Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
looks like you wont be happy with civ4 then Ahm...i really dont think theres any chance of them putting it in the vanilla version
Turks?
- Thread starter ahm
- Start date
- Status
alireza1354
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,058
Eehhh You do not know what you' re talking about.
Some facts about islam:
Azeri's are shiite, just like Persians
Most Arabs are Hanafi Sunnis, just like Turks
Most Arabs do NOT live in fundamentalism, thats utter nonsense. There is only 1 land in the Arab world which is ruled by fundamentalism and thats Saoudi Arabia. The rest of the Arabs live under secular law, although under non-democratic regimes. Their regimes are so anti-fundamentalist, Ataturk would be a saint to fundamentalists in comparison.
Turks are COMPLETELY intermingled with Arabs, Persians and Kurds. We are so intermingled, that there are millions of Arabs with Turkish names, millions of Turks who have Arab ancestry, and the same counts for the millions of Iranians with Turkish origine, not to speak about the offspring of the pseudo-Persian Qizilbash from Iran, who form the Alevi's in Turkey of today and the Kurds
Most Arabic countries live just like the Turks do, in a secular society, although Arab states do give islamic theology more influence in some aspects of daily life,which is completely comparable with the Turkish governmental organisation of Diyanet, very strange to have religious institutions for a government which says to adhere to strict secularism, very strange indeed!
The lifestile of Turks and Arabs are not very different, especially when talking about the Arabs of Iraq and the Levantine. Baghdadi's and Levantines are even called Turks by the Arabs of the gulf !!!
The application of religion is not very different but very similar. If you live in central Anatolia, you could imagine yourself in Syria or Iraq, or maybe even Morocco. If u live in Istanbul and would live in Cairo for a year, you wouldnt be shocked at all, the cultural transition would be very fluently, hardly remarkable.
I see your remarks are influenced by political prejudice. You are not more European than Middle Eastern. You want to be and a minority of Turks like you, but the facts tell us otherwise. You are THE PROTOTYPE of Middle Easternness for the last 500 years. Even more Middle Eastern than most Arabs, which you obviously do NOT understand. (thats why all the baseless talk)
And my child, being half Turkish and half Arab, is not a wonder of todays globalisation, but a symbol of more than 1000 years of intertwined cohabitation of Arabs and Turks and other Middle Easterners, just one of the millions, as special as he may be for me.
Good day
alireza1354 said:
germany, france, spain, england... are they different or same? they are all in eu. they use ~same money. they live same life. i think they are different.
more then them, turks, arabs and persians are different. yes they have lots of common points the most important one is the religion, islam. but they are different nations, and done different things at history.
England does not use the same money as France, Spain and Germany. We use Sterling they use the Euro and at times they seem very upset that the UK wont join the Euro im glad that some of the other European nations see sence it this.
England, Spain, Germany and France are all very different places. Languages just being the obvioues one. Granted English may be the second language in the others but thats it. (Hmm does England have a second language ?) England, Spain, Germany and France are four seperate nations and thats that. As are the Turks
England, Spain, Germany and France are all very different places. Languages just being the obvioues one. Granted English may be the second language in the others but thats it. (Hmm does England have a second language ?) England, Spain, Germany and France are four seperate nations and thats that. As are the Turks
I agree Turks, Persians and Arabs are different civilization no need to confince me. Nearly use the same money ? Not sure what you mean by that its either the same or its different surely it can be nearly the same. That would be like saying Turkish Lira is nearly the same as Sterling or the Euro. Hey a few less zeros please i couldnt belive it when i was told a 20000000 Turkish Lira note was only worth about £7.50 
Then again is that still being phased out ? im not sure anymore.
Then again is that still being phased out ? im not sure anymore.Himalia said:I agree Turks, Persians and Arabs are different civilization no need to confince me. Nearly use the same money ? Not sure what you mean by that its either the same or its different surely it can be nearly the same. That would be like saying Turkish Lira is nearly the same as Sterling or the Euro. Hey a few less zeros please i couldnt belive it when i was told a 20000000 Turkish Lira note was only worth about £7.50
it is easy that "~" means they use same money but there is a few difference between them with an eye to sterlin. you should suppose.
and that was an old information 20000000 Turkish Lira
1,3 Turkish Lira = 1 USD, now
nebuchadnezzar
King of New Babylon
alireza1354 said:
ok, you say. I step back. I just based my talk to what I heard (first hand) about arabs and persians. I've never been to any arabic countries or persia, and you say you are half arab and half turkish, you can compare better.
alireza1354
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,058
ahm said:it is easy that "~" means they use same money but there is a few difference between them with an eye to sterlin. you should suppose.
and that was an old information 20000000 Turkish Lira
1,3 Turkish Lira = 1 USD, now
Its not true that our peoples are completely different and that the only thing we have in common is islam. Thats first class crap. We are different, but the differences are not major.
Greetings
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
they were simpily talking about money in that convo..not culture.
qazxc
Chieftain
ahm said:
Ill quote a paragraph from The History and Geography of Human Genes by L Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza. Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-08750-4
genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines.
Understandably, the enforced mythos of the modern Turkish Republic is contrary to the above passage. As for the precursor of Turkey, the Ottomans most probably will be represented in the expansion pack.
q
When ottomans destroyed the Byzantium and Bulgaria, they enslaved the Bulgarian and slavic people and take a lot of women for themselves, because they wanted the genetic material! ottoman state was not modern before Attaturk. If it wasnt him, there would be no turkish republic. ottomans have been like the Huns! They had no civ, just barbarians! They even took islam and arabic customs from the countries their tribe invaded! I wonder why people think turkey is something great just because the Europe was too weak to cope with it, or because of a single non-barbaric man (Attaturk) or because they are in NATO. Come on, kurds are not-free. There are turk terrorists in our country. And we pay historical tribute by adding them to a CIV game! Why dont we add Iraqs, Irans and Afgans as separate civs! ottomans should be just Arabs, because they stole everything from them. The only thing they did not steal was the horse!
mitsho
Deity
@Karaman I suppose you or your family have been deeply bothered by the Turks, because you seem to hate them so much. Are you a Kurd? Or a Slaw/Bulgarian? Historically, all you just said is simply plainly wrong. You look at the history through kurdish/slavish glasses. You bring the same arguments, as Indians bring about Pakistani, Palestinians about Israelis, and so on.
Try to be objective, the Turks are a great civ!
mfG mitsho
PS: I'm Swiss and have no connection whatsoever to Turkey or Turks.
Try to be objective, the Turks are a great civ!
mfG mitsho
PS: I'm Swiss and have no connection whatsoever to Turkey or Turks.
It depends on what you mean by a great civ. In my view they are great as a conquest/military civ, although that too had faded away with the use of gunpowder infantry, and by the 19th century the ottoman empire was just the "sickman of europe". Although i agree that they would be a good choice for an x-pack i do not think that it is fiercely subjective to claim that in the fields of science/art/philosophy etc they arent really in the top 31 (as in the 31 civs in civ3). It also seems - although i am not an expert on turkish history- that they did indeed mostly take things from the conquered people, arabs, byzantine etc. Does this mean that they are the scum of the earth? No, but it plainly means that they arent "objectively" a super-civ, and that shouldnt in my view be a taboo issue. A person would be very wrong to identify himself with his country anyway; this would just make him a fighter in the realm of phantasy, and moreover in what imho would be a less than particularly interesting realm of phantasy too.
I dont want Turks out of CIV4. I want them in to beat them up
I have Turkish colleagues at my local Tech University.
and they are very good friends. We help each other and share life as equals!
I simply dont like the pro-turkish movements in the south regions of our country and the misreading of History! They want to remove the slavery from history books!
This is what I am concerned about! So I prefer to have every Civ, or to include as
much as possible, so that the history be preserved, no matter how
sorrowful or great it was! We, people, should respect history and not lie about it!
Especially in the normal life! Everybody must know history at least their country's history so that they get at least 200% bonus against propaganda!
I have Turkish colleagues at my local Tech University.
and they are very good friends. We help each other and share life as equals!
I simply dont like the pro-turkish movements in the south regions of our country and the misreading of History! They want to remove the slavery from history books!
This is what I am concerned about! So I prefer to have every Civ, or to include as
much as possible, so that the history be preserved, no matter how
sorrowful or great it was! We, people, should respect history and not lie about it!
Especially in the normal life! Everybody must know history at least their country's history so that they get at least 200% bonus against propaganda!
frankthe butler
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 71
Karaman said:
this is exactly true. the turks also bred with the vikings who sailed to constantinople often. that's why there are so many blonde heads in turkey, unlike in other middle eastern countries. Also, during the ottoman empire, they gathered the most beautiful women from all over their empire and beyond for the sultan's harem, or something like that. This is why many turkish women are so hot (or at least have good bone structure). Turkish women are in general much hotter than any other middle eastern country. yes.
i can practically hear the reader thinking "well i'll be damned... so that's why." exactly.
Turkey is certainly a mixed country with a lot of genetic diversity. it is, however, its own civ. what happened to the romans (being diluted to extinction, into 'italians') has not happened there. the turks are actually not completely intermingled. citing last name means very little; it is as if one cites the recessive blonde trait to claim that they are completely intermingled with vikings as well.
In 1514, Sultan Selim captured Jerusalem and the surrounding area, and some 400 years of Ottoman rule in Palestine began. As in other Ottoman states, this period would enable Palestine to enjoy peace, stability, and the living together of different faiths.
The tolerance of Islam continued in the Ottoman Empire. Church, synagogue and the mosque coexisted peacufully.
The Ottoman Empire was administered under what is known as the 'nation (millet) system,' the fundamental feature of which was that people of different faiths were allowed to live according to their own beliefs and even legal systems. Christians and Jews, described as the 'People of the Book' in the Koran, found toleration, security and freedom in Ottoman lands.
The most important reason for this was that although the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state administered by Muslims, it had no desire to force its citizens to adopt Islam. On the contrary, the Ottoman state aimed at providing peace and security for non-Muslims, and to govern them in such a way that they would be pleased with Islamic rule and justice.
Other major states at the same time had a much cruder, oppressive and intolerant view of government. The Kingdom of Spain could not tolerate the existence of Muslims and Jews on the Spanish peninsula and inflicted great violence on both communities. In many other European countries, Jews were oppressed just for being Jews (for instance they were imprisoned in ghettoes), and were sometimes the victims of mass slaughter (pogroms). Christians could not even get on with one another: the fighting between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries turned Europe into a lake of blood. The Thirty Years War between 1618 and 1648 was one result of this Catholic-Protestant conflict. As a result of that war, central Europe turned into a battleground, and in Germany alone, one-third of the population of 15 million perished.
In such an environment, it is an indisputably important truth that Ottoman rule was exceedingly humane.
Many historians and political scientists have drawn attention to this fact. One of these is Columbia University's world-famous Middle East expert Professor Edward Said. Himself from a Jerusalem Christian family, he continues his research in American universities. In an interview in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz he recommended the 'Ottoman nation system' if a permanent peace is to be built in the Middle East. What he said was:
A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived. it worked rather well under the Ottoman Empire, with its millet system. What they had then seems a lot more humane than what we have now. [18.8.2000, Ha'aretz Newspaper; MiddleEast.Org, August 2000]
in other hand, balkans:
In the Balkans, the absence of war is only half a peace. The troops are in, but what then for Kosovo and Serbia, Albania and Macedonia? How long will the soldiers have to stay to maintain faith in peace tomorrow, too? Five years? Ten? Early in the conflict, Mirjana Markovic, Slobodan Milosovic's wife, publicly bequeathed the Serbian struggle in Kosovo to a generation as yet unborn. Thirty years, maybe?
On the face of it, Balkan tradition offers little ground for hope, with its record of broken promises and irreconcilable demands. But to accept this drift as inevitable, even now, is to take the claims of nationalism too seriously: the Balkans have not always been a theater of war. Mr. Milosovic and his ilk, peddling a vision of the Balkans riven by ethnic hatreds, mask a far older political tradition, one that nationalism merely blackened and overturned and one that the current European overseers of the Kosovo peace plan can learn from. It is an imperial tradition with Roman and Byzantine roots. After the Ottomans swept up the region in the 14th century, they nurtured the tradition in their turn: a crafty blend of tax and peace, oppression and opportunity.
In contrast to the abrasive strictures of the nation-state, the Ottoman Empire, for reasons both holy and profane, by means as often foul and fair, permitted ethnic groups, faiths and classes to intermingle in the Balkans from the 14th to the 19th centuries. In an empire that stretched from the Danube to the Nile, the people of the Balkans burst out on a wider world.
Ottoman bureaucrats and soldiers, drawn from the villages of southeastern Europe, walked on an enormous stage: 42 grand viziers, the highest officials of the empire, were Albanian by birth, and the greatest of all, Mehmet Sokullu, was a Serb. Under the Ottomans, Slavs, Greeks and Albanians ruled over Egypt, terrorized Austria, staffed the Orthodox church. Peace reigned in the Balkans for 500 years.
The Ottomans harnessed Balkan talent and discouraged provincial naivete in favor of a dry, metropolitan understanding of the world's ways. They fostered ethnic and religious pluralism, cemented by constant negotiation, face-saving gestures, threats and backroom deals. Disputes were settled in the imperial capital, Constantinople, not in bloody mountain battles.
Provincial delegates from all over the empire regularly descended on the capital, bribing and begging their way to the fount of power like modern-day lobbyists. The bloodiest battles were waged in the city, and even when the sultan's authority was in decline, provincial warlords who arose to fill the vacuum of power kept a weather eye on Constantinople, where ultimate authority resided and endured. So the severed head of Ali Pasha, the rebellious Albanian tyrant who delighted Byron and ruled brutally for years over a swath of territory stretching from Albania to modern Greece, eventually graced the gateway of the imperial palace. It was a rough kind of stability, at least.
The intricate relationship between the rulers and the ruled soured over time. By the 19th century no one wanted to bed down with an empire that was already known as the Sick Man of Europe. The game was to get out. Nationalism was the route taken by the Greeks in 1830, followed by Serbia and Bulgaria in 1868. By 1922, the Turks themselves, nominal progenitors of the Ottoman Empire, had embraced secular nationalism under Ataturk and pronounced the empire dead.
About Genocide Lie
Reasons Behind Relocation relocation
The decision regarding migration was taken under compulsion, in order to prevent the harmful acts of Armenians, who stabbed the Ottoman State that was their own state, in order to establish an independent Armenia. Documents confirm how the Russians and the Entente States deceived and provoked Armenians.
The Armenians who were deceived by such promises as to be given the lands they obtained during the War and that their independence to be recognized; established a number of revolutionary societies . Armenians, who started their terrorist activities before the immigration process, continued these activities even during the immigration. They collaborated with the enemy both in the border areas and in the inner regions, and applied genocidal activities to the Moslem people .
The Definition and Purpose of Relocation (Techir) relocation
The Arabic originated word tehcir means emigration / immigration, it definitely not means deportation or exile. Hence the law commonly known as the Tehcir Law is the same as Temporary Law On The Military Measures To Be Taken For Those Who Resist The Governmental Acts And Supplementations. The word used to explain the implementation in line with this law is tenkil in the Ottoman language and means transport- not the equivalent of deportation, exile or proscription in Latin originated languages.
The immigration, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country - pre - dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian - Iran Front; and the second was Mersin - Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemys invasion.
Armenia Rejects Turkeys Dialogue Callnews March 11, 2005
Armenian FM Oskanyan: There is no need to discuss with the Turkish historians
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Opposition Party CHPs Ledar Deniz Baykal called Armenia and Armenians to open their archives and to make negotiations on Armenian issue. Turkish PM said on Tuesday " We have already opened our archives to those who claim there was a genocide. If they are sincere, they should also open theirs. This would allow historians to work on documents on both sides Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment. However Armenian side says there is no need to discuss the Armenian allegations, because they are already proven. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan said the problem is political and Armenia does not need to discuss the genocide argument with the Turkish side. Oskanyan claimed the historians had made their all studies and they do not need make any more study. However the Turkish historians and many American and British researchers do not agree with the pro-Armenian historians. Many historians from the US and Europe including Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy and Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw says the 1915 events cannot be considered as genocide.
http://www.armenian-genocide-lie.com/
and also want to say:
Forget about all the stories you've heard concerning the harem of Ottomans. The harem of an Ottoman household, which was common only among the wealthy, did not simply consist of a male head and his wives, but included children, widowed sisters or mothers, and female servants as well. In the West, it is generally seen as a sexual place of female oppression where women lacked power and men were forbidden. Quite contrary to these beliefs, the harem was a patriarchal support system and the center of family and social life. Family politics, rather than sex, was the main force behind the harem and men and women both occupied the space. The Imperial Harem (harem-i humayun, the harem of the sultan), though similar in idea, was much more complex, and was an extremely organized system of administration and hierarchy.
The tolerance of Islam continued in the Ottoman Empire. Church, synagogue and the mosque coexisted peacufully.
The Ottoman Empire was administered under what is known as the 'nation (millet) system,' the fundamental feature of which was that people of different faiths were allowed to live according to their own beliefs and even legal systems. Christians and Jews, described as the 'People of the Book' in the Koran, found toleration, security and freedom in Ottoman lands.
The most important reason for this was that although the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state administered by Muslims, it had no desire to force its citizens to adopt Islam. On the contrary, the Ottoman state aimed at providing peace and security for non-Muslims, and to govern them in such a way that they would be pleased with Islamic rule and justice.
Other major states at the same time had a much cruder, oppressive and intolerant view of government. The Kingdom of Spain could not tolerate the existence of Muslims and Jews on the Spanish peninsula and inflicted great violence on both communities. In many other European countries, Jews were oppressed just for being Jews (for instance they were imprisoned in ghettoes), and were sometimes the victims of mass slaughter (pogroms). Christians could not even get on with one another: the fighting between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries turned Europe into a lake of blood. The Thirty Years War between 1618 and 1648 was one result of this Catholic-Protestant conflict. As a result of that war, central Europe turned into a battleground, and in Germany alone, one-third of the population of 15 million perished.
In such an environment, it is an indisputably important truth that Ottoman rule was exceedingly humane.
Many historians and political scientists have drawn attention to this fact. One of these is Columbia University's world-famous Middle East expert Professor Edward Said. Himself from a Jerusalem Christian family, he continues his research in American universities. In an interview in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz he recommended the 'Ottoman nation system' if a permanent peace is to be built in the Middle East. What he said was:
A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived. it worked rather well under the Ottoman Empire, with its millet system. What they had then seems a lot more humane than what we have now. [18.8.2000, Ha'aretz Newspaper; MiddleEast.Org, August 2000]
in other hand, balkans:
In the Balkans, the absence of war is only half a peace. The troops are in, but what then for Kosovo and Serbia, Albania and Macedonia? How long will the soldiers have to stay to maintain faith in peace tomorrow, too? Five years? Ten? Early in the conflict, Mirjana Markovic, Slobodan Milosovic's wife, publicly bequeathed the Serbian struggle in Kosovo to a generation as yet unborn. Thirty years, maybe?
On the face of it, Balkan tradition offers little ground for hope, with its record of broken promises and irreconcilable demands. But to accept this drift as inevitable, even now, is to take the claims of nationalism too seriously: the Balkans have not always been a theater of war. Mr. Milosovic and his ilk, peddling a vision of the Balkans riven by ethnic hatreds, mask a far older political tradition, one that nationalism merely blackened and overturned and one that the current European overseers of the Kosovo peace plan can learn from. It is an imperial tradition with Roman and Byzantine roots. After the Ottomans swept up the region in the 14th century, they nurtured the tradition in their turn: a crafty blend of tax and peace, oppression and opportunity.
In contrast to the abrasive strictures of the nation-state, the Ottoman Empire, for reasons both holy and profane, by means as often foul and fair, permitted ethnic groups, faiths and classes to intermingle in the Balkans from the 14th to the 19th centuries. In an empire that stretched from the Danube to the Nile, the people of the Balkans burst out on a wider world.
Ottoman bureaucrats and soldiers, drawn from the villages of southeastern Europe, walked on an enormous stage: 42 grand viziers, the highest officials of the empire, were Albanian by birth, and the greatest of all, Mehmet Sokullu, was a Serb. Under the Ottomans, Slavs, Greeks and Albanians ruled over Egypt, terrorized Austria, staffed the Orthodox church. Peace reigned in the Balkans for 500 years.
The Ottomans harnessed Balkan talent and discouraged provincial naivete in favor of a dry, metropolitan understanding of the world's ways. They fostered ethnic and religious pluralism, cemented by constant negotiation, face-saving gestures, threats and backroom deals. Disputes were settled in the imperial capital, Constantinople, not in bloody mountain battles.
Provincial delegates from all over the empire regularly descended on the capital, bribing and begging their way to the fount of power like modern-day lobbyists. The bloodiest battles were waged in the city, and even when the sultan's authority was in decline, provincial warlords who arose to fill the vacuum of power kept a weather eye on Constantinople, where ultimate authority resided and endured. So the severed head of Ali Pasha, the rebellious Albanian tyrant who delighted Byron and ruled brutally for years over a swath of territory stretching from Albania to modern Greece, eventually graced the gateway of the imperial palace. It was a rough kind of stability, at least.
The intricate relationship between the rulers and the ruled soured over time. By the 19th century no one wanted to bed down with an empire that was already known as the Sick Man of Europe. The game was to get out. Nationalism was the route taken by the Greeks in 1830, followed by Serbia and Bulgaria in 1868. By 1922, the Turks themselves, nominal progenitors of the Ottoman Empire, had embraced secular nationalism under Ataturk and pronounced the empire dead.
About Genocide Lie
Reasons Behind Relocation relocation
The decision regarding migration was taken under compulsion, in order to prevent the harmful acts of Armenians, who stabbed the Ottoman State that was their own state, in order to establish an independent Armenia. Documents confirm how the Russians and the Entente States deceived and provoked Armenians.
The Armenians who were deceived by such promises as to be given the lands they obtained during the War and that their independence to be recognized; established a number of revolutionary societies . Armenians, who started their terrorist activities before the immigration process, continued these activities even during the immigration. They collaborated with the enemy both in the border areas and in the inner regions, and applied genocidal activities to the Moslem people .
The Definition and Purpose of Relocation (Techir) relocation
The Arabic originated word tehcir means emigration / immigration, it definitely not means deportation or exile. Hence the law commonly known as the Tehcir Law is the same as Temporary Law On The Military Measures To Be Taken For Those Who Resist The Governmental Acts And Supplementations. The word used to explain the implementation in line with this law is tenkil in the Ottoman language and means transport- not the equivalent of deportation, exile or proscription in Latin originated languages.
The immigration, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country - pre - dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian - Iran Front; and the second was Mersin - Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemys invasion.
Armenia Rejects Turkeys Dialogue Callnews March 11, 2005
Armenian FM Oskanyan: There is no need to discuss with the Turkish historians
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Opposition Party CHPs Ledar Deniz Baykal called Armenia and Armenians to open their archives and to make negotiations on Armenian issue. Turkish PM said on Tuesday " We have already opened our archives to those who claim there was a genocide. If they are sincere, they should also open theirs. This would allow historians to work on documents on both sides Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment. However Armenian side says there is no need to discuss the Armenian allegations, because they are already proven. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan said the problem is political and Armenia does not need to discuss the genocide argument with the Turkish side. Oskanyan claimed the historians had made their all studies and they do not need make any more study. However the Turkish historians and many American and British researchers do not agree with the pro-Armenian historians. Many historians from the US and Europe including Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy and Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw says the 1915 events cannot be considered as genocide.
http://www.armenian-genocide-lie.com/
and also want to say:
Forget about all the stories you've heard concerning the harem of Ottomans. The harem of an Ottoman household, which was common only among the wealthy, did not simply consist of a male head and his wives, but included children, widowed sisters or mothers, and female servants as well. In the West, it is generally seen as a sexual place of female oppression where women lacked power and men were forbidden. Quite contrary to these beliefs, the harem was a patriarchal support system and the center of family and social life. Family politics, rather than sex, was the main force behind the harem and men and women both occupied the space. The Imperial Harem (harem-i humayun, the harem of the sultan), though similar in idea, was much more complex, and was an extremely organized system of administration and hierarchy.
frankthe butler
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 71
nice
- Status
Similar threads
