Greece vs Turkey; possible conflict scenarios - Page 8

Low-tech · 10-13-2006, 21:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlpErTunga

The oldest ruins in Turkiye belongs to Hittites and Hattis. So they are not occupiers; they are real owners of these lands. During medieval ages, lands belonged to strong one. You cannot talk about international law in medieval ages. So you cannot judge states about their conquests in medieval age. But humans did not lived useless, they performed a great paradigma and today, world have an international law which puts human(not christian,not muslim,not greek, not Turk...) to center of everything. And the population of Turkiye makes Anatolia Turkiye. But anger of Greece can't make Anatolia "hellas". Because international law puts "HUMAN" to center of everything.

No; as we understand from their ruins and archaeological searches; they are founders of many great cities, like Hattushash or Gordion...

You are not correct. They had many agricultural based cities on Konya Plain,

Yes. If they weren't killed or assimilated by greeks, persians and assyrians; they would exist today, too.

If armenian guys did not rebel and did not kill almost all Turkish population in rural areas; there would not be any problem... It is not genocide, it is a civil war or mutual massacre.

ok, well you got me, im wrong on the hittites, but however

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The Hittites were an ancient people who spoke an Indo-European language, and established a kingdom centered at Hattusa (Hittite URUḪattuša) in north-central Anatolia from the 18th century BC. In the 14th century BC, the Hittite empire was at its height, encompassing central Anatolia, north-western Syria as far as Ugarit, and upper Mesopotamia. After 1180 BC, the empire disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC

.

its doesnt say that greeks killed them off. even if it did, this is also 800 before christ was born which is obviously in the realm of historical context. that means that it was so long ago you cant hold those civilizations to our modern day standards of morality. if you did all early civilizations would be seen as atrocious,genocidal and evil. 100 years ago is a different story, 2800 years ago was when the last anyone heard from the hittites.

even the fact that you would draw comparisons with the hittites as something that excuses your nations history indicates you are slightly aware that there was wrongdoing. it would be great if you could step away from that Ataturk "cult of personality" and just admit it makes sense for your country to own up to its past.

i dont agree with that law in france that some want to pass, we all know its political BS and itll be vetoed, but the underlaying point is your country has to face the facts before the EU membership is possible. acknowledgement, thats it. its not that hard, the US did it in regards to the history of the slave trade and the fact we presently reside on stolen land.

i notice turkey has no problem admitting thier slave trade, for instance. granted it did occur a very long time ago and is seen in moreso a "historical context" for that time.

laertes · 10-14-2006, 03:45 AM

Quote:

its doesnt say that greeks killed them off. even if it did, this is also 800 before christ was born which is obviously in the realm of historical context. that means that it was so long ago you cant hold those civilizations to our modern day standards of morality.

Oh Low-tech, what about all those massacres conducted after the birth of christ by our civilized fellows in the west in most civilized ways? Genocidal acts towards native populations was like the common practice in many areas. Estimably, about 150 million people in south america and about 50 millon people in northen america had been killed after the discovery of americas. Aborgines in australia and african blacks have shared similar fates.(btw, except some hollywood movies i havent seen much an apology for these events which didnt took place 2800 years ago)

And it doestn say greeks killed them off because these guys were killed and assimilated by surrounding forces be it greeks or Persia or anyone else. But probably their earlier antecedents do survive in the genes of many greeks and Turks.The important point here is that nongreek and non turk civilizations had existed in earlier anatolia, Hitites being only one of them. And they were not nomadic.

In the case of Pontic Greeks, i strongly advise you to learn about the massacres that the Greek army commited in western anatolia during their little adventure in turkey after WWI until they got driven out.

Low-tech · 10-14-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laertes

Oh Low-tech, what about all those massacres conducted after the birth of christ by our civilized fellows in the west in most civilized ways? Genocidal acts towards native populations was like the common practice in many areas. Estimably, about 150 million people in south america and about 50 millon people in northen america had been killed after the discovery of americas. Aborgines in australia and african blacks have shared similar fates.(btw, except some hollywood movies i havent seen much an apology for these events which didnt took place 2800 years ago)

And it doestn say greeks killed them off because these guys were killed and assimilated by surrounding forces be it greeks or Persia or anyone else. But probably their earlier antecedents do survive in the genes of many greeks and Turks.The important point here is that nongreek and non turk civilizations had existed in earlier anatolia, Hitites being only one of them. And they were not nomadic.

In the case of Pontic Greeks, i strongly advise you to learn about the massacres that the Greek army commited in western anatolia during their little adventure in turkey after WWI until they got driven out.

hell, man, ill do you one up. us Americans are better at killing and stealing than your country is.......thing is WE ADMIT IT...........ITS WELL DOCUMENTED, and our people are educated about it in school. native americans can visit the sites of these massacres and are privy to whatever documentation there exist about the entire history of the colonization of the west. as for blacks, same deal, they can access whats available as far as information,we even have black history month in our public schools which FOCUS on thier plight and struggle for equality. WE DENY NOTHING. what im talking about is your government do the same.....acknowledgement thats it, no money, no hand outs, nothing. just accept what the world already knows about your country<and perhaps allow the interested parties to collect the bodies and research the extend of the massacres>.

as far as the greeks massacring the people and destoying cities as they fled turkey during that war....i dont doubt that its true, to what extend i dont know. but

1>does it justify extermination of an ethnic minority<which was just one of many religious minorities who suffered the same fate> who, for the most part had nothing to do with the invasion,were townfolks,women and children.

2>the massacres well predate the war anyway

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGAIN WITH THE GODDAMN WIKIPEDIA

Eyewitness accounts and quotes

Reports of German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats that provide evidence of the Genocide (from the German and Austrian Archives).[30] [31]

* “The Turks have decided upon a war of extermination against their Christian subjects.” German Ambassador Wangenheim to German Chancellor von Bulow, quoting Turkish Prime Minister Sefker Pasha, July 24, 1909.
* “The anti-Greek and anti-Armenian persecutions are two phases of one programme - the extermination of the Christian element from Turkey.” Father J. Lepsius, German clergyman, July 31, 1915.
* “...the entire Greek population of Sinope and the coastal region of the county of Kastanome has been exiled. Exile and extermination in Turkish are the same, for whoever is not murdered, will die from hunger or illness.” Herr Kuchhoff, German consul in Amissos in a despatch to Berlin, July 16, 1916.
* “On 26 November, Rafet Bey told me: ‘We must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians’...On 28 November, Rafet Bey told me: ‘Today, I sent squads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight.’ I fear for the elimination of the entire Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year.” (referring to the Armenian Genocide) Herr Kwiatkowski, Austro-Hungarian consul in Amissos to Baron von Burian, Foreign Minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, November 30, 1916
* “Consuls Bergfeld in Samsun and Schede in Kerasun report of displacement of local population and murders. Prisoners are not kept. Villages reduced to ashes. Greek refugee families consisting mostly of women and children being marched from the coasts to Sebasteia. The need is great.” German Ambassador Kuhlman to German Chancellor Hollweg, December 13, 1916.
* Herr Pallavicini, Ambassador of Austria-Hungary to Turkey, writes to Vienna, listing the villages in the region of Amissos that were being burnt to the ground, their inhabitants raped and either murdered or exiled, December 19, 1916:
* “The situation for the displaced is desperate. Death awaits them all. I spoke to the Grand Vizier and told him that it would be sad if the persecution of the Greek element took the same scope and dimension as the Armenian persecution. The Grand Vizier promised that he would influence Talaat Bey and Enver Pasha.” Austro-Hungarian Ambassador Pallavicini to Vienna, January 20, 1917
* “The time is near for Turkey to be finished with the Greeks as we were with the Armenians in 1915.” Talaat Bey as quoted by an Austro-Hungarian agent, January 31, 1917
* “...the indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior, without taking measures for their survival by exposing them to death, hunger and illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed. Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks.” Chancellor Hollweg of Germany, February 9, 1917.

again citations

Quote:

30. ^ Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies: the genocide and its aftermath
31. ^ Thea Halo, "Not Even My Mame", New York: Picador USA 2000, pages 26, 27, & 28

if you got sources refuting this, bring them on, i like reading accounts from both sides.

as far as the hittites, looks like i need to read up on them. you an alper have an interesting point.

AlpErTunga · 10-14-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low-tech

ok, well you got me, im wrong on the hittites, but however.

Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. But anyway;

Quote:

its doesnt say that greeks killed them off. even if it did, this is also 800 before christ was born which is obviously in the realm of historical context. that means that it was so long ago you cant hold those civilizations to our modern day standards of morality.

No, I can. Because we are discussing the "first" and "original" owner of Anatolia.

This Hellas guy is talking about almost 1000 year conquest. Turks conquered Anatolia in 1071, Manzikert Battle, a few centuries after the greek, persian, assyrian and other middle eastern conquests of Anatolia.

Quote:

if you did all early civilizations would be seen as atrocious,genocidal and evil. 100 years ago is a different story, 2800 years ago was when the last anyone heard from the hittites.

Greeks claim they were the owners of Anatolia and it's a fact that Hittites are the first inhabitants of these lands. And there is nothing remaining(except archeological materials) from Hittiti people.

We also conquered many countries and made these lands our homeland. But we did not destroyed peasants of these lands. We only got tax from them. So the virtue is the same virtue and the genocide is genocide also 1000 years ago.

Quote:

even the fact that you would draw comparisons with the hittites as something that excuses your nations history indicates you are slightly aware that there was wrongdoing. it would be great if you could step away from that Ataturk "cult of personality" and just admit it makes sense for your country to own up to its past.

There is only Kemalism which you has not attack yet, huh? What is wrong in Kemalism? Kemalism wants Turks to be secular, democratic, republican, modern, educated, rationalist, nationalist, etc... What is wrong with these principles? Do you want to be a Turkiye which is dictated by ayetollahs and mollahs? I don't worship to "ideas and aims" of Ataturk.

Quote:

i dont agree with that law in france that some want to pass, we all know its political BS and itll be vetoed, but the underlaying point is your country has to face the facts before the EU membership is possible. acknowledgement, thats it. its not that hard, the US did it in regards to the history of the slave trade and the fact we presently reside on stolen land.

You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"

The aim of armenia is not putting the souls of their ancestors at ease; their aim is occupying eastern Turkiye. But this idea is not so realistic. These lands are not the same as they were in early centuries; these lands are totally Turkish populated today. And as I said before angers don't determines the nationality of a land; but people of these lands determines.

Kansas Bear · 10-14-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlpErTunga

You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"

Sources??
Since the ONLY sources you have are of TURKISH origin, therein shows your lies.

Why don't the German and Austro-Hungarian consulars and officers stationed with Ottoman troops mention this "civil war"

??

They fully mention Turkish troops entering town after town and taking all the men and young boys and marching them out and shooting them. This is corroborated by missionaries and by Seyed Mohamad Ali Jamalzadeh, the famous Iranian writer.

" We moved from Baghdad and Aleppo towards Istanbul by hand-cart and cart. From the first day’s of our journey, we met many groups of Armenians, which strangely were unbelievable, and the Turkish armed and rider gendarmes drove them (on foot) towards death and perdition. First it made us very surprised, but little by little we fall into the habit. That even we did not look at them, and indeed it was hard to look at them.By the hit of lashes and weapons, they drove forward hundreds of weeping weak and on foot Armenian women and men with their children. Young men weren't seen among the people, because all the young men were send to the battle fields or were killed for precaution (joining to the Russian army). Armenian girls had shaved all their hairs, and were completely bald, let not Arab and Turkish men annoy them. Two-three gendarmes by the hit of the lashes, drove this groups forward, like cattle. If one of the captives because of tiredness and weakness or accident, was remained behind, he was kept back for ever (he was killed.), and the groaning of his relatives were useless. So step by step, we saw Armenian men and women who were fallen near the road and they were dead, or they were giving life or agony of death. Later we understood that some of the young residents of that area had not kept honor of some Armenian girls who were dying or had died in order to satisfy their lust. Our way was in the direction of Western Bank of Euphrates, and everyday we saw the corpses in the river, which the river carry them with it." -- “My personal observations In world war one”, by Seyed Mohamad Ali Jamalzadeh

Doesn't sound like a "civil war" or "mutual massacre".

Your illness is in your mind, go learn REAL history....

Low-tech · 10-14-2006, 15:44 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlpErTunga

Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. But anyway;

man, i EVEN LINKED THE CITITATIONS OF THE ARTICLE, look above

Quote:

No, I can. Because we are discussing the "first" and "original" owner of Anatolia.

did we not agree they were assimilated by thier nieghbors,possibly arouns 800 BC. BUT ANYWAY, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE A SOURCE THAT GREEKS AND ROMANS KILLED THEM OFF.

Quote:

This Hellas guy is talking about almost 1000 year conquest. Turks conquered Anatolia in 1071, Manzikert Battle, a few centuries after the greek, persian, assyrian and other middle eastern conquests of Anatolia.

i dont agree with his sentiments and wont defend him. but, however the western shore of what now is turkey including istanbul was greek in origin from the beginning of recorded history, the hittites did not occupy those lands before. furthermore the greeks lived in those lands after they were conquered by the turks and remain until..........your people kill,deported or ran them off within the last hundred years.

just because the turks took land 1000 years ago doesnt mean the greeks,armenians,assyrians just magically dissapeared. they were still there till recently......till they got killed in mass

Quote:

Greeks claim they were the owners of Anatolia and it's a fact that Hittites are the first inhabitants of these lands. And there is nothing remaining(except archeological materials) from Hittiti people.

they did not occupy the total sum of what is now your natural borders and they still exist in the sense they were assimilated by thier nieghbors.......well before turks came to that region. you guys came from the steppe, remember?

Quote:

We also conquered many countries and made these lands our homeland. But we did not destroyed peasants of these lands. We only got tax from them. So the virtue is the same virtue and the genocide is genocide also 1000 years ago.

early 1900s, your country systematically annihilated religious and ethnic minorites to create a hegemonous, united,nationalist country.

Quote:

There is only Kemalism which you has not attack yet, huh? What is wrong in Kemalism? Kemalism wants Turks to be secular, democratic, republican, modern, educated, rationalist, nationalist, etc... What is wrong with these principles? Do you want to be a Turkiye which is dictated by ayetollahs and mollahs? I don't worship to "ideas and aims" of Ataturk

.

you guys copied the european model of a republic.........what?, am i suppose to congragulate you for not living in a theocracy?

do not conflate nationalism with revisionist history

Quote:

You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"

SOURCE??? how exactly do simple townsfolk, farmers massacre 1.5 million turks in a heavily armed regional power?

this is the same tired BS

Quote:

The aim of armenia is not putting the souls of their ancestors at ease; their aim is occupying eastern Turkiye. But this idea is not so realistic. These lands are not the same as they were in early centuries; these lands are totally Turkish populated today. And as I said before angers don't determines the nationality of a land; but people of these lands determines

occupy??? source??

laertes · 10-14-2006, 19:06 PM

Quote:

however the western shore of what now is turkey including istanbul was greek in origin from the beginning of recorded history

Recorded history says that these lands owned by various non greek kingdoms like Troy(most famous of them i guess because of the Homers book), Lydians ( guys who used money for the first time in the history of mankind as a mean of transaction), Phrygians and some other kingdoms. Since they ceased to exist in time it is very much likely that they were killed and assimilated.

Quote:

furthermore the greeks lived in those lands after they were conquered by the turks and remain until..........your people kill,deported or ran them off within the last hundred years.

it is also related very much with the pontic Greeks i guess, what you call "deported" was undertaken as a result of an agreement between the Turkish and Greek states. Conditions were accepted mutually. And about 500.000 to 600.000 Turks( or may be merely muslim greeks thats debatable) were "deported" from Greece to Turkey, from the lands they have been living for generations. who cares who comes the first or what the origins of these lands, you have to be sorry for them as well.

Quote:

The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey refers to the first large scale population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion in the 20th century. It involved some two million persons, 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, January 30, 1923, between the governments of Greece and TurkeyThe exchange took place between Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.

Almost all Greeks and the Turkish speaking Christian population in middle Anatolia, about 1.5 million, from Turkish Anatolia and Turkish Thrace were expelled or formally denaturalized. Expelled from Greece were about 500,000, predominantly Turks
The Greeks of Istanbul, Imbros (Gökçeada in Turkish) and Tenedos (Bozcaada), as well as the Turks and other Muslims of Western Thrace were exempted from this transfer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...ece_and_Turkey

Low-tech · 10-15-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laertes

Recorded history says that these lands owned by various non greek kingdoms like Troy(most famous of them i guess because of the Homers book), Lydians ( guys who used money for the first time in the history of mankind as a mean of transaction), Phrygians and some other kingdoms. Since they ceased to exist in time it is very much likely that they were killed and assimilated.

greek names are on that maps, correct me if im wrong. i dont know if thats accurate or if any like, color blob on a map is really gonna be accurate anyway. the origin of the names of areas sounds like a better way

and consider troy,my friend, if you had read the book you cite that they worshipped greek gods, spoke the same language and had greek names. this is all quiet academic and none of it relevent as a source due to the iliad being a mythological oral history<a combination of many such tales mixed together and> written 600 years after the fact.

Quote:

it is also related very much with the pontic Greeks i guess, what you call "deported" was undertaken as a result of an agreement between the Turkish and Greek states. Conditions were accepted mutually. And about 500.000 to 600.000 Turks( or may be merely muslim greeks thats debatable) were "deported" from Greece to Turkey, from the lands they have been living for generations. who cares who comes the first or what the origins of these lands, you have to be sorry for them as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...ece_and_Turkey

after the fact about 300,000 were simply killed or worked to death,half a million assyrians and 1.5 million armenians you can understand the greeks left under duress.

there are still turks in greece, in thessaloniki i believe.

laertes · 10-15-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

after the fact about 300,000 were simply killed or worked to death,half a million assyrians and 1.5 million armenians you can understand the greeks left under duress.

It has nothing to do with it, i personally dont think 300.000 greeks killed anyway. Most Greeks living in Turkey, just like most Turks in Greece, probably would have chosen to stay in their homes if asked but this was the decision of Turkish and Greek governments.

What good do Greeks living in Turkey to Greek state, especially after the disastrous defeat of the Greek army in Turkey destroyed any hope of expanding Greece at the expanse of Turkey?

Some officials at the time said that this population exchange was undertaken to prevent another round of Greco turkish war but it is also suggested that both countries wanted to create a more homogeneous society for their respective nation states.
The important part of this story is that it was done as resut of mutual agreement, no one forced greek government to agree with the conditions and you should do more a correct job if you accuse the decisons of Greek government for this deportation process.
And there are still Greeks living in Turkey to this day, very few though.

For more knowledge on the issue you can check this one, apparently a Greek site since it goes with the name of "Hellenic Resource Network".

Quote:

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE EXCHANGE OF GREEK AND TURKISH POPULATIONS
The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and the Greek Government have agreed upon the following provisions:
Article 1

As from the 1st May, 1923, there shall take place a compulsory exchange of Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Moslem religion established in Greek territory.

These persons shall not return to live in Turkey or Greece respectively without the authorisation of the Turkish Government or of the Greek Government respectively.

Article 2

The following persons shall not be included in the exchange provided for in Article 1:

(a) The Greek inhabitants of Constantinople.

(b) The Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace.

All Greeks who were already established before the 30th October, 1918, within the areas under the Prefecture of the City of Constantinople, as defined by the law of 1912, shall be considered as Greek inhabitants of Constantinople.

All Moslems established in the region to the east of the frontier line laid down in 1913 by the Treaty of Bucharest shall be considered as Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace...

http://www.hri.org/docs/straits/exchange.html

Low-tech · 10-15-2006, 12:12 PM

I

Quote:

t has nothing to do with it, i personally dont think 300.000 greeks killed anyway. Most Greeks living in Turkey, just like most Turks in Greece, probably would have chosen to stay in their homes if asked but this was the decision of Turkish and Greek governments.

as if the the annihilation of the armenians and hundreds of thousands of greeks didnt make it clear enough the get out while they can, STFU.

the exchange happened to prevent more bloodshed ill give you that, but however there are still turks and muslims living in greece which to me indicates that greeks didnt intend to kill them in mass and send them off to work camps, i dont know, lets call it a hunch.

Quote:

What good do Greeks living in Turkey to Greek state, especially after the disastrous defeat of the Greek army in Turkey destroyed any hope of expanding Greece at the expanse of Turkey?

this is kinda like asking some mexicans who originally are from Arizona or Cali from before those land were ceded "why dont you go to mexico?, this is America" or like "what good is it to live here since mexico lost the war?". well if you are not retarded you will realize

1>these people are not representative of mexico's government, they have little say over whether the government of mexico wages war against whomever. they may be sympathetic to thier culture, this does not make them mexican nationals forever.

2>these people wish to continue living in the land of thier forefathers and preserve thier culture, despite being ruled by a foriegn power.

Quote:

Some officials at the time said that this population exchange was undertaken to prevent another round of Greco turkish war but it is also suggested that both countries wanted to create a more homogeneous society for their respective nation states.
The important part of this story is that it was done as resut of mutual agreement, no one forced greek government to agree with the conditions and you should do more a correct job if you accuse the decisons of Greek government for this deportation process.

Quote:

And there are still Greeks living in Turkey to this day, very few though

.

dude, im done talking to you. the greeks agreed to this exchange because those people lived as second class citizens and were facing pogroms,enslavement,massacres, WTF you talking about??? homogeneous society about greece??? it makes no sense considering those people who were exchanged ORIGINALLY CAME FROM THOSE AREAS IN TURKEY. homogeneous society maybe for the turks after they killed most of thier minorities,sure.

this was after over 2 million people<combined of various ethnic groups> were killed over the last 10-15 years, had nothing to do with it???, dude, im done here

For more knowledge on the issue you can check this one, apparently a Greek site since it goes with the name of "Hellenic Resource Network".

http://www.hri.org/docs/straits/exchange.html[/quote]

laertes · 10-15-2006, 13:19 PM

Quote:

this is kinda like asking some mexicans who originally are from Arizona or Cali from before those land were ceded "why dont you go to mexico?, this is America" or like "what good is it to live here since mexico lost the war?". well if you are not retarded you will realize

1>these people are not representative of mexico's government, they have little say over whether the government of mexico wages war against whomever. they may be sympathetic to thier culture, this does not make them mexican nationals forever.

2>these people wish to continue living in the land of thier forefathers and preserve thier culture, despite being ruled by a foriegn power.

You dont make any sense now, i didnt say they did good job leaving turkey nor did i appreciate the MUTUAL expelling decision of turkish and Greek governments at the time. Im merely explaning to you the possible motives of each government when they agreed to MUTUAL expulsion.

Quote:

as if the the annihilation of the armenians and hundreds of thousands of greeks didnt make it clear enough the get out while they can, STFU.

the exchange happened to prevent more bloodshed ill give you that

As i said no, if you read the above document from a Greek site you will notice that Greeks of Istanbul are exempted from the agreement and that about 100.000 to 200.000 Greeks continued to live in Turkey after the expulsion policy was realized accordingly.
Why the hell you can't accept the fact that Greek government pursued a policy of nationalization and found it as a suitable option to exchange Turks in its own soil with the Greeks from Turkey to build a more homogeneous nation state.

Quote:

dude, im done talking to you. the greeks agreed to this exchange because those people lived as second class citizens and were facing pogroms,enslavement,massacres, WTF you talking about???

Not exactly in practice but the republic gave the equal rights to each of its citizens regardless of ethnicity. As i pointed out above your comments are irrelevant, if the motive was to protect Greeks then they would have to embrace them all not to leave tens of thousands of greeks in Istanbul to the mercy of Turkish government..

Btw, attacks to the greek houses and shops in 50's was a horrible event but dont assume that turks of western Thrace have been behaved hospitably, nicely even some greek politicians agreed that discrimination took place towards turkish minority in Greece.

Nick Haritoudis · 10-27-2006, 15:43 PM

Yes, if the Greeks and the scum Turks were to have any type of conflict the Greek people would definitly have an advantage. First of all the Greece has a higher budget than the scum Turks. With that we would be able arm our soldiers with more and better equipment. and then buy more tanks, ships, and aircraft. After this scum Turkey will start to weaken, and with things going how they are in the middle east other countries would start to break out in military action with each other. The scum Turks will then have no where to go but to Iran for nuclear weapons. The United States would find this out and be able to alert the Greeks. While This is going on Greece will start to panic because the United states and NATO are not taking any action because they won't want to get into it and they will be to busy dealing with North Korea and more of the middle east, once Greece has paniced, for the safety of the Greek people they will bomb the crap out of scum Turkey. And when the scum Turks have had enough the Greek people will go in and slaughter all the men and children and rape their women with the intension of getting full revenge on the scum Turks for all of the innocent Greek people they Murdered and used for testing biochemical experaments. Then the Greeks will claim the Used to be Turkish land as theirs. But if for some reason there is need of more manpower, considering the growing relations with china they might be able to supply the Greeks with more men.
And one more thing the Greeks will have full control of the Mediterranean which leaves the scum Turkish the only way of getting in is to swim and drown. The Greek fisherman will pull in scum Turks every day laughing so hard, and they will bring their new dead turk home and feed it to the homeless dog wondering about his neihborhood.

Oh and the Greek economy should be rising dramaticly by an estimated 50 billion dollars a year, so lets say 3 years from know our economy will have grown by 150 billion dollars and will allow Greece to buy more aircraft and such.

Nick Haritoudis · 10-27-2006, 16:18 PM

Man this guy named Trojan is so stupid. I live all they way in North America and know that the reason Greece put so much money into the olympics was because it would bring more money in off of tourism.

Read up on it, his ignorance is shown int middle of the second page.

zraver · 10-27-2006, 16:25 PM

Quote:

You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"

That is not supported by a singe shred of evidence. What is supported from German, Austro-Hungarian, and American records is a massacre and forced deportion.

Quote:

The oldest ruins in Turkiye belongs to Hittites and Hattis. So they are not occupiers; they are real owners of these lands.

Half truths wont get you anywhere. The Hittite regions were closer to Lebanon than Greece. The areas known as anatolia was populated and still is by those of Greek ethnic decent.These populations trace thier roots back to well before the fall of greek Minoan civilisation. Modern day turks are not hitites but Scythian/Mongaloid crosses decended from the steps of Asia moixed with Greek Anatollian.

Nick Haritoudis · 10-27-2006, 16:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freedom

Hey,
so my belief is that if such a conflict begins and considering that the US or England won't interfere again in favor of the Turks (as they did in 1974) the results will be pretty much the following:
1) The greek army will easily invade the Easter Thrace and may march towards Constantinople - the land and the current situation in this area seems that this is the most possible outcome

2) The turkish army will easily land on a few (but totally unimportant) greek islands

3) Major fights will take place in Cyprus and airfights over the Aegen sea where the greek air-defense system is very effective

4) The Kurdish will revolt asking for an independent state

According to these four possible outcomes, I'm pretty sure that Turkey won't risk such a war that may lead to the collapse of the Turksih state as we know it today. Either way, Greece as a country won't go for a war. It has a very stable policy in the whole area and is totally against any changes in the borders, minorities etc (although some of them may favor Greece)

Also something else. Could please the Turks that post replies in this forum stop being so fanatics and so narrow-minded. I don't want to judge anybody but they totally sound like a horde of barbarians that are ready to invade Europe again (as Attila did many centuries ago).

Now there is a smart guy who knows what hes talking about.

10-27-2006, 15:43 PM	#117 (permalink)
Nick Haritoudis New Member Join Date: 10-27-06 Posts: 13	Greeks vs Turkish Yes, if the Greeks and the scum Turks were to have any type of conflict the Greek people would definitly have an advantage. First of all the Greece has a higher budget than the scum Turks. With that we would be able arm our soldiers with more and better equipment. and then buy more tanks, ships, and aircraft. After this scum Turkey will start to weaken, and with things going how they are in the middle east other countries would start to break out in military action with each other. The scum Turks will then have no where to go but to Iran for nuclear weapons. The United States would find this out and be able to alert the Greeks. While This is going on Greece will start to panic because the United states and NATO are not taking any action because they won't want to get into it and they will be to busy dealing with North Korea and more of the middle east, once Greece has paniced, for the safety of the Greek people they will bomb the crap out of scum Turkey. And when the scum Turks have had enough the Greek people will go in and slaughter all the men and children and rape their women with the intension of getting full revenge on the scum Turks for all of the innocent Greek people they Murdered and used for testing biochemical experaments. Then the Greeks will claim the Used to be Turkish land as theirs. But if for some reason there is need of more manpower, considering the growing relations with china they might be able to supply the Greeks with more men. And one more thing the Greeks will have full control of the Mediterranean which leaves the scum Turkish the only way of getting in is to swim and drown. The Greek fisherman will pull in scum Turks every day laughing so hard, and they will bring their new dead turk home and feed it to the homeless dog wondering about his neihborhood. Oh and the Greek economy should be rising dramaticly by an estimated 50 billion dollars a year, so lets say 3 years from know our economy will have grown by 150 billion dollars and will allow Greece to buy more aircraft and such. Last edited by Nick Haritoudis : 10-27-2006 at 16:54 PM.

10-27-2006, 16:18 PM	#118 (permalink)
Nick Haritoudis New Member Join Date: 10-27-06 Posts: 13	Man this guy named Trojan is so stupid. I live all they way in North America and know that the reason Greece put so much money into the olympics was because it would bring more money in off of tourism. Read up on it, his ignorance is shown int middle of the second page.