Greek and turkish relations.
- Thread starter GökTürkHakaniKemal
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
FrisianDude
Archduke
GökTürkHakaniKemal said:Yeah europe is everywhere...Europeans think they are at center of europe.By saying turks are everywhere ı have proofs.Native americans are turks because at that times central asia and america was close and they went there.You can see how much their culture look like.Turks were at Asia and ruled it for thosand years.Turks ruler europe for years too.İF turks wanted they can rule africa but there is nothing at there,only zebras and lions and elephants...South america?They took taxes from spain and spain ruler south america.Nodscouter said:
Lets look italians.Where is roman empire?Europe.WTF is europe?**** it they are not center of world.İtalians went to asia?Africa?They only come to anatolia they didn't even conquer all of it.Africa?North africa is one of the easiest place to conquer which took romans 250 years and turks 23 years.
Where is your jupiter god now?
Two hunnic empire:Soil said:
Homeland of turks. :
BTW ı can understand mongol language and hunnic language while ı dont have to learn it.Do you know why?They are turkic and ı am turkic too.
What the hell.... do Turkish schools teach you all this ****ing ****? Christ on a cracker mate, most of that is plainly not true.
1. "Yeah europe is everywhere..." It's not and he didn't say it is. But you showed a map of the Middle-East and claim Turks to be everywhere. He was following your logic.
2. "Europeans think they are at center of europe." Surprisingly, they are. Hence why they are called "European." You may have meant "world" there rather than "europe."
3. Native Americans are Turks? Are you out of your tiny dung-filled mind? Really? There were no Turks back at Pangaean times; the people who went to what later became the Americas are therefore not Turkish. There were hardly even tribes back then; fire was considered haute couture and the old people of that time would have considered the wheel dangerously radical, the only concept of nation would have been "this bunch of guys I know" and "that bunch of guys over there." Out of those and similar groups both Turks and later Native Americans and, say, everyone else developed.
4. How much their culture look like? They eat food and wear clothes, further? Not much.
5. Turks were in Asia, yes. Didn't rule it for a thousand years though, seeing as no-one ever has ever at all ruled all of Asia. Not even the Huns or the Mongols who, while admirably successful, were related to Turks but not actual Turks.
6. I just went over this; Turks did not rule Europe, not even the Huns (whose success seems heavily exaggerated on your map) could claim to rule all of Europe.
7. There is a lot of stuff in Africa and Turks didn't rule it because, let's face it, Turks weren't as important as many Turks now seem to think.
8. Took taxes from Spain? Source? Source pointing out that it was tax for South-American colonies, preferably? I mean, I can understand if certain Spaniards may at some time have presented individual tribute to some Turks, that happens, but Spain, nor Castille, nor Aragón, nor Léon nor Navarre have ever considered "Turks" as a whole nor a Turkish nation as their overlord and master. Not even the Muslim kingdoms in Medieval Iberia did that.
9. You are correct, Europe is not the centre of the world. The centre of the world is a big ball of hot.
10. Yyyyes, Italians went to Asia and Africa. Not necessarily conquering though but I'm sure you've heard of Italians like Marco Polo and Colombus.
11. Romans did in fact conquer all of Anatolia. I'm not sure what you're even talking about. Romans conquered a bit further east than Anatolia, even.
12. North Africa being easy to conquer doesn't mean squat. Just look at Rome's Opponents in conquering North Africa; Carthage, Ptolemaic Egypt and then some more factions.
And then look at the opponents by the time the Turks conquered it (despite point 13); not much. Most would have been rather weak states.
13. It wasn't Turks who conquered North Africa at all; it was Arabs. From the Arabian peninsula. When they spread the word of their Prophet Muhammad. Under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates all of the Northern African coast was conquered and you'll find that both those Caliphates were in place long before the Turks rose to power in Anatolia.
14. You may mean Jupiter as a witty way of mentioning Greeks again but Jupiter isn't even the Greek name. Or maybe you are thinking all Europeans worship Jupiter/Jupiter was worshipped in all of Europe but that's just not true as you well know.
15. Yes, I know why. And it's not because it's the same as what modern Turks speak; it's because they are in the same language family. Quite like how anyone who knows German well has some basic knowledge of other Germanic languages as well.
And I'd like to point out that it's fairly amusing how much absolute hogwash some Turks apparently make up just so they can feel more important. Why is this? Real Turkish history is fairly interesting without all that nonsense. And I'm wondering if facts have any presence in whatever mockery of a school you visited? Because really, you, Ancalimon and other Pan-Turkists are about as intelligent as a bag of blunt syringes.
And despite the obvious incompetence of Turkish education I can safely say I like MOST of the Turks I meet on this forum. Quite a friendly and intelligent bunch on the whole. It's just that the rotten apples are really so rotten that they look more like hellfire and brimstone than like a garden-product.
Palaiologos
Sergeant
FrisianDude said:
Location only? Is it so indeed? I will not go into genetic studies and all that crap, but you do realize that we still use the same alphabet, the same language, consider the Odysey, Illiad etc as our own literacy works , and that when illiterate people in the 18th centurysaw the Acropolis and other monuments knew it was their ancestors that built them. Not to mention the oral tradition that meant that tottaly uneducated "commoners" in remote villages up untill the 19th century actually knew there was a battle at Marathon? Although they didn't know when and believed the invaders to had been Turks.
Plus we still call ourselves Greeks.
We don't need bailing out. You just can't get over the fact that we tricked you in letting us into the EMU, lived luxuriously with you guys paying the bill, and as it looks you still keep paying.
Old sores? Its called national honour and integrity.
P.S i wonder if your nation had ever a war like the Graico-Turkish war of 1919-22. Not the results, but the reasons behind it.
Honestly, why does this guy keep coming back? Hasn't he had enough arguments with his broken English already?
Palaiologos
Sergeant
Soil said:
No i wasn't, but i guess i did sound a bit offensive.
Well i do admit my No2 argument was meant to tickle him
FrisianDude said:
What makes me a Pan-Turkist?
I'm against most of the ideas of those guys who can't find their one ass with their two hands.Belonging to ideologies... Not my style.
The only people who disagree with me are those who think they know too much or those that know nothing and the most they can do is to stop me from sharing my ideas.
Majhudeen
Your problem isn't that we forbid your ideas Ancalimon, its just they aren't believable at all granted the poor amount of factual information.
The fact we ´know too much` or´too little` is irrelevant, provided the fact close to none of the information you provide is reliable.
As for you not being a pan Turkist extremist, what explains your high support of Turkish globalization and a high emphasis on Turks within global history, denying information declared valid by many professional experts from different perspectives all giving an overall consensus?
The fact we ´know too much` or´too little` is irrelevant, provided the fact close to none of the information you provide is reliable.
As for you not being a pan Turkist extremist, what explains your high support of Turkish globalization and a high emphasis on Turks within global history, denying information declared valid by many professional experts from different perspectives all giving an overall consensus?
Eighty Years' War.Palaiologos said:
Palaiologos
Sergeant
Wellenbrecher said:
Not even close. The reasons behind the war of 1919 were those of survival. One nation was fighting for its very existence(Turks) and the other(Greeks) were fighting to liberate the Ionian Greek cities in Asia minor. Whoever lost would be ruined. We did, and so 2.500 years of Greek presence in Ionia ended in a day(more like several weeks).
Needless to say that war has left a grudge on both sides.
Palaiologos said:
Don't be stupid.
Oh and I thought you meant 1821 onwards not the 20th century. My bad.
AWdeV
Duke
By that logic it's also perfectly fine for me to bear a grudge towards Wellenbrecher. On account of him being German and me being Dutch.
I don't however because I'm not a petty *****. There's, again, no point in getting mad at what's history. Wellenbrecher didn't invade the Netherlands and I didn't suffer through the effects of the invasion. There is absolutely no reason for me to get mad at him.
Same with Turks and Greeks. It's history. There's probably no greek and no turk alive to even actually remember it, and almost certainly not one who has fought in it. So why the grudge? You're just looking for an excuse for a punch-up or a scape-goat for when things go wrong.
Oh, and the Eighty Years' war was One nation fighting for its very existence(the Dutch). (The original goals of the revolt were more religious freedoms, less centralisation and less taxes and the apparently only way to achieve that was getting rid of Spanish rule altogether).
I don't however because I'm not a petty *****. There's, again, no point in getting mad at what's history. Wellenbrecher didn't invade the Netherlands and I didn't suffer through the effects of the invasion. There is absolutely no reason for me to get mad at him.
Same with Turks and Greeks. It's history. There's probably no greek and no turk alive to even actually remember it, and almost certainly not one who has fought in it. So why the grudge? You're just looking for an excuse for a punch-up or a scape-goat for when things go wrong.
Oh, and the Eighty Years' war was One nation fighting for its very existence(the Dutch). (The original goals of the revolt were more religious freedoms, less centralisation and less taxes and the apparently only way to achieve that was getting rid of Spanish rule altogether).
Palaiologos
Sergeant
AWdeV said:
In theory, yes. Problem is Greeks and Turks have been fighting each other since Medieval times. In our modern times we had the 1821 Greek war of independence (against the Turks), the 1897 Graico-Turkish War, the Graico-Turkish War of 1912, WW1(we were at opposite camps), the 1919 Turkish War of independence (against the...Greeks of course), the 1955 "liberation" war in Cyprus(Greeks vs Brits&Turks), the 1965 proxy war in Cyprus again(Greek Cypriots vs Turkish Cypriots each sponsored by their metropolies) and the 1974 invasion of Cyprus. And thats only the official wars. I am not counting the constant uprisings in Macedonia in all the 19th century up untill 1912, the Crete uprisings or the many times the nations have been on the brink of war(and by brink i mean when the armies and fleets were actually deployed against each other, latest being in 1987 and 1996). Plus the aerial dogfights happening almost daily over the Aegean that result in actual casualities fro time to time. Not to mention the constant claims by Turkey over what she considers "disputed" territory in the Aegean-which the Greeks refuse.
Did i mention that all these wars/uprisings were coupled with MASS ethnic cleansings? The 1955 battles in Cyprus were used as an excuse by Ankara to organize a pogrom in Constantinople and forcefully expel the hundreds of thousands of Greeks living there. While the Greek army advanced towards Ankara in 1919 they burned everything along the way.
The animosity is buried deep. You see both nations believe they have herreditary rights over the same lands. And last but not least in 2003 a bunch of Turkish generals were planning a small scale invasion of Greek Thrace and use the patriotic fervor generated by war in order to usurp power.
You truly seem like an educated individual and i don't want to insult you, but trying to understand terms like "Ancestral animosity" bringing Western european examples is naive. The famous French-English rivalry doesn't come even close.
Palaiologos
Sergeant
Wellenbrecher said:Palaiologos said:
Don't be stupid.
Oh and I thought you meant 1821 onwards not the 20th century. My bad.
Ummm, no i am not. Thats what they believed. And they were partly right. In that war you see, the French, Italians and Brits all wanted a colonial piece of the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks however wanted THE Ottoman empire. The Turkish revolutionaries pretty much ignored the French and Italians , since they knew they were simply passers by, and they concetrated against the "Romans" who had come to stay. At that time you see there were 1.800.000 "Romans" living all over Anatolia. If their teritories went over to Greece,all that Turkey would have left would be EAST of Ankara, up untill Armenia and without the Black sea coast which was also claimed by the vile "Romans".
