aurguplu

mj, 1. i understand your point re jesus in islam and christianity, but the crucial difference that muslims say exists between christianity and islam is that while the former says that god has a son, the latter says god unique in that he has no relatives of any kind, is not begotten, does not beget. if contemporary christianity rejects the belief of god having a biological son, then the most important difference between the two religions is removed as far as i can see.

jesus - i messed it up again with the quotations above. sorry mj.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:Indeed, again. The independent minded portion of Armenians has not considered Christ to be the Son of God in the manner or capacity indoctrinated in the course of the traditional brainwashing campaign. Their formula has been that Christ was God’s chosen Son in His Spirituality and God’s adopted Son in his Humanity. Christ had become the adopted Son of God in the result of His Baptism. A careful reading of the scripture supports such interpretation. Moreover, the Armenians subject to discussion have held an opinion that everyone who gets Baptized becomes the Son of God. And they have addressed each other as "Son of God." This expression has survived throughout centuries in Armenia as a form of greeting – "Asdtzo Vordi." I think there is something fundamentally beautiful and just in this early Christian (first century) perception of the identity of Jesus Christ of which, apparently, Armenians have been the champion. mj, do you realise that this particular interpretation removes the fundamental difference between christianity and islam (i mean if i got you correctly - that jesus is not the biological son of god)? Finally, I think one can successfully argue that the Byzantine form of Christianity has been the device of enslavement of the militant Armenian nation and the denigration of the structures of Armenian statehood. However, I think one should also recognize that in the 19th century, when for all practical purposes the Armenian nation had expired, the myth of the "first Christian nation" has provided with some fuel for the religious community to keep going. Equivalently, one can argue that the resurrection of the Armenian pagan thought has been at the roots of the resurrection of national consciousness in 19th and 20th centuries. a comparable claim can perhaps be made for turks and (perhaps) the germans. [i would also contemplate that the final resurrection of the Armenian nation is due to the Genocide – how tragically ironic.] tragically ironic, but not unique: witness the jewish case, for instance: three years after the holocaust, the first jewish state in more than 1,000 years was born.

Domino, the book's on sale in istanbul.

i have a few things to say on this turkey-eu thing. i have first hand info from people who have been in talks with the eu (and before that, ec) since the late 1950s (i.e. almost immediately after it was founded). they think - after having invested a lifetime in it - that eu will not take turkey as long as they can help it. and the reason for it is and always will be cultural: islam-christianity. human rights, economics, demography, size, geographical location. all of these might be valid to some extent, but they are not insuperable, and turkey is improving. after all, right now both our economy and our human rights record are less bad than when spain and greece had applied in the late 1970s, for instance. economics? we have thrown the incompentent ****s out of office and - hopefully - politics for good. demographics? our birth rate is falling faster than we had predicted just ten years ago (and that's fast)! size? look and france, spain, reunited germany, poland. geographical location? cyprus? no. the real reason is simply religion. and i tell you two other countries that won't make it into the eu: the bosnian-croat federation and albania. the first is either going to disintegrate and the relevant parts going to join croatia and serbia respectively, leaving an amorphous muslim entity which will then be mopped up again, and the second is most likely going to stay out of the eu on account of its 70% muslim population. the eu is a christian club, and will never really change. i cannot really blame them for it. after all they have been defining themselves for five centuries as "that which had not fallen into turkish hands". you can't expect them to change that attitude overnight. also, europe is not just a present and a future: it is also a past and a culture, a civilisation. we played little if any positive role in that civilisation. our role was most prominent when european mothers scared disciplined their kids saying "i'll give you to the turk". we played a central and positive role in history, but we did so in islam. not in christendom. we really belong there, and there we can have the opportunity to be what germany is to europe. if only the other muslims were a bit more sensible... as i say. i shall not be particularly offended if turkey never makes it into the eu. i would rather though that the eu made it clear to us beyond doubt: no muslims in europe. this way we would at least be heading toward destinations we can realistically reach.

quote:Originally posted by HOVSEP KASHISHIAN:To all nations of the world: 1) unvail your women 2) take the faze off your mens head 3) put on europian clothes 4) adopt europian alphabets 5) have some kined elections 6) ally your country with the U S A Walla you got it, now you can join the EU Mebership regardless of your human wrights violations or miss treatment of your minorities . WHAT A JOKE . hovsep, may i add: 1) allow your women to go out of their house on their own, have jobs, elect & be elected to any post (including presidency), have equal say in courts, 2) do not stone adulterers, chop off thieves' hands, and the like, 3) practise monogamy and cheat on your wife like civilised nations do, 4) have more than six courses in your universities (iran), 5) have elections and be governed by their results 6) abolish death penalty. etc. etc.

quote:Originally posted by Domino:Thoth, you are too nice here. Ali, just a question to you. I just wonder, you say that you are open to say what you think, and allegedly give most of the blames on your side. Why giving your true name in this board and your profession, if you believe that your views are so different then the Turkish government, are you not afraid of comming on a board like this, the most frequented Armenian forum, and this with your true name ? I mean, do you believe that your country is a so democratic institution that you are compleatly free to say what you want ? Or perhaps, you are not afraid of the consequences because your views are just those of the Turkish government, with a more "friendly" way ? Domino, my particulars are as they appear here. i have reason to believe (but no evidence to prove) that the turkish government is currently preparing the public to an eventual recognition of the genocide for the following reasons: 1. they are losing the geocide denial battle internationally, and don't want to be the last to recognise it. 2. they realise that the more turkey opens up, the harder it is to keep turks from getting exposed to unofficial versions of history (so they don't want to see turks chat in armenian forums. what are they gonna do? get the country offline?). 3. they are a bit freer from their former fears. they had feared very much that recognition of kurdish identity would lead to eventual breakup of the country, and it isn't (at least for the time being). 4. these "sensitive issues" are shackles on the feet of turkey that keep it from advancing and have to be removed if we are to be a full member of the inernational community. 5. the cold war and the soviet union are over, and with them a good number of the threats we were facing. 6. if problems between turkey and armenia were solved, all regional countries could make a killing out of azeri, kazakh and turkmen oil & gas. so i believe that for these reasons the turkish government is currently easing up on this issue, at least internally. they will of course be the last to leave the official position, but they will allow a number of public figures to speak up on the issue freely to form public opinion. of course, one serious obstacle is our concern that such a recognition will be used by the armenian side to form a basis for land claims. while i believe it doesn't stand much of a chance, we would understandably prefer not to run the risk, for we would rather solve all the problems, and not replace one with another. although i am not a spokesperson for the government or anyone else, and i disagree with many of their positions, i do agree with some of their positions, just like i disagree with a number of your positions but agree with some. i don't make an effort to differ from the government, i happen to differ just in those places where i think they are wrong. by the way, dadrian's "genocide" was translated into turkish some five years ago and is still on sale in istanbul. in sum, yes, i believe we are getting sufficiently democratic to express ourselves. and also, faint heart never won fair lady.

mj, i didn't conclude the reviewers were armenians?! i just said i ordered some other books over the net on armenians mostly written by armenians. i must have misexpressed myself. sorry. [ November 12, 2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

i have a new international version bible where it is mentioned that jesus had a brother called james?! how come this comes as such a shock to christians?

i checked the amazon reviews, and they are almost all quite unfavourable. i can't disagree with the reviews. i had ordered other books through the net, and am waiting for them to come (they are mostly written by armenians). the impression that the author gave me in the book was that she was "detached" from the subject rather than "dispassionate, unbiased" about it. it is as if somebody had asked her to write about a topic she didn't particularly care about, and she scribbled down something. i felt a general lack of passion, or interest for things armenian throughout the narrative. [ November 12, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

i have read the book. frankly speaking, it left me with quite a muddled picture of the armenians. i found it a bit hard to follow throughout the earlier chapters when the armenians were independent and when not, and the period from 1071 to 1915 is treated in a rather summary fashion in my opinion. the genocide covers barely half a page (but it is mentioned as genocide), which amazed me (i failed to notice the names of talat, enver, cemal, bahaeddin şakir and the lot), as the author herself says it is one of the decisive events in the history of the armenians. the restrictions imposed by turkey on researching things armenian are touched upon, but not elaborated. this was the first book i had read on armenian history as a whole (as opposed to specific issues like the genocide or art). i would not really recommend it as an introduction to someone who doesn't have any previous knowledge about the armenians. it may be a useful complementary and perhaps "corrective" to other works in the field, but not really the ideal introduction. [ November 11, 2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

thoth, i agree with your points above. the thing is i fear the top of my head blew off again - not a good habit, maybe being mediterranean has something to do with it . anyway, the thing is you tend to give the sort of replies that you get. if you get a nice diplomatic guy, you give nice diplomatic replies. if you get insults, well, you adopt a different style... of course, such things will happen, and i do not for a moment think that all i have written always was the best i could do, or hold to some of the more feverish of my remarks today. i think these are best accepted as accidents on the road, and they are unfortunate but inevitable. after all, what we are discussing here is dead millions and the legacy they left behind to both of us. and we are not impartial third parties to it, but descendants of the people who lived it. i hope to keep this going and see it give rise to something positive in the future (it can happen). i am offended by the holier-than-thou attitude of some of the members, but i keep in mind that these are personal attitudes rather than national ones. you are an armenian, too, after all, and your attitude is very different. kind of gives me hope. take care,

quote:Originally posted by Domino: quote: you have to realise that we don't have a problem with you, but you have a problem with us. i am one of those few turks who concede that we share by far the greater part of the blame in that "problem" (the ag), and are prepared to do what we can to solve/make good for it, but putting up with insults or arrogance on your part is not one of them. Ali, can you tell me what you really mean with "concede" ? Because if you view this as a "concession" then Armenians don't need your concessions, recognising that your part has the great part of the blame is only a constatation and not a concession, we gain nothing from your said "concession" as Armenian, and you lose nothing by your alleged concession. I don;t post this as an offense, but I have enought of this believe that all this is about not "conceding" the enemy anything... I don't blame you, because that believe that every exchanges with the exterior world is about concession and gain against the "enemy", is what the "father of the Turks" and the Kemalistic regime was able to program in the psyche of the Turkish nation. No one need your concessions Ali sorry. to concede means to accept some fact that you are not at ease with. the ag is a fact, and as a turk i am not at ease with it, the same way that the holocaust is a fact and a german can be forgiven for not being at ease with it. i don't recall having said/implied that anyone needed my concessions by the way.

quote:Originally posted by Rouben Malayan:Ali, what is the population of Turkey and how many people are serving in the armed forces? Please in numbers and percentage if possible. (its just a question). Thanks in advance, Rouben rouben, the population of turkey must be something like 70-72 million by now (last census was in 2000, where we were 67.5 m officially, but there is very widespread suspicion that that left some 2 m kurds out of the census). the armed forces must be around 550,000 if i am not mistaken. if i remember correctly that figure had reached a high of over 700,000 sometime during the past two decades, and then gradually declined. now that the war in the southeast is practically finished, and the army is geting modernised, the numbers are dropping (there is very severe pressure on the army to cut down in size). hope this helps, cheers,

just a few comments on the above discussion (thoth, boghos, Domino) re turkey: 1. i don't know of a single case in history where democracy was established without fits and starts. it takes time, and people make mistakes. the reason why it is taking such a long time in turkey is that the traditional lifestyle in turkey did not give rise to democracy: it was imposed by the western influenced military (what an irony). you may criticise the turkish regime in general and the army in particular for not being very democratic, but hey, you shouldn't forget that your average anatolian peasant left to his own devices is a good deal less so. so it comes to choosing between the lesser of the two evils, and the army is the lesser one in many people's opinion. 2. re turkey and the eu: i share many people's doubts about turkey ever joining the eu, and unlike most people, i believe that religion is the key factor here: no matter how much turkey reforms, no matter how prosperous it becomes, no matter this, no matter that, nothing short of wholesale baptism will ever get turkey into the eu. the eu does not really want to tell this to turkey that bluntly and thereby spark a reaction (and end up with an iran next to its borders), but they just won't take us. i can't really blame them for it: after all, japan is all very civilised and everything but it just simply isn't europe, and the same goes for turkey. europe is not just a certain lifestyle and code of conduct: it is also a history, a bunch of prejudices, attitudes, religion, culture and what not, in short, a past, and turks weren't in that past, other than as a threat. turks acquired european aspirations only when they started to get down the hill, and i suspect that they would leave these aspirations if they realise that they can get up the hill again wihtout necessarily becoming a part of europe. also, another crucial factor is that neither the arabs nor the persians, who are after all our real cultural and civilisational "family" are attractive bedfellows. if they ever show signs of improving, turkey might prefer to move to play a prominent role in a region where it naturally belongs to. for this, of course, iraq and palestine are issues that are to be sorted. i think something of this kind will happen in the coming decades and turkey will carve itself a place there if it cannot make it into the eu, which is almost a certainty. this wouldn't necessarily be a bad move if these countries adopt democracy prior to that.

quote:Originally posted by Eduard Markosyan:ali, please...don't even go there. do you mean to insult the people's intelligence? do you talk about the same ozal who said "we'll remind the armenians 1915"? no one has ever seen changes in the turkish value system. you guys keep changing your mask, but your true identity ramains the same. in an interview to azeri newspaper 'zerkalo',, your new elected leader said 'the occupied territories must be returned to azerbaijan. and now the liberated artsak is an azeri's land, huh? do you guys value the land more than the people...is this guy calling for a war? hey, how about liberating the armenian territoris taken by the bloody bastards? what if we think about saving the armenian churches that are being destroyed for the past 80 years? eduard, 1. we don't wear masks, especially when dealing with the enemy (and you guys are not exactly in the friends category, you know that, don't you?). 2. i don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence or anything, but the following remarks may be offensive to some, even though that's not the intention (i repeat, that's not the intention): we are a major regional power 70 million strong. our current problems are great and many, but the armenian issue is not one of them. the armenian problem recurs only on every 24th april or whenever turkey attempts to get something from the eu/usa/russia that these guys don't want to give, or when they want to wrench something out of us that we don't want to give. you are a pawn in their hands. sorry to say this, but your interests are - and have never been - anyone else's priority (the same could of course be said of many other nations, including us). you have to realise that we don't have a problem with you, but you have a problem with us. i am one of those few turks who concede that we share by far the greater part of the blame in that "problem" (the ag), and are prepared to do what we can to solve/make good for it, but putting up with insults or arrogance on your part is not one of them. so i suggest you take a close look at us and just see: we don't have a mask, we have a face, it's an ugly one, especially seen from your perspective, but at least we are not trying to hide anything. we also do not see any need to hide anything from you, or plainly speaking, couldn't be bothered with it: you are not that important for us. sorry if this sounds offensive or arrogant (i intended neither), but things had to be put into the right perspective. regards,

mj, arrogance is not a virtue, especially if coupled with erroneous judgement.

eduard, they don't have a bloody plan or anything. the country was run by incompetent f*cks since özal died, (and actually way before that) now these f*cks are out of politics. postwar (wwii) turkish politics were characterised by a struggle between the westernising secularist forces (the centre left) and the populist mavericks that fed on the ignorance and frustrations of the masses. the mavericks kept winning in the ballots, and kept screwing the country, only to be ousted by the military (the watchdog) four times, and it was the turkish people who lost out. we have had a bloody 'nough, and sent all of those responsible for this who are still alive and not yet out of politics (türkeş is dead, demirel was ousted in disgrace three years ago, erbakan is barred from politics by law, so this had left ecevit, çiller, yılmaz, and erbakan again as he was still plotting behind the scenes) to oblivion. our fury buried them. the akp? well, it is a price we have to pay, i am afraid. if they have the brains of a worm they wouldn't play islamist and dare to have a brush with the army. in fact, if they really turn out to have mutated into a centre-right party rather than the islamist party that they were, they may even win the next elections. they have no excuses: single-party rule, recovering economy, cooperative opposition (nothing else they can do), and so far cautiously optimistic international reception. what more could they ask for?

thoth, i agree with everything you say, and have the same fears (like the rest of the nation). but the thing is that these guys had filled the cadres with names from centre right rather than the islamist camp, and are getting out of their way to ensure everyone that they are not islamist. as for the creeping little changes, maybe mine is just wishful thinking, but these guys had had enough fights with the army, and i hope they have understood by now that certain things are just not possible. another significant factor is the fact that the mother of all islamist parties, saadet (that of erbakan) got a mere 2.5 per cent of the vote. the difference between the two is that while the akp guys reinvented themselves as a centre-right party and took guys from other centre right parties, erbakan didn't. he stayed the same as before, and was voted out of politics. we are cautiously optimistic for the time being. cheers,

mj, you can do better than that.

day two after the apocalypse so far everything seems to be all right. i have not been ordered to grow a beard and the women at the workplace are not wearing veils. akp is desperately trying to pass itself for a muslim conservative democratic party rather than an islamist or ex-islamist party. they are ready to cooperate with the imf, and this morning baykal and tayyip (chp and akp heads) made a joint statement where they stressed that they would be working together and that their first priority would be to get a date from the eu at copenhagen (which will be very, very difficult in my opinion). the markets have so far responded very favourably to the single party rule that akp will enjoy. if they don't mess up and act as a conservative democrat party as they claim they have turned into, the near future may be bright.

hello everyone the recent posts have raised very interesting points on which i shall comment to the best of my ability (i have had an operation two weeks ago and will have another one in two days' time so my ability will be slightly hampered, but let's give it a try). re the chechen issue: 1. you must be mad to stick your nose into the internal affairs of russia, especially if you are not a superpower (which we are not), and we are many things, but not mad (i hope). 2. the reason why turkey is willy-nilly (and more nilly than willy) involved in the chechen issue is the large numbers of chechens in turkey and especially the large numbers of chechens in the police and especially the military forces (one recent chief of general staff, doğan güreş, was one, for instance). also, the caucasian community (which includes georgians, lazes, abhazians and the lot in addition to the chechens) are even more numerous and even more powerful pretty much everywhere in turkey, including politics, business, the police force and the military. in addition, the chechens are muslims, so are we, and turkey has acted as a refuge for balkan, caucasian and central asian muslims since the dismemberment of the ottoman empire in the balkans and the russian conquests in the caucasus and central asia. there is tremendous popular support for the chechens in turkey which the government is both unable and, frankly, unwilling, to tide: after all, what the russians are doing there is a crime against humanity if western reports and opinions are anything to go by. we are not the only ones against it, but we are the one major nation where caucasian muslim refugees traditionally end up, and we are naturally going to be against what they are doing. it is true that chechens are receiving arms from inside turkey, but that is not quite the same as saying that they are being supported by turkey. after all, the pkk was also receiving arms frm inside turkey and turkey wasn't exactly supporting it, was it? i must also add here that support for chechens is curiously sparse amongst turkish workers - or any turk who has been in russia for any length of time -. i had asked one why this was so, and she replied that as far as they could see the whole thing was more about appropriation of certain areas for money extortion and other illegal activities, i.e. a fight between various ethnic mafias, than anything like independence. several turkish labour groups (in construction sites etc) were also stopped by the chechens and were not treated much more differently than the russians, a fact that didn't endear the chechens to them. as far as chechens and the oil business, 1) turks would love to see the oil flow, because it would most probably do so through turkey, and 2) the armenian-azeri conflict is a much greater problem for this than the chechen one. so in brief we have no interest or incentive whatsoever in seeing russia destabilised. their destabilisation can - and does - mean our destabilisation. and also, tyou must be mad to risk a fight with russia - and we are not.