History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

didn't came up with that one . Merely reporting the the "erosion" notion which was sustained and will be sustained . Am only the guy who gets to ensure only Phantom sorties against Greece while we march onto the shores of Atlantic -you know- before crossin' it for the real deal .

so that the web won't have a chance to claim the Greeks would have stopped us cold if the worthless Frenchies and Nazis had not conspired to steal the good life from Greece .


though am not a fan of sharkteeth nor the checkers and not even the signature nor even this F-16 camo , all of them will come off .

^Are Phantom's still being produced?

say1988 said:

Turkey means the "land of the Turks" and the term "Turks" predates their arrival in Anatolia

Click to expand...

Turkistan is the one that translated as "the land of Turks". While Turkey is just an adaptation for the words "Turkiya".

However there something that I want to cross check with other who posses sufficient knowledge regarding this topic in this forum. is it true or not? I always hold the opinion that the origin of Turks backthen was from Mongolia before they finally cross to what we know as Turkistan (include also Dogu Turkistan, today Xinjiang) at the time of migration the land of Turkistan was mostly inhabit by Persian until later they totally assimilated.

After the Turks leave, immigrant coming from area nearby Manchu, and the mix between them and the natives in Mongolia, become what we know as the Mongol today, as the immigrant mostly hunter that handy with archery and they learn horse riding with the natives Turks in the region.

Kyriakos said:

Seems legit But why not just fall back on the theory that Homer was just a Turk called Omar? (love that one).

Click to expand...

Turks knew Omar later on after their conversion to Islam in Abbassid period. But I know that theory, if I'm not mistaken all of this theory called "gunes dil" theory. And I found this kind theory that support the "Pan [insert the name of the nation]" is not alienated only for the Turks. Peoples need legitimacy of superiority to lift up their race or nation. The Korean has it, also Japan, the Indonesian claim they are descendent of Atlantic peoples, while peoples in West Sumateran claim they are descendent of Alexander The Great smallest son. They try to prove their language, culture, antecedent superiority to please their narcissistic impulse, and satifsfy their vanity by be-little their surrounding community as "lesser race" or "peripheral race" where they are the centre.

I can demonstrate something more awful and funny than what you demonstrate but yes, I thought it will be not fair for the Turkish peoples, and I really love them, I live here in Turkey I found them very friendly and warm, they easily take you in as a part of a family. And I thought Turkish peoples before the republic are by default not race centric or race supremacist, before they were more universalist (open civilization). It is after the Republic that they becoming more communal centric, but now things change so much, and they are becoming more open minded than ever before.

Are Phantom's still being produced?

Click to expand...

not since '79 in the US and '81 in Japan ; but then ain't ı some Starfleet Admiral ?

Prospo said:

Does the Turkish population of Cyprus predate the Greek, or are they settlers?

Or is it really complicated like the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs?

Click to expand...

The Greeks were the natives of Cyprus since Ancient Times. The Turks came in the island only after the Ottoman Conquest. So, the Greeks could be said to be the natives and the Turks the settlers, although, considering how many years have passed since the conquest of Cyprus by the Turks and it's colonization, the Turks who live in the island could also be said to be natives now, in the same sense that modern Americans are the natives of USA. But still, the majority of the population on the island is Greek.

Mouthwash said:

Did the word turkey precede the the usage of it for the Ottoman Empire or is it the other way around?

Click to expand...

"Turk" originates either from the Middle East (specifically Persia) or China and is a word referring to those people south of the Altai Mountains. In English it came through Latin by way of Greek, so yes.

Interestingly the animal came via the same origins. Turkey was originally a word used to refer to "Guinea Fowl" (Numida melagris) which were imported into Europe from Madagascar via Middle Eastern Traders who were universally labeled as "Turk Merchants". When Spanish products were imported to Europe, they generally came by way of North Africa, so many New World goods were identified with the Turks. Maize was called "Turkey Corn" (As Corn was an Old English word which refers to any number of domesticated grains) or "Turkey Wheat", and Turkeys (that is, the bird) were mistakenly called "Turkey Fowl"

So, to answer the question: Turkey as in the people and location long predates the existence of the Ottoman Empire. Which is why we have a Turkmenistan (Turk+like+place) hundreds (thousands?) of miles away from any former Ottoman countries or borders. However turkey the bird and turkey the meat came about specifically because of the presence of the Ottoman Empire.

The Turks originated from Central Asia. They in fact conquered many times Northern China and created Khaganates in China. But part of the Turks, because of the Mongol invasions, was forced to move to Anatolia, where they created the Ottoman Empire.

^The mongol invasions happened before the 11th century? Even wiki has a map with the turk tribes only being attacked in their homeland at around the time of the fourth crusade.



Last i heard the catalyst for the migration of seljuks was the revolt of the seljuk (and other) mercenary forces of the Iranian king. That king managed to fall from his horse on his own and die, leading to anarchy and the Ilkhan forming. Later on seljuks were raiding Syria, they asked for safe passage from the local Byzantine lord, he refused out of greed, they fought and he lost and the rest is the usual crap until Myriocephalon :/

I am not talking about the Seljuk Turks, but about the Ottoman Turks being pushed to Anatolia.

Are civil wars more bloody in general than typical wars between states? And if so, why?

Both the American and the English civil wars killed a greater share of their respective country's population than any other war in that country's history - even in raw numbers, more people died in Ireland during the Civil War than the total number of British dead in the Second World War. Of course, this is partly explained by the fact that the same country is contributing to both sides. It's also the case that the brutality of these wars is often more keenly felt, since it happens closer to home, making it more likely to be reported. There's probably something, though, in the very nature of civil war that makes people tend towards brutality as part of it. After all, a soldier can usually rely on his love of country and knowledge that he is doing the right thing in action, that's one of the most important things that keeps him sane. To motivate people whose country has been split in two, you've got to work harder than ever to convince them that the other side is wrong. This means that they are traitors, and probably that they commit various horrible crimes besides. I'd argue, then, more that bloody wars are a result of one side seeing the enemy as somehow less human, and that civil wars more often tend towards that.

I agree that civil wars-in-general are bloodier than regular wars-in-general, but I don't think that we need to appeal to psychology, which I'm not sure we could really generalise about outside of the modern era. I think you can probably make the case from the simple nature of the conflicts, that civil wars tend to involve much broader areas of active conflict, that they're more likely to involve protracted insurgencies, that the political nature of the conflict can turn unarmed civilians into enemy agents, and so on. I'd even venture that it's not so much that civil wars give rise to excess, but that the political framework within which most regular wars remains has a limiting effect, but in civil wars these frameworks collapse.

It's also worth stressing that intrastate and interstate are ideal categories, and actual wars don't always fit neatly into either category. This makes it very hard to generalise, especially as the most brutal conflicts are very often the messiest politically speaking.

And I thought Turkish peoples before the republic are by default not race centric or race supremacist, before they were more universalist (open civilization). It is after the Republic that they becoming more communal centric, but now things change so much, and they are becoming more open minded than ever before.

Click to expand...

allow me to disagree on the grounds that "Turks" are becoming open minded only in one direction or two , within prescribed routes with prospects of "material gain" . We love , are made to love , the Sunni for we are supposed to rule the Middle East after this "inevitable" demise of the US of A . We love the Kurds , not because they are human beings as decent as any of us the Sunni Turks or the not so Sunni Turks but they are an instrument that can be wielded to break up and "invade" former-current Baas countries to the South and come handy in any American operation against Iran . Otherwise it's equally possible to see traitors behind every tree and under every rock as it was in the 1990s and the like . Don't appear to fall on the other side of any demarcation the "new Turks" have on any particular day ; or you might just have an eternal dislike for any single one of us , Old-New-Sunni-or not so Sunni .

in Civil Wars combatants live in "the same streets" any compromises to end the clashes will be readily visible to everybody . With two countries fighting you might give mining concessions to one Superpower which then stops Country A with some accounts in a Swiss bank and some other former Great Power makes Country B stop with increased migration qoutas and investments . Respective populations are not exactly aware of everything on the table in such horse trading ; calls of treason lose some sting . Compromises in the same street are harder ; keeps the fighting on forever .

Traitorfish said:

I agree that civil wars-in-general are bloodier than regular wars-in-general, but I don't think that we need to appeal to psychology, which I'm not sure we could really generalise about outside of the modern era.

Click to expand...

In Civil Wars, combatants usually seek to destroy the demographics who are likely to support a certain issue, especially if the Civil War occurs in an unstable democracy. Say, if a civil war is about supporters of the silver standard vs supporters of the gold standard, they will actually might want to destroy the demographics that form a base of support for these opinions.

r16 said:

allow me to disagree on the grounds that "Turks" are becoming open minded only in one direction or two , within prescribed routes with prospects of "material gain" . We love , are made to love , the Sunni for we are supposed to rule the Middle East after this "inevitable" demise of the US of A . We love the Kurds , not because they are human beings as decent as any of us the Sunni Turks or the not so Sunni Turks but they are an instrument that can be wielded to break up and "invade" former-current Baas countries to the South and come handy in any American operation against Iran . Otherwise it's equally possible to see traitors behind every tree and under every rock as it was in the 1990s and the like . Don't appear to fall on the other side of any demarcation the "new Turks" have on any particular day ; or you might just have an eternal dislike for any single one of us , Old-New-Sunni-or not so Sunni .

in Civil Wars combatants live in "the same streets" any compromises to end the clashes will be readily visible to everybody . With two countries fighting you might give mining concessions to one Superpower which then stops Country A with some accounts in a Swiss bank and some other former Great Power makes Country B stop with increased migration qoutas and investments . Respective populations are not exactly aware of everything on the table in such horse trading ; calls of treason lose some sting . Compromises in the same street are harder ; keeps the fighting on forever .

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I can't catch whole notion that you demonstrate except by guessing. My previous point was quite simple, there were discrimination that were suffered not only to the ethnic minority backthen in the time of early republic but also for the sunni population in general. From the Kurdish peoples who not allow to use their own language till the adzan that is forbid in Arabic language. And each time before the class session start, all of the students, regardless Turks or non Turks, must satisfy and testify Turkish ethnic supremacy by quoting the words of Attaturk "how happy I am to be a Turkish". I cannot name any nation in the world that apply something like that in 20 century except Turkey at that time, how they force assimilated other race and culture like Arabs, Armenian, Kurdish, into Turkish by force them to subdue to Attaturk modernization, even the sunni must gave up their Islamic clothes and head or they will face death penalty. There was no nation that punish peoples death penalty for wearing Islamic hat and not wearing western style hat except Turkey at that time. And guess what r16, I know all of this and learn it from the Turks also. I say half of the Turks is not favourable with the fascist tendency that the early republic demonstrate, I thought in the time of the Ottoman you hardly differ which is Turks and which one is non Turks, and if you see the genetic maps of the world you will surprise Turkish is the one who have one of the most richest genetic combination ever, and most of the Sultan in Ottoman empire take non Turks as their queen, even Fatih Sultan Mehmet married a Christian serbs.

I really endorse the work of Adnan Mandares, Erbakan and Tayyib to fix the discrimination law that been set by Turkey to their population. Just few years ago, Bucharest and Constanta in Romania were like a Turkish city, fill up with Hijabi women taking the university over there, because the law of the old republic doesn't allow Turkish woman to wear hijab in university, despite Turkey more than 90 percent of its population is Muslims, while their sunni homeland doesn't tolerate their belief and custom, Romania who dominantly orthodox tolerate their belief and custom, such an Irony! Now in the hand of Erdogan, hijab prohibition been abandon; students doesn't have to state "how happy I am to be Turkish" in each class session; Kurdish peoples allow to use their language; TV station that only serve in Kurdish language is open. Now more than 49 percent of the vote goes to AK party, serve them right! they deserve it for the good things that they did! Some of the fascist called Erdogan have an affiliation with PKK for his tolerances behaviour toward the Kurdish and for making peace agreement with them; and accusing him to be a puppet of US; also at the same time to be infiltrate by the Islamist and terrorist, all of the contradictive accusation put together and it doesn't make any sense at all.

And I can't never hate all of the Turks (bi iznillah), why? first, I never hate particular race as it is forbidden to me. Second, if I going to love a particular race it gonna be the Turks, but it is not fair for me to do that and not fit with my belief and principle. Third, I am your eniste, I'm part of the Turkish family. So don't give me an option, either you love the Cumruhiyet or you hate all of us, you know there is no such things, this is the things that the Attaturkcu must learn, there are diverse opinion that they must accept with open heart.

Kaiserguard said:

In Civil Wars, combatants usually seek to destroy the demographics who are likely to support a certain issue, especially if the Civil War occurs in an unstable democracy. Say, if a civil war is about supporters of the silver standard vs supporters of the gold standard, they will actually might want to destroy the demographics that form a base of support for these opinions.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that...

if you see the genetic maps of the world you will surprise Turkish is the one who have one of the most richest genetic combination ever, and most of the Sultan in Ottoman empire take non Turks as their queen, even Fatih Sultan Mehmet married a Christian serbs.

Click to expand...

and trust me , my mostly blue , green on the outside eyes see it well enough that we Turks are a genetic mix . Working that "You Racist" or "You got to see all your legends are false, you are from the Mediterranean not from Asia" is only helpful to those who are bent into eroding this whatever fanciful Turkishness into one more easier to digest and that in their dreams . This you can deduce from this Turkish "backlash" everybody seems to be wary of , without a single clue of actuality , possibility or power or whatever .

And each time before the class session start, all of the students, regardless Turks or non Turks, must satisfy and testify Turkish ethnic supremacy by quoting the words of Attaturk "how happy I am to be a Turkish". I cannot name any nation in the world that apply something like that in 20 century except Turkey at that time, how they force assimilated other race and culture like Arabs, Armenian, Kurdish, into Turkish by force them to subdue to Attaturk modernization, even the sunni must gave up their Islamic clothes and head or they will face death penalty.

Click to expand...

now that we have gone there , there is this not Rachel Corrie dude who is of Ethnic Turkish origin and formerly a MP of the political wing of the seperatists , now a MP of another branch of the same . Who went ballistic of the mentality of the Minister for Education who wrote the words to that Oath mentioned right here . Called him sick and what ever comes to mind and had to apologise to his granddaughter who happens to be the wife of a close friend of his . Fascists of the 20th Century Turkey tend to have lots of descendants on the "other" side in the 21st .

And guess what r16, I know all of this and learn it from the Turks also. I say half of the Turks is not favourable with the fascist tendency that the early republic demonstrate

Click to expand...

as simply explained right above the stuff you learn from Turks are so valid since they descend from whom carried out all those nice stuff you recount ; they will know their family history . And how their forefathers chose the wrong side in any of the countless political spats over time and fell by the wayside . Your new Democratic Turkey happens to be a wing of Ittihad who irritated Kemal even more the bunch he had to work with . You would have seen Fascism , had Kemal been killed some 13 years earlier in 1925-26 .

There was no nation that punish peoples death penalty for wearing Islamic hat and not wearing western style hat except Turkey at that time.

Click to expand...

with all this mind could that be possible because Turkey was the only Muslim country in the world that might have carried out a modernization ? Considering we alone didn't have London running our daily lifes with some Colonial Governor or equivalent in place . Or that we knew history and any modernization would be opposed or Petro the Mad as we call him started from banning beards and all and beheaded who didn't conform ? Seemed to work ? And your Turkish friends who know the truth in contrast to others who lie have no doubt pictures of thousands of people killed for wearing this Islamist Dress thing ? Millions of people even ?

hijab

Click to expand...

am pretty sure we will never agree on that with me saying it's a tradition and you declaring it to be a direct order from Allah . Nor to the thing that covering the head is what the West seems to think Islam is and whenever you call tradition you get shut up as an atheist oppressor of people . Will it turn out , ever , that the Islamists and their Western backers know Islam better than Allah ?

fix the discrimination law that been set by Turkey to their population.

Click to expand...

alas which seems to be accompanied by a new kind of discrimination in which people who vote for the people you name are a nation and those who don't are another ... You might watch the news where people are so open about it .

Attaturkcu must learn, there are diverse opinion that they must accept with open heart.

Click to expand...

and Uncle Sam already knows there is a viewpoint all around the world that he will be handled his teeth . Had this been not 2014 , you would have seen how easy it can be to change all public perception to make Islamists lose an election . People must learn Diversity is a 101 lesson , so that one doesn't get into pointless attritition .

Kaiserguard said:

In Civil Wars, combatants usually seek to destroy the demographics who are likely to support a certain issue, especially if the Civil War occurs in an unstable democracy. Say, if a civil war is about supporters of the silver standard vs supporters of the gold standard, they will actually might want to destroy the demographics that form a base of support for these opinions.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite enough to explain it, though, because the same thing could be said about inter-state conflicts. If France and Germany go to war, then France has an interest in destroying the demographic "Germans", and Germans "French". I think what matters is whether there's a functional framework of mutual limitation, which is more likely in civil wars, but it's neither exclusive nor inevitable. The American Civil War, for all its bloodiness, was relatively "gentlemanly" in its conduct (even Sherman's march to the sea wasn't a breakdown of the framework, so much as a decision- perhaps realisation?- that modern warfare encouraged a different framework), while the Ostfront has a rightly deserved reputation for barbarism.

christos200 said:

The Greeks were the natives of Cyprus since Ancient Times. The Turks came in the island only after the Ottoman Conquest. So, the Greeks could be said to be the natives and the Turks the settlers, although, considering how many years have passed since the conquest of Cyprus by the Turks and it's colonization, the Turks who live in the island could also be said to be natives now, in the same sense that modern Americans are the natives of USA. But still, the majority of the population on the island is Greek.

Click to expand...

While it's certainly the basis for Greek interest in the island, there's something unhelpful about basing the claim on something that happened before the Greek state existed. The Turkish settlement was during the Ottoman Empire, correct? I'm curious how many Phoenicians or native Anatolian groups settled on the island and identified as Turkish as opposed to Greek.

Traitorfish said:

I don't think that's quite enough to explain it, though, because the same thing could be said about inter-state conflicts. If France and Germany go to war, then France has an interest in destroying the demographic "Germans", and Germans "French". I think what matters is whether there's a functional framework of mutual limitation, which is more likely in civil wars, but it's neither exclusive nor inevitable. The American Civil War, for all its bloodiness, was relatively "gentlemanly" in its conduct (even Sherman's march to the sea wasn't a breakdown of the framework, so much as a decision- perhaps realisation?- that modern warfare encouraged a different framework), while the Ostfront has a rightly deserved reputation for barbarism.

Click to expand...

True, but then Cromwell's conduct during the Civil War here was brutal, while the Western Front of the Great War and the African campaign of the last war were both relatively gentlemanly. I'm not sure that the generalisation holds.