|
Post by partickpotter on May 27, 2015 20:35:20 GMT
I'm not so sure Harry is spot on. The improvements in Western "Christian" societies is because they are secular. Religion has had to come to terms with a much diminished role in society in the West and had to modify and moderate positions to try and stay meaningful. It's not because they want to change anything. The church does not do change voluntarily. It wants power. The tragedy of the Middle East is it is a society that is not secular meaning turgid religious practices dominate resulting in the shit storm that is engulfing the Arab world and beyond. But, we can't assume the Catholic Church would be any better were it to have power. Their dogmatic principles on contraception have caused huge issues in the third world where they exercise far more influence than in the West. The fact that Islam is a "worse" religion than Christianity is therefore, IMO, down to their role in society. Oh for an Ataturk in the Middle East. ........ yes, because it was only Christians that Ataturk ethnically cleansed from Armenia - so that's ok, lets have another! Away and boil yer heid. The Armenian holocaust took place in the years up to and most emphatically (and disgracefully) in 1915. At which point Ataturk was fighting the Brits and Anzacs in Galipolli.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on May 27, 2015 20:44:08 GMT
........ yes, because it was only Christians that Ataturk ethnically cleansed from Armenia - so that's ok, lets have another! Away and boil yer heid. The Armenian holocaust took place in the years up to and most emphatically (and disgracefully) in 1915. At which point Ataturk was fighting the Brits and Anzacs in Galipolli. The last Christians were driven out of Anatolia in 1922 by forces under the control of your hero. Apology accepted
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 27, 2015 21:09:34 GMT
Away and boil yer heid. The Armenian holocaust took place in the years up to and most emphatically (and disgracefully) in 1915. At which point Ataturk was fighting the Brits and Anzacs in Galipolli. The last Christians were driven out of Anatolia in 1922 by forces under the control of your hero. Apology accepted You're talking about Smyrna? A tragic story. But you'll know this was the conclusion of the 1919/22 Greek / Turkish war. Don't misrepresent what happened there as a religious thing. If was horrific, cruel, awful. But it wasn't sectarian. It was nationalistic. The Greeks, looking to take advantage of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, invaded Turkey in 1919 looking to make a major land grab. Of course they were incentivised to do just that by the British Government; you just knew we had to be involved in there somewhere. The slaughter in Smyrna was the final act in that war as the Turks literally pushed the Greeks into the sea by burning large parts of the city (specifically the Greek parts) to the ground. The fact that many Western ships moored off Smyrna chose not to come to evacuate the trapped people has never been explained. Plenty of bad things going on in those days all round - although the 1915 Armenian genocide stands out as maybe the most appalling. If you want to know more about this time I'd recommend this excellent book; Paradise Lost: Smyrna 1922 - The Destruction of Islam's City Of Tolerance
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on May 27, 2015 21:59:58 GMT
The last Christians were driven out of Anatolia in 1922 by forces under the control of your hero. Apology accepted You're talking about Smyrna? A tragic story. But you'll know this was the conclusion of the 1919/22 Greek / Turkish war. Don't misrepresent what happened there as a religious thing. If was horrific, cruel, awful. But it wasn't sectarian. It was nationalistic. The Greeks, looking to take advantage of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, invaded Turkey in 1919 looking to make a major land grab. Of course they were incentivised to do just that by the British Government; you just knew we had to be involved in there somewhere. The slaughter in Smyrna was the final act in that war as the Turks literally pushed the Greeks into the sea by burning large parts of the city (specifically the Greek parts) to the ground. The fact that many Western ships moored off Smyrna chose not to come to evacuate the trapped people has never been explained. Plenty of bad things going on in those days all round - although the 1915 Armenian genocide stands out as the midst appalling. If you want to know more about this time I'd recommend this excellent book; Paradise Lost: Smyrna 1922 - The Destruction of Islam's City Of Tolerance It was Armenian Christian civilians (including women, kids, elderly) that Ataturk drove from their ancestral lands/homes in Smyrna. The war is therefore irrelevant isn't it? Unless you consider ethnic cleansing to be an acceptable by-product? Not sure where you're going with the Western ships reference as the survivors left by ship. In 1938 Ataturk took advantage of the situation in Western Europe to annex the Sanjak region that was under French control. It's 23,000 Armenian inhabitants chose to leave for Syria/Lebanon rather than suffer at his hands again. Whichever way you look at it - he's a pretty shit role-model if you happen to be a minority people.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 3:55:39 GMT
You're talking about Smyrna? A tragic story. But you'll know this was the conclusion of the 1919/22 Greek / Turkish war. Don't misrepresent what happened there as a religious thing. If was horrific, cruel, awful. But it wasn't sectarian. It was nationalistic. The Greeks, looking to take advantage of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, invaded Turkey in 1919 looking to make a major land grab. Of course they were incentivised to do just that by the British Government; you just knew we had to be involved in there somewhere. The slaughter in Smyrna was the final act in that war as the Turks literally pushed the Greeks into the sea by burning large parts of the city (specifically the Greek parts) to the ground. The fact that many Western ships moored off Smyrna chose not to come to evacuate the trapped people has never been explained. Plenty of bad things going on in those days all round - although the 1915 Armenian genocide stands out as the midst appalling. If you want to know more about this time I'd recommend this excellent book; Paradise Lost: Smyrna 1922 - The Destruction of Islam's City Of Tolerance It was Armenian Christian civilians (including women, kids, elderly) that Ataturk drove from their ancestral lands/homes in Smyrna. The war is therefore irrelevant isn't it? Unless you consider ethnic cleansing to be an acceptable by-product? Not sure where you're going with the Western ships reference as the survivors left by ship. In 1938 Ataturk took advantage of the situation in Western Europe to annex the Sanjak region that was under French control. It's 23,000 Armenian inhabitants chose to leave for Syria/Lebanon rather than suffer at his hands again. Whichever way you look at it - he's a pretty shit role-model if you happen to be a minority people. I think we're not going to agree. I appreciate your point though. He wasn't a saint! He was a man if thise times. He wasn't though the person responsible for the Armenian Genocide - a specific act. But he was responsible for anti-Armenian policy for which you can assign the annexation of Armenian lands in cohorts with the Russians in 1921 to him. It's probably the most significant anti-Armenian action directly attributable to Ataturk. Also the most longstanding. I don't agree with your rationale about the motivation behind the massacre at Smyrna though. As I said that was not religiously motivated but nationalist. It was, as I've said, terrible. Here's my main point though regarding Ataturk in this thread. He created a secular constitution in an Islamic society. For the Arab world to prosper it has to get religion out of politics. Hence - my call for a modern day Ataturk, in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 28, 2015 4:17:39 GMT
You're talking about Smyrna? A tragic story. But you'll know this was the conclusion of the 1919/22 Greek / Turkish war. Don't misrepresent what happened there as a religious thing. If was horrific, cruel, awful. But it wasn't sectarian. It was nationalistic. The Greeks, looking to take advantage of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, invaded Turkey in 1919 looking to make a major land grab. Of course they were incentivised to do just that by the British Government; you just knew we had to be involved in there somewhere. The slaughter in Smyrna was the final act in that war as the Turks literally pushed the Greeks into the sea by burning large parts of the city (specifically the Greek parts) to the ground. The fact that many Western ships moored off Smyrna chose not to come to evacuate the trapped people has never been explained. Plenty of bad things going on in those days all round - although the 1915 Armenian genocide stands out as the midst appalling. If you want to know more about this time I'd recommend this excellent book; Paradise Lost: Smyrna 1922 - The Destruction of Islam's City Of Tolerance It was Armenian Christian civilians (including women, kids, elderly) that Ataturk drove from their ancestral lands/homes in Smyrna. The war is therefore irrelevant isn't it? Unless you consider ethnic cleansing to be an acceptable by-product? Not sure where you're going with the Western ships reference as the survivors left by ship. In 1938 Ataturk took advantage of the situation in Western Europe to annex the Sanjak region that was under French control. It's 23,000 Armenian inhabitants chose to leave for Syria/Lebanon rather than suffer at his hands again. Whichever way you look at it - he's a pretty shit role-model if you happen to be a minority people. Correct
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on May 28, 2015 10:33:10 GMT
It was Armenian Christian civilians (including women, kids, elderly) that Ataturk drove from their ancestral lands/homes in Smyrna. The war is therefore irrelevant isn't it? Unless you consider ethnic cleansing to be an acceptable by-product? Not sure where you're going with the Western ships reference as the survivors left by ship. In 1938 Ataturk took advantage of the situation in Western Europe to annex the Sanjak region that was under French control. It's 23,000 Armenian inhabitants chose to leave for Syria/Lebanon rather than suffer at his hands again. Whichever way you look at it - he's a pretty shit role-model if you happen to be a minority people. I think we're not going to agree. I appreciate your point though. He wasn't a saint! He was a man if thise times. He wasn't though the person responsible for the Armenian Genocide - a specific act. But he was responsible for anti-Armenian policy for which you can assign the annexation of Armenian lands in cohorts with the Russians in 1921 to him. It's probably the most significant anti-Armenian action directly attributable to Ataturk. Also the most longstanding. I don't agree with your rationale about the motivation behind the massacre at Smyrna though. As I said that was not religiously motivated but nationalist. It was, as I've said, terrible. Here's my main point though regarding Ataturk in this thread. He created a secular constitution in an Islamic society. For the Arab world to prosper it has to get religion out of politics. Hence - my call for a modern day Ataturk, in that regard. I never said he was responsible for the Armenian genocide mate - you bought that up. I said he was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the last Armenian's from there own lands - and he irrefutably was. Oh..... and it's a bit of a stretch to think that the Armenians just happened to be Christians and this had nothing to do with their expulsion given that the Ottoman-Turk Muslims had recently massacred over a million of them precisely for being....Christian! I can understand your thinking re: a secular society, but we were a lot closer to that with Saddam and Gaddaffi in control than we are now. Fucked up - but true. I probably agree with you more than you think (having read your opinions on other threads) - but I do wonder if you'd ever put forward a historic Christian leader as a panacea for a contemporary problem, if he had a record of ethnically cleansing Muslims from their lands?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 11:51:08 GMT
I'm expecting sextuplets lol
.... on the other hand in expecting twins lol
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 11:55:35 GMT
I think we're not going to agree. I appreciate your point though. He wasn't a saint! He was a man if thise times. He wasn't though the person responsible for the Armenian Genocide - a specific act. But he was responsible for anti-Armenian policy for which you can assign the annexation of Armenian lands in cohorts with the Russians in 1921 to him. It's probably the most significant anti-Armenian action directly attributable to Ataturk. Also the most longstanding. I don't agree with your rationale about the motivation behind the massacre at Smyrna though. As I said that was not religiously motivated but nationalist. It was, as I've said, terrible. Here's my main point though regarding Ataturk in this thread. He created a secular constitution in an Islamic society. For the Arab world to prosper it has to get religion out of politics. Hence - my call for a modern day Ataturk, in that regard. I never said he was responsible for the Armenian genocide mate - you bought that up. I said he was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the last Armenian's from there own lands - and he irrefutably was. Oh..... and it's a bit of a stretch to think that the Armenians just happened to be Christians and this had nothing to do with their expulsion given that the Ottoman-Turk Muslims had recently massacred over a million of them precisely for being....Christian! I can understand your thinking re: a secular society, but we were a lot closer to that with Saddam and Gaddaffi in control than we are now. Fucked up - but true. I probably agree with you more than you think (having read your opinions on other threads) - but I do wonder if you'd ever put forward a historic Christian leader as a panacea for a contemporary problem, if he had a record of ethnically cleansing Muslims from their lands? I was thinking quite narrowly about Ataturk when thinking someone like him was what the Arab world needed today. Narrow in that he established a secular society in the Arab world. But, as you've pointed out, there was more to him than that. There is no excuse for the treatment of Armenians in Turkey before he came to power or afterwards right up to the present day. That said, it's important to understand Turkey in those days after the end of the First World War. There was a lot of stuff going on in that region not least the Balfour Declaration and the infamous Sykes-Picot line partitioning the Middle East between French and British spheres of influence. As well as the British supported Greek invasion of Turkey in 1919 that concluded with the destruction of Smyrna. All of this has repercussions to the present day including the 1938 annexation you mentioned and the ongoing Holcaust denial. Let's also not forget annexation was a frequent method used by the British in building the empire - for example in South Africa which prompted the Boer War with its disastrous consequences. But the point I'm trying to make (badly) is if the West is accepted as being more socially advanced than the Arab states it is because they have separated, to a large degree, region from politics. This, IMO, is the key to the future prosperity of the Middle East. It is something that hasn't happened very much - so the Arab States have been stuck between despotic leaders or religious zealots. Ataturk, for all his faults, was a rare person in breaking that logjam - although as you've pointed out the Nationalsim he used to bring the country together had terrible consequences for minorities.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 28, 2015 14:42:39 GMT
Is that why the bearded fucker Abdul Hamza ended up with a hook, bet he shit himself at the thought of those horrible kids appearing from his wanking hand and chopped it off.
|
|