times and certainly not until after the 1912, 1913 Balkan Wars when Greece, for the first time, by virtue of conquest, was awarded Macedonian lands including Solun and parts of Thrace. And this (victory over Ottoman Empire) Greece did not do alone but with help from its neighbours Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro and with the blessings of the Great Powers (crumbling, the Ottoman Empire was also fighting on other fronts against Russia, in Mid-East and Africa).
Hans Lothar Schteppan, (a former German Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia and author of the book "Macedonian Knot").


I’m all against genetically differentiating people for purposes of prejudice, firstly let me make that clear. So its only for the purpose of our argument, I want to provide some evidence regarding DNA and how it applies to Greek and Macedonian issue.

A 2000 research done by Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology Universidad Complutense, Madrid Spain entitled “HLA genes in Macedonians and Sub-Saharan Origin of Greeks” comments:

“The following conclusions have been reached:

1)Macedonians belong to the “older” Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, french, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks, Armenians and Iranians,

2)Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the “older” Mediterranean substratum,

3)Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mefiterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1112, *1304 and *1310...

The Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occured was ancient but uncertain and might be related to displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt…

There could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occured in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least. The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners establishment.

Also, the time when admixture occured could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties or after undetermined natural catastrophes.

Indeed, ancient Greeks believe that their religion and culture came from Egypt”(Reference to Herodotus.)http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

As you know there are some Greek nationalist who also claim, the army of Alexander the Great travelled far and wide specifically spreading “Hellenism/Greekness”, and one of the place these people claim as leaving Greekness DNA in is in south asia, namely areas in current day Pakistan.

Well regarding that matter here is a study into Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation study done in Pakistan. Unlike Greek claims, the scientific results are very different:

“Overall, no support for a Greek origin of their Y chromosomes was found, but this conclusion does require the assumption that modern Greeks are representative of Alexander’s armies”

But the study has found, with some Pakistani tribes, high percentages and similarities with people from Central Asia (Turkistan, inhabited by Turks for 17 000 documented years). Which is explainable because the Mughal Empire was founded by Babur Sah, a Turk and the Taj Mahal in India was built by another Turk Sah Cihan, in honor for the love he had for his belowed wife Arjumand Banu.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=447589


Anyway, with all this said. Lets all agree not to call Macedonians, “Macedonians”, ok fair enough.

But that still doesnt change the fact that there are about 500 000 people in Greece which the government calls “Slavophones” meaning Slavs spkeakers and who (with another 300 000 Turks) were/are facing a Greek state/cultural “Hellenization”, getting ethnically cleansed, who have the same culture, language, heritage and, think and believe they are same with the people we agreed not to call as “Macedonians” the Macedonians, in Republic of Macedonia.

Its a dilemma.

Finally, I want to remind you eliaslar that before on many occasions you accused me of providing inaccurate links (you even claimed the European Court of Human Rights link I gave was wrong) and you implied dishonesty on my part and each time I proved you wrong with my evidence.

But now....I wont say anymore.

Please, next time dont fall for cheap propaganda material on Greek websites, be more decerning.

And stay clear of the manipulations and devious twisting of Byzantine/Greek Intrigue, does the world a lot of harm, including you.

Cheers.



End Part 2/2

[WebMaster]

Thread closed

Read the rules:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

s3kiz, I am not sure if you noticed but I am getting a little tired of your copy pastes about greeks/cyprus, etc.

How does "russia vs azerbaijan" warrant a reply about greek/Cyprus issue? People should be banned for their stupidity but we give them a chance and it is usually a one time thing.

Thank you and enjoy!