Ludwig9 Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Sasun to clear up your puzzlingness(I know I made that word up) As an Armenian you should already know the answer to your first question. To answer the second question, the Turk really doesn’t have a actual language or alphabet of their own. Since they conveniently changed from the Arabic alphabet they were using for hundreds of years for a Latinized alphabet so they “seemed” more European why not then the whole language? Not to mention that the actual Turkish language is composed of several different languages namely: Arabic, Persian, Latin (English) Armenian and Mongolian. Examples: Yurt in Turkish means house or home,that is actually a Mongolian. The word face in Turkish is Surat, which comes from Arabic and Persian and so on and so forth. By using Armenian and Greek, the Turks would be using an authentic language with an authentic alphabet. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupc/ca/cab/alphabet.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 So you are saying instead of an arabic- or a latin- based alphabet/language they should go for a greek- or armenian-based language/alphabet and that is somehow going to make it more ok? It still wouldn't be their own so I don't see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 So you are saying instead of an arabic- or a latin- based alphabet/language they should go for a greek- or armenian-based language/alphabet and that is somehow going to make it more ok? It still wouldn't be their own so I don't see the point. style_images/master/snapback.png How many Turks look like Uzbeks or Kazakhs? 3% of the population? They are the turkified descendants of Armenians & Greeks mainly as well as Slavs, Celts, Germanics, Latins, Arabs, Kurds, Persians... Turks: http://www.karlphoto.com/images/duygu11.jpg http://www.karlphoto.com/images/demet_sener.jpg http://www.karlphoto.com/images/aysun_kayaci3.jpg http://www.turkguzeller.com/denizakkaya.php http://www.turkguzeller.com/denizseki.php http://www.turkguzeller.com/ebrusalli.php http://www.turkguzeller.com/senayakay.php http://www.turkguzeller.com/gamzeozcelik.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Oh crap! Vigil was right all along ... seems like I am a Turk lover after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig9 Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 You see Sip, you had to go and make TK repeat himself. we invoke that ultimate zionistic handbook,aka the Bible to corroborate our existence, mythology and so-called history. Considering the Armenians were Christian before the "handbook" came out, makes your point irrelevant. Secondly, it is the Church that established the alphabet so that Armenians can conserve there laguage, history and literature. Not to mention it was also the Armenian Church that fought for autonomy not the royalty. It is the Church that established schools and hostpitals (Saint Nerses the Builder). In a nutshell the Church is responsible for helping define and keep the identity of the Armenians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaunt Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 http://www.turkguzeller.com/turkguzeller/images/ebrusalli06.jpg Strong is the mongol in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Ok, now that's just ruining a perfectly good thread now isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 The first lady looks like Slav, the second may pass as an Armenian, the third has something Germanic/Celtic and the fourth is combination of all of the above. But Turks in general are not that good looking! Most of them do have Arabic/mongolian outlook! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 I don't see a fourth "lady" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 (edited) Gurgen: Is is funny how you took "pathetic low-lives" personally.style_images/master/snapback.png Thanks for that remark. It told me your level of intelligence and that there's no point in discussing this any further You're so paranoid you see conspiracies and 'non-patriotism' everywhere. Stalin would be proud of you. Edited September 8, 2004 by gurgen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 You "patriots" are pretty freaking hillarious ... so anyone who disagrees with you is either a commie or a turk lover? Who would have thunk it but we seem to have a funny arse race! Looks like when God was passing out logic, he skipped over the Armenians who got extra doses of the comic gene ... .. and sarcasm ... yah heavy doses of sarcasm. style_images/master/snapback.png Here here....also strongly agree with Arpa's comment which follows...and I can hardly believe it - I agree pretty much with everything Sasun and Ludwig having been saying in this thread as well - good job all! I still wouldn't have banned him (but perhaps I missed some strong personal attacks, language or revealing personal information that was edited out)...either way no great loss really - the same song and dance...but heh - its the internet - fokks can come on and post whatever - even if that have absolutly no real life experiences or knowledge and have no clue concerning reality...maybe one day thay will (mature and) look back and laugh (or cry about) themselves at this stage...(oh I'm including patriot and highlander and others I imagine along with this Virgil dude)...sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 As a side note: Vigil and AH are not banned. They're put on moderator preview for 7 days, which means that whatever they post has to be approved by moderators before the public can view it. All this to hopefully calm them down. And yes Winston, some of what they wrote was deleted. The rest is still there in case you're interested. Whatever happened, they pushed the limits and deserved what they got. Not for their views, but for their language, primarily name-calling just about anyone who disagreed with their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 You see Sip, you had to go and make TK repeat himself. Considering the Armenians were Christian before the "handbook" came out, makes your point irrelevant. Secondly, it is the Church that established the style_images/master/snapback.png Ludwig. Which handbook are you talking about? Read my above post again and tell us whaich "handbook" I was talking about. Perhaps I should have made it more explicit and said "the Old Testament". Which brings us to the Church. Did I even use the C word? Yet, contrary to your assertion the Church was not based on that, to repeat myself, the perennial handbook of Zionism, the Old Testament. It was bases on the teachings of the most anti-Zionist of all times, Jesus. The very reason he was crucified. Preaching universalism as opposed to ethnocentrism However my point was for us to be careful and not contradict ourselves, in the same article for that matter, anyway. We may hammer one point in one article and the opposite in another but when we do it in the same article then our lucidity will be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Hey!! Who removed the burka and the chadoor off those women?? Yet when Turks go to America/Europe their women have to cover every inch of skin. Is ir schizophrenia or hipocrisy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Hey!! Who removed the burka and the chadoor off those women?? Yet when Turks go to America/Europe their women have to cover every inch of skin. Is ir schizophrenia or hipocrisy? I returned from Turkey two weeks ago. I didn't see any Turkish women with a chador or burka. A headgear yes, but that's nothing unusual in the countryside. I haven't met any here in Germany who dress like that as well. Totally agree with your views. The Judaic religion is by nature a tribal one whose worldview and morals are limited to that of their "nation". A nation which used to exist, but is a mythical entity now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig9 Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Ludwig. Which handbook are you talking about? Read my above post again and tell us whaich "handbook" I was talking about. Perhaps I should have made it more explicit and said "the Old Testament". Which brings us to the Church. Did I even use the C word? Yet, contrary to your assertion the Church was not based on that, to repeat myself, the perennial handbook of Zionism, the Old Testament. It was bases on the teachings of the most anti-Zionist of all times, Jesus. The very reason he was crucified. Preaching universalism as opposed to ethnocentrism However my point was for us to be careful and not contradict ourselves, in the same article for that matter, anyway. We may hammer one point in one article and the opposite in another but when we do it in the same article then our lucidity will be questioned. My misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Sasun to clear up your puzzlingness(I know I made that word up) As an Armenian you should already know the answer to your first question. If I understand you correctly, you are saying since we Armenians are Orthodox Christians (actually not everyone but most of us are) then we should also wish that Turks and perhaps everyone else should be. Well, this maybe the wish of many Armenians but not mine. I don't think it is any of my business to tell others what religion they should choose, or to tell them their religion is wrong. Like Jesus said, sabbath is for man, not man for sabbath. The same way, religion is for man, not man for religion. Therefore, man should choose whatever religion he finds comfortable for his soul. Turks are men so they should be able to choose their religion, there is no quetion about that in my mind. To answer the second question, the Turk really doesn’t have a actual language or alphabet of their own. Since they conveniently changed from the Arabic alphabet they were using for hundreds of years for a Latinized alphabet so they “seemed” more European why not then the whole language? Not to mention that the actual Turkish language is composed of several different languages namely: Arabic, Persian, Latin (English) Armenian and Mongolian. Examples: Yurt in Turkish means house or home,that is actually a Mongolian. The word face in Turkish is Surat, which comes from Arabic and Persian and so on and so forth. By using Armenian and Greek, the Turks would be using an authentic language with an authentic alphabet. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupc/ca/cab/alphabet.htm style_images/master/snapback.png I can see your reasoning, and it is true that Turkish language has many influences but that is besides the point. As in case of religion, there is no right language and wrong language. Whatever language you find right to speak that is the right language. Therefore, talk of changing Turkish language is very unreasonable. Perhaps they will change it themselves in a blue moon but one must be incredibly unreal to stand up and put forward a condition that 70 million people should change their language. Try to demand from one Turkish individual to change his/her language and religion and see what happens. It's a crazy idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armenian Highlander Posted September 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 In the post above by AH we exhibit our most paranoid schizophrenia when in one paragraph we blame all of our failures on the "Zionist" conspiracy and in another paragraph we invoke that ultimate zionistic handbook,aka the Bible to corroborate our existence, mythology and so-called history. Come back when you have sorted out things!! What??? When did I mention anything about Jews? What are you, a psychic? I hadn't even started talking about them. For your information: The New Testament is as "anti-Jewish" as Mein Kampf was. You can more-or-less call the Old Testament (starting from the fable of Moses) the "Ultimate Zionist Handbook" - but you definitely can not put the New Testament within that category. I don't care if the New Testament was written by Jews. Although, Hellenised Jews 'did' write the Gospels, nevertheless, they did 'not' originate Christianity's rituals, theologies, ethics and philosophies. This is a topic I do not want to get into at his time. I will make a relevant post regarding the "non-Hebraic" roots of Christianity in a later thread. Stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armenian Highlander Posted September 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Try to demand from one Turkish individual to change his/her language and religion and see what happens. It's a crazy idea. Do I, as a free man, have the right to have crazy ideas? Or are you the "thought" Nazi? Don't forget: crazy ideas are catchy. Don't be surprised if my "idea" begins to linger within you head until it consumes you one day and transforms you into a... nationalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig9 Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 (edited) Therefore, man should choose whatever religion he finds comfortable for his soul. Turks are men so they should be able to choose their religion, there is no question about that in my mind. Here we go with the nonsense again. Let’s say there is a religion out in the world that decides that all first born children of every family killed at birth. And these people of this religion find it, how did you put it, find it “comfortable for his soul”. So, if a Turk or anyone in the planet chooses this type of religion which makes “his soul comfortable” by killing children, is acceptable by you. What kind of religion do you practice? I can see your reasoning, and it is true that Turkish language has many influences but that is besides the point. Please reread my post again, they don’t have an original language. As in case of religion, there is no right language and wrong language. Whatever language you find right to speak that is the right language. Therefore, talk of changing Turkish language is very unreasonable. Perhaps they will change it themselves in a blue moon but one must be incredibly unreal to stand up and put forward a condition that 70 million people should change their language. Try to demand from one Turkish individual to change his/her language and religion and see what happens. It's a crazy idea. I have 1.5 million reasons why it’s not a crazy idea. Edited September 9, 2004 by Ludwig9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 After turkey's demise those that are not deported or killed will beg to learn Greek or Armenian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armenian Highlander Posted September 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Herr Teutonic: My eight point "criteria" for coexistence with Turks was just a "poetic" way of insinuating what you just stated. Enker Ludwig: Your 1.5 million reasons why we can never live with Turks again was simply brilliant. Who says there are no nationalists within this forum. To whom it may concern: I strongly suggest that you "concerned" Armenians allow room for nationalistic rhetoric. A healthy nation and society must be able to express sentiments that range the entire spectra of human ideology. I do not care if anyone within this forum agrees with me or not - just be exposed to my rhetoric and do not belittle it. All viable nations, regardless of size and wealth, keep a balance of "fair" approaches and "hostile" approaches when it comes to politics and ideological formulations. We Armenian have acted like 'sheeple' for too long. Someone foolishly likened my nationalistic rhetoric to the one that compelled the Turkish nation to commit the horrendous crime against our people. The analogy was as shallow as it was inaccurate. We Armenians want justice and we want what truly belongs to us, and what we Armenians have been up against has been more like a primitive beast than a civilized man. If a good percentage of our people within Anatolia had held healthy nationalistic sentiments at the turn of the twentieth century, the Turks would not have succeeded in cleansing our native lands of its aboriginal inhabitants. A little reality check for the "tree hugging earth boys" within this forum: Regardless of how noble, kind, moral, ethical, sweet and cute you act, that does not mean that your surrounding neighbors are feeling compelled to adhere to such values. In other words: in a neighborhood like the southern Caucasus, the weak die young. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, Armenia is once again, threatened with annihilation. And, once again, most of us Armenians are clueless and oblivious of the dangers posed to our sacred republic. You lover boys need to get your ideological formulations in order, you are repeating the same mistakes of your grandfathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 (edited) Here here....also strongly agree with Arpa's comment which follows...and I can hardly believe it - I agree pretty much with everything Sasun and Ludwig having been saying in this thread as well - good job all! I still wouldn't have banned him (but perhaps I missed some strong personal attacks, language or revealing personal information that was edited out)...either way no great loss really - the same song and dance...but heh - its the internet - fokks can come on and post whatever - even if that have absolutly no real life experiences or knowledge and have no clue concerning reality...maybe one day thay will (mature and) look back and laugh (or cry about) themselves at this stage...(oh I'm including patriot and highlander and others I imagine along with this Virgil dude)...sad... style_images/master/snapback.png Actually, if it was of me Vigil would be banned. Look Vigil, don't take that wrong... you have been warned OVER 3 TIMES!!! You have been suspended from this board, you came here and behaved for some times and played with the patiences of the mods yet again without having recieved any warnings. AND NOW!!! YOU REPEAT this same bahavours of yours. You must admit that this is well OVER 3 warnings. I have to conclude one thing... I believe you will not be able to behave, this is my opinion, but it is supported by your own posts. Armenian Highlander, before using the word "psychotic" and "schizophrenic" you should check the meaning of those words and then having in mind the definitions proposed reread your posts. Don't take this as a personal attack but rather a friendly advice. Edited September 9, 2004 by Fadix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Here we go with the nonsense again. Let’s say there is a religion out in the world that decides that all first born children of every family killed at birth. And these people of this religion find it, how did you put it, find it “comfortable for his soul”. So, if a Turk or anyone in the planet chooses this type of religion which makes “his soul comfortable” by killing children, is acceptable by you. What kind of religion do you practice? Ludwig, you are making so much sense! Why are you talking about a non-existent hypothetical religion? I suggest you not loose touch with reality: Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country and you are not going to convince or threaten anyone to become Orthodox Christians and start speaking Armenian. If someone told you to change your religion you would not be happy right? But you would like to tell others to change their religion? This is nonsense. Please reread my post again, they don’t have an original language. I don't see what you are arguing about, I am not saying they have an original language. My point is whatever language they choose to speak it is their language, be it original or not. And they are the only ones, not you or anyone else, to choose their language. I have 1.5 million reasons why it’s not a crazy idea. style_images/master/snapback.png And I have 1.5 million reasons why it is a crazy idea. Like I said, before moving to convert 70 million people try to convert one individual to see how realistic your wish is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Do I, as a free man, have the right to have crazy ideas? Or are you the "thought" Nazi? You have the right to have crazy ideas, and everyone else has the right to criticize your ideas. No, I am not the "thought" Nazi, whatever that means. Don't forget: crazy ideas are catchy. Crazy ideas are just crazy Don't be surprised if my "idea" begins to linger within you head until it consumes you one day and transforms you into a... nationalist. style_images/master/snapback.png I see you have some magic powers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts