Russia vs Azerbaijan

[s3kiz]

[PART 3/4 OF MY LONG POST]


It is clear from all the above texts that there exists today an "Invasion" discourse in the Greek Cypriot government texts which portrays the "facts" of 1960's and 1970's very different from the government texts in the 1960's and early the 1970's which were mainly dominated by the "Enosis" discourse.

The "Invasion" discourse of the government is challenged by both some internal non-governmental (Greek Cypriot) texts, eg., Clerides' memoirs, and foreign texts, such as the dozens of UN Security Council Resolutions which agree on the need of UN peace keeping forces in Cyprus and Secretary General reports*7 since 1963.

The "Invasion" discourse puts the Turkish Cypriots into "minority" status and also makes it more difficult to reach a solution to the Cyprus Conflict, based on the UN Resolutions and Secretary General's "Office of Good Mission.7"
So, the question is "Why does the Greek Cypriot government pursue this discourse which portrays a distorted reality of the 1960's and 1970's, and makes the negotiation process harder?" There might be many different answers to that question drawn from many contemporary theories. However, this writer believes that the question can mostly be tackled with the "Realist Theory" - more specifically with the "Power Politics" - which many theorists and academicians believe to be already dead:

The Greek Cypriot government is still recognized as the legal government of the 1960 "Republic of Cyprus." With the 1983 Resolution 541, the Security Council "Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create an independent state in northern Cyprus.

... the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus." This shows that the Greek Cypriot side has a strong position on the table, i.e., being recognized by the UN as the legal government of the "Republic of Cyprus" and the other side (Turkish Cypriots) without any "governmental" title, or with an unrecognized state (i.e., "TRNC". The current "status quo" seems to be the Greek Cypriot side's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). To change the current "Invasion" discourse and sit for negotiations, based on the UN resolutions, would not satisfy its "interests" and would deprive it from a considerable power it now enjoys - as the "legal" government of the whole Cyprus.

If we look at the following text of the UN Resolution 649 (March 12, 1990) ;it will be clear to demonstrate what the Greek Cypriot government has to give up to change its present "Invasion" discourse which obstructs a solution based on the UN Resolutions:

The Security Council "Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutual acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects ... and to cooperate, on equal footing, with the Secretary General..." (UN Resolution 649, March 12, 1990).

Therefore, for a UN-based solution, the "Invasion" discourse should be modified to accommodate the following points of the UN Resolution: * give up the "unitary state" concept for a "bi-zonal" "federation" * give up its argument that the Turkish Cypriots are a "minority" and accept the concept of "bi-communality" and, negotiate with them on "equal footing" As can be understood from the above UN resolution (649), it would put the Greek Cypriot side into a troubled position if it pursued the Enosis discourse (union with Greece) in the 1990's. The "invasion" discourse, although in opposition with the UN Resolution, at least gives some room for modification in certain conditions8 and that it can be seen as 'one side is trying to strengthen its hand on the negotiation table' - that is, one can argue that it is giving up a lot in the negotiation, so that it can demand more concessions from the other side. As a matter of fact, in the actual negotiations the Greek Cypriot side is demanding territory from the Turkish Cypriot side in return to what it seemingly gives up (unitary state for a federation).

As we stated earlier, the "Invasion" discourse can be modified to accommodate itself to a UN proposed solution in certain cases. However, there is another powerful discourse within the Greek Cypriot community which, although not widely popular, is capable of blocking the way to a negotiated solution. This discourse is a mixture of the 1960's Enosis discourse and the government's post-1974 "Invasion" discourse. It borrowed the idea of "union of Cyprus with Greece" from the Enosis discourse and the claims that "Turkish invasion was an act of pure aggression and violence" from the "Invasion" discourse:

CONTINUATION OF PRE-1974 DISCOURSE INTERTWINED WITH THE INVASION DISCOURSE TODAY :
"Turks are a barbarous people. They are the last barbarians of civilization. A people with violent instincts and a thirst for blood. We rather live with savage animals than the Turks. Until the Turks digest that Cyprus is Greek they can live in this country only as a minority. And our slogan can not be anything else but "best Turk is a dead Turk." The union of Cyprus with Greece is the only democratic solution for the Cyprus problem. No to the talks, no to the federation, Enosis and let channels fill with the flow of blood." (Excerpt appeared in Philelephteros, November 11, 1990)

"If the Cretan Greeks were living in Cyprus today not a Turkish Cypriot would have been in the north....I see the fate of Greece and Cyprus as being intertwined. It would not be realistic to think that Cyprus can today fight for a prolonged period of time without Greece or that Greece is not interested in the fate of Cyprus. Because what is Cyprus? is it not Greece. I say to the Greeks who come here "The place that you have come to is not a foreign place, it is Greece.'" (Statement of the Commander of the Greek Cypriot National Guard Commander General Siradakis, Selides Magazine, October 3, 1992).

The discourse in the above texts (especially the first one) is much more dangerous than the "Invasion" discourse. Here, there is no room for a negotiated solution based on the UN proposals. Instead it suggests a very "BLOODY" solution in the name of "DEMOCRACY" - i.e., "Enosis." It makes one think of 'how a "barbarous", instinctively "violent", less-than-the-"savage"- "animals," "Turks" such as this writer, can be incorporated as a "minority" in a "democratic solution"! The answer has already been provided: by a "bloody" way. Although the above discourse is not widely popular among the Greek Cypriots, it is not discouraged by the government either. That gives the impression to the "other side" (Turks) that the Greek Cypriot government is actually supporting that discourse, which also plays a big role in the failure of the negotiations.

From the above study we got the evidence that there is at least one main "discourse" that dominates a government's global policy towards a certain issue:

In the 1960's and early the 1970's the dominant discourse in the Greek Cypriot government policies towards the Cyprus Conflict was the "Enosis" discourse. It greatly helped to prepare and execute the 1974 coup sent by Greek military regime. Failure of that action (the coup) or, rather the defeat of the coup by Turkish military operation created another powerful discourse (the "Invasion" discourse) that dominated the future policies of the Greek Cypriot government. Although we mentioned about a "main discourse" that dominates the global policy of a government on a specific issue, we are also aware of the other discursive practices that strive to influence a government policy. However, the scope of this paper is too small to deal with all the discursive practices that shape a policy. Instead, we talked about major non-governmental discursive practices that oppose to the "reality that the government's dominating discourse create.

We tried, also, to account on the failure of the UN sponsored negotiations in terms of the Greek Cypriot "Invasion" discourse. However, that is only part of the explanation. In a more comprehensive paper the dominant discursive practices of the Turkish Cypriot, Greek and Turkish governments and non- government texts should be studied to obtain a more complete picture.
Because there are many discursive practices within the above mentioned Turkish, Turkish Cypriot and Greek texts (especially government texts) that are in opposition to the UN proposed solution to the Cyprus Conflict. As a matter of fact, the most recent proposal of the UN to the two communities of Cyprus is to implement a series of "Confidence-Building-Measures" that will decrease the lack of trust between the two communities which, according to this writer, fostered by the "dominant discourses" of the two communities leaderships.

The Confidence-Building-Measures of the UN call on the two communities to give more chance to their people to come together and establish more channels of communication through "joint committees," "joint workshops," "joint cultural events," etc. This, we believe, is an implication that the first-tract diplomacy of the political leaders has failed due to its dominant discursive practice. The second- and third-tract diplomacy of the people (rather than the leaders) might help to create new discursive practices that can open the way to a successful negotiated solution.

1 Stephen, Michael (1986). "Cyprus, Two Nations in One Island", Bow Educational Briefing, No.5, G. Britain.
2 Stephen, Michael (1986). "Cyprus, Two Nations in One Island", Bow Educational Briefing, No.5, G. Britain.
3 To cut the channel of the Turkish Cypriots to present their case to the world.
4 Each community didn't have the right of "self determination" separately. An indivisible "sovereignty" was given to both communities to share.
5 The Greek Cypriot guerrilla organization which was originally formed to drove the British colonizers away from the island.
6 The name of the July 20, 1974 Turkish military operation.
7 "Cyprus is the common home of the Greek Cypriot community and of the Turkish Cypriot community. Their relationship is not one of majority and minority, but one of two communities in the State of Cyprus. The mandate given to me by the Security Council makes it clear that my mission of good offices is with the two communities. My mandate is also explicit that the participation of the two communities in this process is on equal footing" (The UN Secretary General's report to the Security Council, S/21183, March 8, 1990).
8 In 1986, some Muslim countries, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, threatened to recognize the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)" if the negotiations fail to give a solution. So, the possibility of a recognition of the "TRNC" is a condition which forces the Greek Cypriot government to modify its "Invasion" discourse to reach a UN-based solution - since the recognition of the "TRNC" is worse than the current UN proposed federal solution for the Greek Cypriot side.


[continued on part 4/4 of my long post]

 

[s3kiz]

[PART 4/4 OF MY LONG POST]

The above analysis was written some years ago, giving an objective detail of the events that lead to the “barbaric Turkish invasion” of the island as some have made the world believe as, showing a diffent perspective to what many laymen perhaps including many members of this forum did not know of.

Many efforts were made by Turkiye, Greece, USA, UK and namely the United Nations to find a just solution to the problem on the island, to reunite the two communities with a win-win scenario for both sides, but they were all rejected by the Grek Cypriot side. The latest such effort was the United Nations plan to reunify the island prior to its accession into the EU, organized by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. And the out come:

“25 April 2004 -- The United Nations says it will close the office of its peace envoy in Cyprus following the overwhelming rejection by Greek Cypriots of a UN plan to reunify the divided island. Meanwhile, the United States and senior European Union officials are expressing disappointment about the rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots.


In a referendum yesterday, more than 75 percent of Greek Cypriot voters voted against the UN plan to end the 30-year division of the island. In a separate vote on the northern side of the island, nearly 65 percent of Turkish Cypriots supported the UN plan. “
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/4/18E40B54-602E-409F-8E77-99213BEBF08E.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/25/cyprus.unitednations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3656553.stm


http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/bargaining-season-opens-cyprus-eu/article-109929

Prior to the referendum, the EU vehimently claimed that they want to take the island united and resolved as a member of the EU with both its Greek and Turkish populace in peace, and if this unification was not to be succeeded they stated that they will not take either side in and recognize the Turkish Cypriot Government and establish economic ties with them. What happened? Greek side rejected the peace offer, got into the EU and the Turkish side is still isolated and not politically recognized as promised under great embargo.

http://www.kktcb.eu/index.php
http://www.trncinfo.com/
http://www.northcyprus.cc/

And people still thinks Turks out of no reason, due to their “barbaric instincts” (as some would want the world to believe) invaded the island in 1974. Fogetting the above events, aims, ambitions, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the islands Turkish people by the Greeks, even neglegting the fact that Turks have been co-inhabitants of the island since 1571.

If every people who settled in new lands in the 1500s were to relinquish those lands, then there would not be USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and many EU countries etc etc etc.

So thats why Atilla i requested you to provide facts and proofs showing the problems been discussed whether they be Turkish-Greek related or the possibilities of Russian military efforts involving a possible invasion of Azerbaijan, and steer away from “emotional” comments like you had made.

Its through objective understanding of the opposing sides in a conflict can a clear picture be viewed of the situation and just solutions be found.

Otherwise it will all just be nationalistic/emotional “you did this to us”, “you are this, you are that” kind of political slander, resulting in more complications and allowing the saying “tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth” to become real, like we are experience in the balkans and the caucusus.

The world doesnt need more lies, but instead peace.

Cheers.


[PS: Althought the development of this thread went way off from the scope of the initial topic, nevertheless while keeping our mutual respect we have touched on various issue relating to the conflicts and balance of power in the balkans and the caucusus and how this related to the USA-Russian rivalry.]

 

[eliaslar]

@s3kiz
Truth has two sides, maybe you want to show us only the one? Especially in the macedonian issue, your links are only from FYROM's side, even the Greek links, very interesting. I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.

Hopefully the politicians of our countries don't think the same and cooperation between our countries is moving forward. I would also like to remind Mr Karamanlis and Mr Erdogan personal relations.

Especially about this topic, which is a discussion about Azerbaijan and not about the relations in the balkans, the Azeri gas will travel through the TGI pipeline to Europe. This will make the relations between our two countries even better, if there is no implication with the last days political situation and instability in Turkey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/europe/19greece.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://en.rian.ru/business/20070726/69748386.html

s3kiz i am sorry but i have to ask you in which axis of the alliances, of the ones you mention in your posts, you would place the EU, i see that most of EU countries are the final destinations of pipelines that start from Russia.
Also Greece and Cyprus are allready members of EU and the European Monetary Union, thus Greece's and Cyprus interests are the same as EU's and also Serbia is coming even closer to join the EU.

This is also a matter i have placed my opinion in this thread and in the other thread about Balance of Power
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

 

[s3kiz]

@s3kiz
Truth has two sides, maybe you want to show us only the one? Especially in the macedonian issue, your links are only from FYROM's side, even the Greek links, very interesting. I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.

Dear eliaslar, I personally do not think truth has “two sides”, thruth is one, but of course a singular truth can have multiple interpretations and manipulations applied to it, nevertheless not changing the “truth”.

When you claimed that “truth has two sides” I remembered the definition “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue” which dates for centuries. If we are to recall what it means, here are some explanations to it:

“characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue, esp. for the gaining of political power or favor”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/byzantine

“byzantine, of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Byzantine

“To form a plot or scheme; to contrive to accomplish a purpose by secret artifice…Byzantine intrigues”
http://www.jgames.co.uk/dictionary/intrigue.html

“Characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue. Devious. "Byzantine methods for holding on to his chairmanship"; "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements"
http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/byzantine.htm

“That term, used for a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operating, or for something labyrinthine, derives from the style of bureaucracy and internal politics—think roiling intrigue, coups, and backstabbing—of the Byzantine Empire.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?052906

“characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue; devious; "Byzantine methods for holding on to his chairmanship"; "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements"”
http://dictionary.die.net/byzantine

To get to “truth” one needs to steer away from been subjective in observation, and take into consideration all current versions of interpretation of this “truth”. If we are to consider the Turkish and Macedonian minority in respect to only the Greek interpretation, the “truth” we’ll get is there is no such thing. Which has been the Greek government stance, supported by many Greek nationals as also presented in your statements in previous posts here denying it.

But like I said to gain “truth” one needs to look into and be objective of all the possible variations of its interpretation that is present.

That is the reason why I provided proofs from various websites in the previous posts, including ones from the European Court of Human Rights (EU Court), Human Rights Watch Organization, Macedonian (and even Greek websites like you recognize) that show and present a contrary view to Greek government and your opinion on the existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities and the oppression they are suffering under Greek government.

To which you deem as: “I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.”.

I hardly think presenting ideas and links opposing the Greek governments (and your) stance is propaganda. Its not. Unless we are not attempting to reach to the “truth” but only settle for the Greek interpretation, which would not do justice to truth it self, but be one-sided and most likely distant from truth and anything besides it. Remember that a one-sided Greek interpretation can it self be classified as propaganda too.

@s3kiz
Hopefully the politicians of our countries don't think the same and cooperation between our countries is moving forward. I would also like to remind Mr Karamanlis and Mr Erdogan personal relations.

Yes I too support and wish for further cooperation between Turks and Greeks, be it on political level, or on civil level like you and me here. We need further mutual understanding between ourselves, and take into opposing views without trying to label views opposing us as “propaganda” no matter how nationalistic feelings we may have as obstacles. We have mutually suffered a lot, we need more peace.

@s3kiz
Especially about this topic, which is a discussion about Azerbaijan and not about the relations in the balkans, the Azeri gas will travel through the TGI pipeline to Europe. This will make the relations between our two countries even better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/europe/19greece.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://en.rian.ru/business/20070726/69748386.html

I too have high hopes of the TGI pipeline project you mentioned, TGI been Turkiye-Greece-Italy. We had some media coverage of the TGI here in Turkiye, it was stated that the BTC (Baku-Ceyhan-Tiblisi) pipeline will be connected to the TGI pipeline delivering Turkistani oil and gas through it. I think its a good project, both fort he Turkistani countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakistan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizistan and Turkmenistan) to form their economic independence away from possible Russian dominance and agression, also providing further inter-dependability between Turkiye and Greece, hopefully reducing tensions and increasing cooperation for peace.

s3kiz i am sorry but i have to ask you in which axis of the alliances, of the ones you mention in your posts, you would place the EU, i see that most of EU countries are the final destinations of pipelines that start from Russia.
Also Greece and Cyprus are allready members of EU and the European Monetary Union, thus Greece's and Cyprus interests are the same as EU's and also Serbia is coming even closer to join the EU.
This is also a matter i have placed my opinion in this thread and in the other thread about Balance of Power
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

Like I tried to detail my personal views on the current and projected balance of powers and axis of alliances in future in the “Balance of Power” thread and also here on this thread, I see EU, with the condition everything going right for it self, transforming into a European Empire. An independent global power on its own in time been rival to USA and China. Of course I view Russia and some aspects of the current EU political-mass trying to establish a European Empire-Russian block, but that is for the distant future with many variables affecting it currently.

Yes Greece and Greek Cypriot section of the island is part of EU, with Serbia having the potential to join in aswell in the coming decades, thats true. I do realize that as I have already highlighted the “feeling of alliances” between Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia and how its rivalling Turkiye-USA-UK alliance and how this takes place in the development of a possible future European Empire-Russia block, again in rivalry with Turkiye-USA-UK alliance in the future.

Of course these are all scenarious, albeit based on historical/current occurances, none of this might happen, we could be hit with a big meteor and the world as we know it might cease to exist tonight.

But nevertheless good food-for-thought.

Cheers.

 

[eliaslar]

I liked the second part of your post more than the first part.

As first part i take the Byzantine and minorities part and as the second part, everything after our politicians relations etc.

I respect you for your thoughts and beliefs but i have to admit that some of them might be wrong or being seen under a certain prism. Of course i have no intention to prove something to you by posting links about Greek beliefs and history, that's a job for dedicated and probably wise men to do in a way to keep the truth and history clear and pure.

As Sir Steven Runciman said the historian must "to record in one great sweeping sequence the greater events and movements that have swayed the destiny of man"

I didn't say that Byzantine Empire was a holy empire, of course there were dark ages in it's 1000 years life, but i think you have to admit that there were also years of light and purity. If there weren't then it shouldn't live for over 1000 years.

I cannot prove something to you by posting links about Greek ideas and history, because simply you will reject them.
I tried to show you the connection between the ancient and modern macedonia in my links on my posts, is there any better indication and proof from the Greek letters found on the ancient ruins in Macedonia?

Or even better is there any better proof than the names of the Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander themselves?
If we try to find what their names mean then we will easily find that Alexander or even better Alexadros comes from the Greek it's the same in modern and ancient Greek, "Alex" (αλεξ) which means protector and "andros" (ανδρός) which is the genitive of the word "anir" (ανήρ) which means man. So his name means "protector of men".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=alexander
And Philip or even better in Greek Philippos comes from the words "phil" (Φιλ), which means friend, and "ippos" (ιππος) which means horse, so in some kind of words his name means the man who is friend with the horses.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=p&p=14

Isn't it very interesting that the names of all, there is proof about every name, ancient Macedonians have the same roots with modern Greek? And the most interesting is that the letters that they are written are the same.
This can be found easily on every ancient Macedonian coin and ancient scripts even in stone.

Of course slavic alphabet has most of its letters same with the Greek letters because in the times of Byzantine Empire Cyril and Method, who were Greeks used the Glagolitic alphabet or Glagolitsa, based primarily on the Greek uncial writing of the 9th century to create the slavic alphabet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cyril

I think i have told you again, if you visit North Greece you will find yourself in the heart of macedonia, with all it's Greek glory.

About the truth that's easy for someone to find if he reads the proper books and link himself to the proper links in the internet. I think you agree that truth is hard to find and we must search for it.

History has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed.

 

[s3kiz]

I liked the second part of your post more than the first part.

As first part i take the Byzantine and minorities part and as the second part, everything after our politicians relations etc.

I respect you for your thoughts and beliefs but i have to admit that some of them might be wrong or being seen under a certain prism.

Thank you, I respect you too.

I hope in time, you will “like” the first part of my above post too.

Byzantine/Greek Intrigue is a term that has gone into the english language and politics due to the centuries old art form of “manipulative, devious, scheming” of Byzatine Greeks as shown in the many dictionaries and thesauri. It naturally came to my mind when you implied there can be two truths to a one issue, namely to your claim of the non-existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece.

Anyway I hope, in time, will recognize the presence of Turkish and Macedonian minorities currently under Greek state persucution, (both on personal and state level).

As with the evidence below, I hope you will realise that my statements of the Greek state oppression and human rights violations of her Turkish and Macedonian people are not “wrong” and solely not pertaining to my “certain prism” like you claim.

Its everywhere, even in the EU courts/parliament, condeming the Greek state oppression.

Just a few examples:

European Court of Human Rights ruling finding Greece quilty for oppressing ethnic Turks:
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
European Parliament-International Panel on the Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2008/march31_e.asp
Human Rights Watch report: The Turks of Western Thrace:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
HRW report: Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Turks of Greece:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
HRW report: Turkish Minority; Problems Remain:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf
2008 Annual Report-The Macedonian Minority in Greece:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2008/january27_e.asp
Macedonia in Nato-Donald Rumsfeld: Greek Intimidating Tactics Getting Old:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2008/march28_e.asp
Macedonians denied democratic rights by Greek government:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_3_2003.html
HRW report: Denying Ethnic Identity-The Macedonians of Greece:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece945.pdf
HRW report: Free Speech on Trial-Government Stifles Dissent on Macedonia:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece937.pdf
HRW report: Greek Government Charges Against Ethnic Macedonians:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1997/10/09/greece1523.htm
Blacklisting of ethnic Macedonians by the Greek government:
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/begalci/begalci_mhrmc_2003.html
HRW report: Greek Immigration Bill biased against ethnic Turks and Macedonians:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/11/16/greece581.htm

Of course i have no intention to prove something to you by posting links about Greek beliefs and history...……..I cannot prove something to you by posting links about Greek ideas and history, because simply you will reject them.

If you have no intention to prove something/anything to me then what are we discussing for so long? and why are you adressing me in your posts?

And please dont be so judgemental on me. I only reject things if I can prove them wrong. Like your previous contentions that there is no Turks or Macedonians in Greece, which I have (yes according to me and the vast majority of international community) proven as false in the many post in this thread.

I tried to show you the connection between the ancient and modern macedonia in my links on my posts, is there any better indication and proof from the Greek letters found on the ancient ruins in Macedonia?
Or even better is there any better proof than the names of the Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander themselves?
If we try to find what their names mean then we will easily find that Alexander or even better Alexadros comes from the Greek it's the same in modern and ancient Greek, "Alex" (αλεξ) which means protector and "andros" (ανδρός) which is the genitive of the word "anir" (ανήρ) which means man. So his name means "protector of men".
And Philip or even better in Greek Philippos comes from the words "phil" (Φιλ), which means friend, and "ippos" (ιππος) which means horse, so in some kind of words his name means the man who is friend with the horses.
Isn't it very interesting that the names of all, there is proof about every name, ancient Macedonians have the same roots with modern Greek? And the most interesting is that the letters that they are written are the same.
This can be found easily on every ancient Macedonian coin and ancient scripts even in stone.
Of course slavic alphabet has most of its letters same with the Greek letters because in the times of Byzantine Empire Cyril and Method, who were Greeks used the Glagolitic alphabet or Glagolitsa, based primarily on the Greek uncial writing of the 9th century to create the slavic alphabet.

I think i have told you again, if you visit North Greece you will find yourself in the heart of macedonia, with all it's Greek glory.

If you had “no intetion to prove anything” to me and believed I would “simply reject”, then why the above attempt at history lesson?

Well considering you have changed your mind and seem to have “an intention to prove something” with your history lesson, I shall firstly underline that I respect the Greek glory, as I respect the glory of all nations.

Now please allow me to provide you with 3 simple ideas that could very well contradict your presented opinion:

1) Names like you say do play an important role in history, fair enough. But the Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis is named after a Turkish municipality, Karaman (municipality website: http://www.karaman.bel.tr with a current population of around 100 000), deriving its name from a 13th century tribe Karaman Turks’ city-state the “Karaman Beyligi”. Mr Kostas Karamanlis surname simply means “Karamanli” in Turkish, that is “from-Karaman” with an “s” added at the end to suit Greek pronounciation. Hes family is from this region of Turkiye, Karaman township , now does this make Mr Kostas Karamanlis Turkish? I think not. Same applies with the examples you gave. Its not so simple.

2) “If for the Greeks the "name" issue represents "Support for the State Philosophy" which is overly excessive, then for the Macedonians it represents a risk of "losing their country and ethnic existense". Macedonians have been using this name for at least 1,500 years or since many tribes settled the Balkans and mixed with the indigenous people. Greeks on the other hand have gained Macedonian territory, specifically their northern province which for the longest time they called "Northern Greece" only 95 years ago when they took possession of 51% of Macedonia in 1913. Only in 1989 did Greece change the name of its northern province to "Macedonia" under the motto "Attack is the best defense".

It is absurd that Macedonians are even talking to the Greeks knowing that they have little chance of making progress in these unfair negotiations. Thanks to Greece's threat of veto and its irresponsible use of it as well as its position in NATO and the EU it has all the help it needs from the European Community to hold Macedonia back as long as it wants.

Greece very cunningly and abruptly rejected Macedonia's name in 1992 in Lisbon before anyone had a chance to "examine the facts". This rejection also came with misinformation and confusion leading the unaware European ministers to come to the wrong conclusion. Greece lead the European Community into believing that the name "Macedonia" was of no importance to the Republic of Macedonia because allegedly this was a name created by Tito when Yugoslavia became a state of republics in 1944. Thus Greece's strong objection to the name was laid on a foundation of lies. The EU states, without consulting historical data and without examining the facts, were quick to take Athens's side. A similar scenario was repeated in 1993 when Macedonia applied for membership into the United Nations. It seems that justice is not important these days and the sacred Greek might is always placed ahead of Macedonia's right.

If we examine past approaches to the name issue taken by our American "mediator" of the UN, we will find that the whole process is biased in Greece's favour. Actions taken during briefings in Skopje in 1994 and 1995 at best can be described as "desperate". With the exception of naming the Skopje Airport "Alexander the Great", every gesture Macedonia made in Greece's view should be positive but from what experience has shown Greece has been relentless and has, without thinking twice, used all ammunition delivered to its hands against Macedonia.

Macedonia on the other hand has a great heritage which modern Europe considers to be the cradle of western culture. Ironicaly even though it is well known that Alexander the Great was Macedonian, no one complained when Greece named its airport "Alexander the Great" in late 1989. What justification did the Greeks have? That Alexander the Great spread "Hellenism" to the world during his expeditions? If that were true, and no one can deny that modern Europe in its entirety has profited immensely from Hellenism, then why is there not a single European nation (besides Greece) Greek today? Why is there not a single nation outside of Europe, where Alexander ventured, Greek today?

When Slav tribes were settling the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD the ancient Greeks had already abandoned Greece and others settled in their place. For well known reasons the Greeks left Greece at the end of the 4th century but the descendents of the ancient Macedonians remained all while Macedonia was a Roman province. Thus the descendents of the ancient Macedonians lived in Macedonia as the descendents of the ancient Thracians lived in Thrace and as the descendents of the Ancient Epirians lived in Epirus. In time these people assimilated with the Slav tribes who in turn adopted those lands as their home and left their genetic markers in the modern populations. So today we have Slav and ancient Macedonian genetic markers in the blood of the modern Macedonians.

Further forward in time, during the 9th century according to George Shtatmiller author of the book "History of South-Easter Europe" the Greeks, drawn by the Slav settlements of Greece, returned to their former fatherland and assimilated the Slavs and Albanians settling that region. So how can the Greeks then claim to be related to the ancient Macedonians?

Contrary to any Greek assertions, Greeks in reality never settled Macedonian territories, not in ancient nor any other time until the 20th century. Macedonians on the other hand have conquered and have occupied Greek lands. The ancient Macedonians, through the League of Corinth, held hegemony over the Greeks for over 120 years during which time they also occupied Athens for a short period.

Thus prior to the 20th century Macedonia was never Greek, not during Roman times when both Macedonia and Greece were Roman colonies, not during the Middle Ages, not during Ottoman times and certainly not until after the 1912, 1913 Balkan Wars when Greece, for the first time, by virtue of conquest, was awarded Macedonian lands including Solun and parts of Thrace. And this Greece did not do alone but with help from its neighbours Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro and with the blessings of the Great Powers.

It is sad to say that Macedonia's annexation in 1913 happened with the blessing of International right which now reminds it of the shame it committed. It is not fear of the Macedonian hammer that Greece is afraid but of the fear of facing its own shame in public.”

Hans Lothar Schteppan, a former German Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia and author of the book "Macedonian Knot".

3) Considering you too are fond of ancient history like me, check out the following links if you like. Roughly detailing petroglyphs remnants of Turk history all the way back from 15th century BC to the Xiongnu Turks going back to 9th century BC to the Turkish settlement in the caucasus in the 5th century BC, and various information showing the possibility of Greeks-Turks living close to each other a few millenium before than the Otoman Empire.

Just simple examples, nothing heavy:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1145.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
http://www.kafkas.org.tr/english/analiz/karacaylarin tarihi2.html
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/tur1.html
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/tur2.html
http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/index.htm
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/ata_anain_natlangs.html

I mentioned this to show that;
a) your version of history might not be the only one and the correct one,
b) if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck,
c) and no matter how much either of us try or do think differently, we are still related if we go back enough in time, to Adam & Eve (peace and blessings be on them).

About the truth that's easy for someone to find if he reads the proper books and link himself to the proper links in the internet. I think you agree that truth is hard to find and we must search for it.

History has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed.

Simply dismissing an opinion that opposes your opinion as “un-proper” is not very “ancient-scholar-Greek” like, rather more “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue” kind of an attitude dont you think?

I even gave you links from the European Union courts and parliamant, which are a governing body over the Greek state. What kind of EU membership is this? using EU when you are politics-bargaining with your neighbours trying to pressure and persuade them for what you want and not accepting EU legistlations when it doesnt suit you. With all respect eliaslar I suspect a lot of Byzantine/Greek Intrigue in this.

I know that “history has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed” that is why I want the Turkish and Macedonian heritage under Greek rule to not diminish and be destroyed.

Anyway, dear eliaslar, we are close geographically, get on a plane, come over to Turkiye, we can talk all we want while enjoying the beautifull view of the Istanbul bosphorus and feeding on some delicious kebabs, yoghurts and then some baklava, topped with turkish coffee. This is what we need my friend not bickering on this thread and going offtopic .

With best wishes.

Cheers.


[PS:everyones invited, but bring your own bathing suites! arty ]

 

[eliaslar]

According to HRW Turkey has many violations according to the freedom of speech, prosecutions of publishers even for translating books which according to Turkey aren't right and the list goes on. Some examples are here and even more can be found in HRW's page.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/turkey/
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/01/turkey12134.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/08/turkey12174.htm

and also there is a publication about Greek minority in Turkey which is dwindling, elderly and frightened
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe_pub&c=turkey&document_limit=20,20
also i have already put a link in one of my previous posts, about the Turkish pogrom in 1955 and how Turkey acts against minorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

I thought that you had a spherical view about such matters but now i am in deep thought if all books are published in Turkey or just the ones that according to the Turkish state are right.

Maybe this link will make you think better about Greek conflict with FYROM it has some quotes from Britannica encyclopedia, i hope that Britannica is still a reliable encyclopaedia in Turkey
http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/ecyclopaedia-britannica-about-fyrom/

or even these will help even better to see some of the truth
http://truth.macedonia.gr/discoveries.html
http://history.macedonia.gr/main.html

Also about the relations between the EU and Greece follow this link
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8630/
But that will make not such a good sence in Turkey since France has recognised the Armenian genocide and since Turkey warned France about that!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/102803.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/turkey.eu

The guardian's article states "Ankara has deemed it ironic that France is preparing to punish those who express a particular view of history", maybe France is right with my opinion and thus to Greek opinion?

About Turkish settlement in Caucasus i have no doubt about that, also i have no doubt about Turkish origin.
About the relations between Turkish tribes and Byzantine empire there are lots of examples from history that Byzantines/Greeks had Turkic or Turkish tribes as mercenaries a long time before the Ottoman Empire.
That means also that the relations between the Byzantines/Greeks and the Turks were most of the time at least friendly at that time of period.
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/2398/bginfo/social/merc.html

My best wishes also dear s3kiz

 

[s3kiz]

Dear eliaslar,

Lets take a step back and realize that the thread is about the possibilities of a Russian agression towards Azerbaijan, and the possible outcomes to such military conflict in the region.

But firstly, lets do a summary of the discussions here and step by step detail the development of discussions of this thread:

-In post #1, wormbyte started the thread with a question:
“If Russia was to attack Azerbaijan because of it's military reserve, would this cause a military response from any other country? Especially military powers in the west.”

-In post #2, Chrom responded along the lines of:
“Certainly, regular army in all ex-USSR countries (including Azerbaijan) are no match for russian army. It will be no show. But unregular combatants resistance - is a whole another matter.”

-In post #7, Yasin20 stated that:
“you know there are states that have signed a pact to defend each other like kazakistan azerbaijan turkmenistan uzbekistan tajikistan kirgistan as well.”

-In post #12, Atilla[TR] further added that:
“If there was a military inrcusion into Azerbaijan then her Turkish neighbors would help from on both sides of Azerbaijan, I dunno but something like that happened to Azerbaijan, and the neighbors helped a huge greater Turkism would erupt and even if Russia captured Azerbaijan and a few of other Turkish nations manly to the east of Azerbaijan you would see rebellion far worse then Chechnya and even the Tatars in Russia might get worked up.”

-In post #13, Chrom commented that:
“lol. They are completely different entity (referring to Tatar Turks). If they didnt rebelled during Chechens war - then they will not be upset about Azerbaijan either. I repeat, they are COMPLETELY different.”

-In post #14, Atilla[TR] objected with:
“You are so wrong! Tatars are Turkish decent(In fact during the soviet union they where hated by Russians because the Soviet Union said they where Turkish spies)”

-In post #15 & 17, Chrom further objected with:
“Lol. Tatars are turkish? In historical aspect - somewhat true. Current tatars living in Russia have very little in common with Turks.”…” And right now 99% tatars in ex-USSR (let alone Russia) have absolutely no connection with turks.”

-In post #18, I provided info on the Tatar Turks and provided such facts and links as proof:
“They (Tatar Turks) continually participate in all the official and NGO events that are held annually like the "world Turkish people" confrences and congresses regarding cultural and political cooperations between all the Turkish people from all corners of the world whether they live in an independent, autonomous countries/states or in lands under foreign rule, like those in Russia, China, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Moldovia, Ukraine, Romania, Iraq, Iran, Georgia.”

With many historical and factual links supporting this at:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137323&postcount=18
And further explained and backed up the situation in posts# 19 & 21:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137332&postcount=19
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137336&postcount=21

-In post #22 eliaslar you claimed that:
“There is no autonomous tatar Crimean state”
“Also if there are Tatars in Greece, their number is so small, even smaller than 0,5% of the whole population.”
“Maybe your political and historical links are inacurate or have other goals than to inform people in the right way.”
-Claiming the non-existance of an autonomous Tatar state.
-Showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Turkish minorities in Greece, and accusing me of providing inaccurate information & links and dishonest ambitions.

-In post #23, I provided various facts to prove your accusations wrong:
Showing the historical outline of the Tatar Turks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
The historical Tatar Turk State between 1441-1783 and their connections to the Otoman Empire after 1783
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
The ruthless ethnic cleansing the Tatar Turks faced under Soviet Russian regimes
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html
http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2007/11/19/9451.htm
The presence of a Tatar autonomous states both in Crimea and under Russian rule in our days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mejlis_...n_Tatar_People
www.tatar.ru
And the presence of and also the oppression of Turks under Greek state in our times in 2008-04-01
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf

-In post #26&27, I tried to bring the discussion back onto the topic of Russia vs Azerbaijan:
Touching on the Turkiye-Azerbaijan-Georgia cooperation backed by the USA-UK and the diffuculties Russia would have with such an agression towards Azerbaijan and the Russian-Greek-Serb-Armenian covert alliance:
“There is a close coorperation between Turkiye and Georgia (and Azerbaijan), with many Georgian officers training at Turkish defence academies.”.
” Lets not forget the Baku(Azerbaijan)-Tiblisi(Georgia)-Ceyhan(Turkiye) pipeline.”
“Russia is very much unwanted in the caucauses, only supported by Armenia”
“There is too much obstacles, not only to deter it, but even stop it if needed be.”
“If such a Russian-Greek-Armenian-Serbian orthodoxy axis gets hyper-excited, not just the caucasus but whole of humanity will be walking on thin ice.”

-In post no#29, eliaslar you further commented on the importance of energy resources and provided and supported a simple example that shows the Russian-Greek-Serb-Armenian alliance:
“the South stream pipeling, which will deliver Russian gas and gas from central Asia to Europe, through European countries, leaving Ukraine and Turkey (USA allias) outside of the energy transfer game and which is obviously backed from Russia.”
“So the countries that the South stream will pass from are Greece….,Serbia,”

-In post #30, I further explained the importance of Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the underlaying startegy behind the South Stream Pipeline envisaged by Russia:
“The countries themselves though have been trying to use the involvement as a counterbalance to Russian and Iranian economic and military dominance in the region. It is seen similarly by Russian specialists claiming that the pipeline is aimed to weaken the Russian influence in Caucasus. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tb...eyhan_pipeline
“Russia is been supported by Greece and Serbia for the "South Stream Pipeline". The USA-UK-Turkiye-Azerbaijan-Georgia alliance is targetted by an opposing axis involving Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia alliance like i mentioned in my previous posts.”
“This "Russian front" been strategically supported by Greece, Serbia and Armenia is aiming to weaken USA-UK-Turkish power balance in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and strengthen the Russians on all fields, as both Greece, Serbia and Armenia see Russia as an "orthodox-big-brother", their "member-of-family" and their counter against USA-UK-Turkish presence in these regions and their gaurantee for their possible military conlicts in the region.”
“This is an interesting picture considering Greece is a member of Nato, however aligning her self with Russia to support Russian involvement in the Balkans and Caucasus to counter even USA when it sees it necessary. Alliances are changing and will become more evident in time.”

-In post #31, I further commented on this “chaging of alliances” and my projected views on the balances of power in the region been tried to be established on the Russia-Greek-Serbia-Armenia front opposing Turkiye-USA-UK front, and how all this ties in with the possible future world players, namely USA, European Union and China.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137665&postcount=31

-In post #32 I provided a recent development that happened on 27 March 2008 at the European (Union) Court of Human Rights, detailing and finding guilty the Greek state denial and oppression of her Turkish minority, as further evidence to your previous accusations of me providing inaccurate information and been dishonest and also showed that that this Greek opression is going on against her Turkish and Macedonian minorities:
"Anyway on 27 march 2008 the European Court of Human Rights has heard one of the complaints of the Turkish community in Greece and has found and prosecuted Greece guilty of human rights violations against her Turkish minority which she rejected to recognize.
The details of this matter can be found at:"
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-fr
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece908.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece924.pdf

 

[s3kiz]

-In post #33, eliaslar you claimed that:
“Everything you write my friend s3kiz is very interesting even very provocative. I don't have the intention to start another war here, but some things must be put in order.”

And tried to “put things in order” with your continual denial of the Turkish and Macedonian ethnicities, in line with the Greek state policy of ethnically cleaning her of non-Greek ethnicities, in our century all the upto our days in 2008.
You continued on with the immense evidence presented by the EU and NGO organizations, especially the European Union top court on human rights ruling and condemning Greece of her ethnic cleansing of Turkish minorities, and give links of Wiki as solid proof to say “yeah but Turkiye is this Turkiye is that”, this mentality is nothing but a futile effort on your behalf to try to cover up the factual Greek sides ethnic cleansing, like “throwing mud so even if it doesnt stick it leaves a mark behind”.

Perhaps deep down realizing that you were been provocative and insulting to some, especially those who the Greek government opresses and tries to ethnically cleanse, and those who intellectually can see this, you added:
“I am sorry for being so much off topic and i am more even sorry if i am provocative or insulting for someone.”
And further commenting that:
”There is no point in arguing about who is better or who is right, i hope you agree with that.”
Not realizing that it is only you who is “arguing who is better”, while I was objectively providing facts and information about your denial of the existance of the Turkish and Macedonian minorities under Greek state/cultural oppression.

-In post #34, I detailed and gave proof that show:
Your efforts in your race “arguing who is better”, thus bringing politically driven artificial claims like “Turks did this, Turks did that” are infact not wholly accurate, like your fabricated claims based on the hypothesis carried on Wiki of the alleged “pontian-Greek genocide” by Turks.

I showed that if you read well into the article there it clearly mentions of an 1923 Lausanne agreement signed by Turkiye and Greece for population exchange. That it was a mutual agreement on the cross migration of the two people, and how the Greek government uses this with her political ambitions using the influence of Greek diaspora and politics in other countries to manipulate it into something totally different:
“In 1923, a population exchange between Greece and Turkey resulted in a near-complete elimination of the Greek ethnic presence in Anatolia and a similar elimination of the Turkish ethnic presence in much of Greece.”
“The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey is the first large scale population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion in the 20th century. It involved some two million people, most forcibly made refugees and de jure denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia, in a treaty promoted and overseen by the international community as part of the Treaty of Lausanne. The document about the population exchange was signed at Lausanne, Switzerland in 1923, between the governments of Greece and Turkey. The exchange took place between Turkish citizens of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek citizens of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...ece_and_Turkey
www.tallarmeniantale.com

Your many “mud-throwing” attempts in your “who is beter race” is answered and addressed individually, even in the links you provide as proof of your claims, perhaps you are selectivelly reading what suits you, and acting blind on what doesnt? All detailed in post #34
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=137898&postcount=34

-In posts #39 to 42, I further provided a specific example of how the Greek state/cultural policy has managed to twist facts, resulting in a false perception even in our days:
In reference to the Cyprus Conflict, a great mass of the people think that the island went through a Turkish military offensive in 1974, out of no reason, just pure agression. I provided exact, concise and facts from the Greek side showing that this was not the case, That Turks have been co-inhabitats of the island since the 1500s, that there was a 1960 constitutional Republic of Cyprus been co-founded by Turkish and Greek inhabitants of the island and internationally recognized, that this sovereign country changed in 1963 on onwards when there was an ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide by the Greeks on the Turks of the island forcing them to leave their officail 30% owned parts of the island into enclaves making 3% of the island, that the Greek mainland military regime sent forces from Greece to the island to annex it on 15 July 1974 and five (5) days later on 20 July 1974 resulting into Turkiye to interneve to stop the attempted genocide of the islands Turkish population under Greek hands and as been one of the rightfull guarantor powers in the constitution and international agreements on the founding of Republic of Cyprus.

And to prove all this I provided facts from the Greek side, not the Turkish side, clearly detailing the manipulative, twisting Greek politics is capable of. I think its a good example for any and every strategist/politician/historian/military men alike, its a perfect example of how international politics can be based on deceptive his-story (not history) and ambitions.

Clearly detailed at the thread Cyrus Conflictast,present and future:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7603

-In post #43, you once again stated and accused me with:
“Truth has two sides, maybe you want to show us only the one? Especially in the macedonian issue, your links are only from FYROM's side, even the Greek links, very interesting.”
I showed in the many links i gave in the posts I wrote that are not only Macedonian, that are Greek and international links, even like you accepted Greek links.
You even neglect the European Union court land NGO links proving the existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece and under oppression, and still deny their situation. And like I said before truth doesnt have two sides, only one truth with an independent interpretation and a Greek state policy interpretation deny these minorities in order to ethnically cleanse them.

“I would suggest that you think again of your links because some people would think that you make propaganda, which is no good.”
Yeah right, everyone but those not following the Greek state policy towards ethnic cleansing are making propaganda, including the European Court of Human Rights.

-In post #44, I detailed how what we are programmed to perceive might not be the fatual reality, higlighting the art of manipulation, referring to the term “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue” that has thousands of years of operation in history, and how it has become part and taken its place in modern day politics, interpretation of history resulting into something different his-story, and how it is complicating the various international issues including defence related matters due to this Byzantine/Greek Intrigue, an “art form” in “manipulating, twisting and devious” altering our perceptions of the facts of reality as detailed in many dictionaries and thesauri.

And tried to touch again on how the historic/future alliance :
“between Russia-Greece-Serbia-Armenia and how its rivalling Turkiye-USA-UK alliance and how this takes place in the development of a possible future European Empire-Russia block, again in rivalry with Turkiye-USA-UK alliance in the future.”
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138061&postcount=44

-In post #45, eliaslar you replied with:
“I liked the second part of your post more than the first part…(not the first part detailing the Greek attempts at denying and ethnically cleansing her Turkish and Macedonian minorities)”
Yes I dont like it either.

“About the truth that's easy for someone to find if he reads the proper books and link himself to the proper links in the internet.”
Again a continued denial in line with the Greek state policy against her Turkish and Macedonian minorities. I guess you dont accept the European (Union) Court of Human Rights as a “proper” authority, and merely as an “dishonest inaccurate propaganda” link I had given?

“History has proven a lot of times in the past that the ones that don't listen to her and don't respect her finally are diminished and destroyed.”
Like how the Greek state policy has destroyed the Turks of the island of Create, Dodoneaceas, Lemnos and attempted to do genocide on the Turks on the island of Cyprus, and how Greece is trying to ethnically cleanse Turks and Macedonians in current day Greece, even simply reflected on them been put to prison for calling themselves and their community organizations “Turks” or “Macedonian”? Yes I can see how people are been forced to be diminished and destroyed, even in our current day EU member Greece.

 

[s3kiz]

-In post #46, while answering your many denials and “mud-throwing” attempts in your “who is better race” solely been contented by yourself, I try to mediate with you with common sense, and reach my hand towards you:
“a) your version of history might not be the only one and the correct one,
b) if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck,
c) and no matter how much either of us try or do think differently, we are still related if we go back enough in time, to Adam & Eve (peace and blessings be on them).”

“Anyway, dear eliaslar, we are close geographically, get on a plane, come over to Turkiye, we can talk all we want while enjoying the beautifull view of the Istanbul bosphorus and feeding on some delicious kebabs, yoghurts and then some baklava, topped with turkish coffee. This is what we need my friend not bickering on this thread and going offtopic”
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138106&postcount=46

-In post #47, you come back again bringing all sorts of arguments to neglegt and deny the existance of Turkish and Macedonian minorities in Greece under state policy of ethnic denial and cleansing. Without even touching on them, even against historically proven facts, internationally proven proofs and common intellectual sense.

Peace is a virtue of intelligent men, if we are to continually to throw mud at each other like you are doing, we will only be bogged in the superficial feelings of anomosity. I brought many historical and factual proofs against Chroms non-recognition of the bonds between the various Turkish people in context of the possibilities of Russian brute against Azerbaijan.

You did not like this as it also showed the presence of the Turkish and Macedonian identity in Greece, which the Greek state/cultural policy is to deny and deprive them of their identity resulting in an ethnic cleansing.

To prove this, I brought information and evidence from many and varied sources of authority, even the European (Union) Court of Human Rights. Again dismissed, denied and merely labelled as “inaccurate, dishonest, propaganda” link by you, again in accordance with the Greek state/cultural policy.

Unfortunatelly, all this to me once again proves how deep-rooted the Byzantine/Greek Intrigue is in the Greek psyche. Like I said peace is a virtue of intelligent men, and both I and you are capable of this, as long as we manage to overcome any such “intrigues” due to nationalistic ambitions we are programmed with and be objective.

I leave you with the words of Hans Lothar Schteppan, former German Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia commenting in his book "Macedonian Knot", referring to the Greek state/cultural denial and ethnic cleansing of her minorities and her international politics in accordance with this policy:

“…. Greece is afraid…of the fear of facing its own shame in public.”

Cheers.

 

[eliaslar]

Maybe you should think better instead of making a summary of your mind, which is obvious with what temper and manner it happens. Whoever wants to know what was said here doesn't need a summary or a review, he can easily follow the pages and the links we both posted, the truth lies there.

Especially when you describe my Britannica encyclopaedia, the wikipedia and ancient Macedonian ruins and coins with Greek inscriptions links as inaccurate, thus making most civilized men wonder what evidence might be accurate by you.

Even the people of FYROM declare what Greeks claim, this is very interesting

The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

Maybe the truth lies somewhere before the foundation of Yugoslavia, if we take a look of a map of Yugoslavia in 1929, we will see something very interesting, there is no Macedonia as a state and in it's place there is the Vardar Banovina, which translated means "province Vardar", named after the Vardar river.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kartashs.jpg

Or also if you can say that this is not accurate, there is a stamp of 1939 which shows the same.
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/images/stampVARDASKA.jpg

Also according to the constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1931
"The Vardar Banovina is bounded on the north by the boundaries ... of the Zeta and Morava Banovinas, and on the east, south and west by the State frontiers with Bulgaria, Greece, and Albania."
http://www.answers.com/topic/vardar-banovina?cat=travel

This post has gone too far, to show how Tito made the today's FYROM macedonia, but it's not so difficult to prove it.

I am happy that most of the people i know from Turkey and i know a lot, don't share the same opinion with you, they don't offence and they don't act as Greece is the hattred enemy. This gives me hope of the future relations between our countries.

I will leave you with the most interesting fact about how Greek Macedonia is,
i hope you will not prove the ancient historians Herodotus and Polybius as inaccurate...

In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says:
"... I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery ..."

Polybius calls Macedonia "the advanced line of defence" and pays tribute to the Macedonians for fighting the barbarians ('non-Greeks') to preserve the security of the (other) Greeks" (Polybious, Historiae, Leipzig 1898.).

Scripta manent my friend and truth always is proven

 

[s3kiz]

Maybe you should think better instead of making a summary of your mind, which is obvious with what temper and manner it happens. Whoever wants to know what was said here doesn't need a summary or a review, he can easily follow the pages and the links we both posted, the truth lies there.

-I made a summary of the dialogue that has been going on in this thread so that we can clearly see how the discussion branched out into various topics, some far and away, from its initial scope “Russia vs Azerbaijan”. And also to show how you continually use different tactics to deny, reject and censor the facts that show there is a Turkish and Macedonian minority in Greece under state/cultural ethnic cleansing. Also, I did not change what I quoted in the summary, they are in their original definitions.

-So, what do you mean by “summary of your mind”? And whats this with “temper and manner” comment? are these in addition to your “inaccurate, implied-‘dishonesty’ and propaganda” words you deemed right for me. Please be more objective and respecting. Critize me but bring proof, showing what I say is wrong and what you say is right (but the contrary has happened, look at the thread/summary posts).

-Why are you deciding on behalf of the “whoever” that might reads this thread? I wasnt concerned about the “whoever”, I was concerned about you and wanted the points I mentioned in the above paragraph to be understood by you.

-Anyway why do you worry so much about others who might read this thread? Do you worry that they might start learning things about the Russian vs Azerbaijan issue and how it reflects regionally and globally or that they might start to learn things that go against the Greek state policy; about Greek states ethnic cleansing policy towards Turkish & Macedonian minorities in our days, or such passed Greek atrocities in the past or the attempted genocide of Turks by Greeks on the island of Cyprus and Greek efforts to annex the island resulting in a Turkish intervention? I will not detail them again for the readers, they are all in the following 3 links, the summary of the discussions going on this thread from the beginning, yes the truth (like you say):
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138143&postcount=48
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138144&postcount=49
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138146&postcount=50

I will leave you with the most interesting fact about how Greek Macedonia is, i hope you will not prove the ancient historian Herodotus as inaccurate...
In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says: "... I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery ..."

Macedonia is not Greek. And yes I can prove it.

Herodot although been called the “Father of History” by some (since the “west” had to base her origins on something, that been Greek, thus increasing the “grandeour” of Herodot to such a level), is also called the “Father of Lies” by many historians and academicians, all the way from ancient times from Lucian Samosata (AD120-180) to Detlev Fehling in our times. So you cant just take a simple text like that as been true and claim the Macedonians as Greeks, when there is an immense contrary evidence and proof from numerous historians and academicians who are not Macedonians, not Turks or in anyway affiliated with me, who tell otherwise.

Proffessor Ernst Badian from Harvard University (and Oxford University, Victoria University and Canterbury University College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Badian) writes: "It is chiefly Eugene's (N. Borza) merit that recognizably historical interpretation of the history of classical Macedonia has not only become possible, but it is now accepted by all ancient historians who have no vested interest in the mythology superseded by Eugene's work. Needless to say, I welcome and agree with that approach and have never disagreed with him."

“Eugene N. Borza was a professor emeritus of ancient history at the University of Pennsylvania. He has written multiple works on ancient Macedon and is regarded an expert on the overall subject.”

1962 - The Bacaudae: A Study of Rebellion in Late Roman Gaul (University of Chicago,Dep. of History)
1974 - The Impact of Alexander the Great (Dryden Press, ISBN 003090000X)
1990 - In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691008809)
1995 - Makedonika (Regina Books, ISBN 0941690652) “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Borza

Who Were (and Are) the Macedonians?

What were a people's origins and what language did they speak? From the surviving literary sources(Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive.

On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks. (Thracians&Dacians were not Greek just like the Macedonians werent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians )

What did others say about the Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes),
based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.

Macedonians…emerged as a people distinct from the Greeks who lived to the south and east. In time their royal court--which probably did not have Greek origins (the tradition in Herodotus that the Macedonian kings were descended from Argos is probably a piece of Macedonian royal propaganda).

Greeks and Macedonians in the Balkans is characterized by both sides reaching back to antiquity to provide an often false historical basis to justify their respective modem positions.

On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians:

1)Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks. On the composition of Alexander's army:

2) "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."

3) "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks."

4) "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."

5) On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be."

6) On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest.".

7) On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."

8) On Alexander's dismissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."

9) On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence."

10) On the Macedonian language: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
"The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically."
"The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."

11) On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped.” “Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different." "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)." "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity."
"In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive."

12) "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities."

13)"They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."

"It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."
Prof: Eugene N. Borza

http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/96program.html
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~clio/aah/aah.publications.makedonika.html
http://www.makedonika.org/borza.htm
http://www.gate.net/~mango/borza1.htm


“The Liar School of Herodotus”: Michelle Kwintner, Cornell University

“Die Quellenangaben Bei Herodot : Studien Z. Erzahlkunst Herodots” Detlev Fehling, Jan, 1971 ISBN-10: 3110036347

“Greeks and Macedonians”: Professor Ernst Badian, Hardvard University, Department of History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Badian
http://www.gate.net/~mango/Badian.htm

“Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgeschichte”: Professor D.Brendan Nagle, Professor of History University of South California
http://college.usc.edu/faculty/faculty1003022.html
http://www.makedonika.org/nagle.htm

“The Cambridge Companion To Herodotus” Professor John Marincola, Florida State University & Professor Carolyn Dewald Berkley,Stanford and USC
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=05218300X&ss=exc
http://www.fsu.edu/~classics/people/professors/marincola.html
http://inside.bard.edu/academic/programs/classics/faculty/dewald.shtml

“The Religion of Herodotus”: Thomas Harrison,Oxford University Press;
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-815291-4.pdf

From old-to-new Macedonia, very informative.
http://www.mymacedonia.net/

Also note that what Yugoslavia called Macedonia lands during its reign, or what Tito called it under his preference doesnt change anything. During the Otoman Empire we called the current lands that makes up most of Greece as “Rumeli (from the word Rum=Roman,eli=hands/holdings/lands)”, does that mean that most parts of current Greece is not ancient Greek lands? No it doesnt. Your such contentions to deny Macedonia are not logical nor scientific, just like your continual denial and ethnic cleansing of Turkish minorities since creation of Greece.

 

[s3kiz]

I am happy that most of the people i know from Turkey and i know a lot, don't share the same opinion with you, they don't offence and they don't act as Greece is the hattred enemy. This gives me hope of the future relations between our countries.

On top of using such words as “propaganda” and impliying “dishonesty” for the many facts I provided that proves my claims, now you are trying to single me out?

Well good luck, because, I wouldnt be wrong if I said, all of the people in Turkiye share the same/similar views as me. We all want the Greek ethnic cleansing of Turkish and Macedonian minorities to end, we all want the Greek support for international terror to stop, we all want a just solution to Cyprus, we all want peace, but justly and fairly, not only serving Greek interests, because that results in our suffering as it has done so in past and present, like the ethnic cleansing of Cretean Turks, Dodecanese Turks, Cypriot Turks, Western Thracian Turks as just a few examples.

Nobody sees Greece as the hated enemy here in Turkiye eliaslar get over this psychology please, not this country, yes we have quarelles, yes we have casus belli (violation of sovereignty is casus belli for all countries) but we do not “hate” you, yes I critique some of your claims because I can prove them wrong but that doesnt mean I “hate” you. For you to say this is a reflection that might need a deep analysis. But we can summarize and say that perhaps you are regurgitating all the hate they teach in the Greek public-education and popular culture, about “hate the Turks and act on it because if you dont, they will kill you”. Its with such mentality, generations of Greeks have been brought up, both through government education system and cultural acceptance.

Official Greek history books and education curriculum are full of intricately woven hate-filled mental imprinting affecting generations of Greeks, which could be reason why there is Greek-Turk, Greek-Macedonian, Greek-Albanian, Greek-Bulgarian even Greek-Italian tension, and im not talking about "political shop-front view", im talking deep-culturally.

Just as a latest, single and simple proof to show this, I want to remind the commotion that went in Greece last year in 2007, where the proposed revised official Greek 6th Grade history book to be used across the Greek classrooms created a big political and public stir, Because it was not deemed “right” as it depicted “not enough bloody” of Greek history/suffering/victory etc.

Sure there was a couple of historic mistakes in the book, but the main reason the Greek church, the right and left parties, the majority of the public in Greece went in uproar and literally burned this proposed history book was because it provided a more objective account of the history minus the Greek exaggeration of “and they killed us, they butchered us, they raped us, we were 300 men they were 10 000 men but we destroyed them in supernatural heroism, becsaue we are god” etc etc kind of things.

I mean one of the criteria/reason given for such an outburst as whole of the country for this book was that it mentioned Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as “the leader of the Turkish liberation struggle” and perhaps for not been depicted as a mad-blood thirsty-barbaric-Turk. All these reason was seen and commented by many Greek politicians and religious leaders as a “threat to Greek nationalism and self worth”, thats not normal. And in EU.

Now thats what I call hate. Whats the result all of this? Well look at the feeling of rivalry you feel against me, although intricate its evident in your own posting manner and wording, but im not going to put my weight on you too much, thats not my aim.

Look at the World Wide Web, type in the words “Turk” or both “Turk and Greek” in any search engine, you get thousands and thousands of forums/links/tube vids/pseudo-discussion-channels most authored/orchestrated by Greeks and mainly inhabited by Greeks, who talk about “Turks this, Turks that” and they rank high on the search result lists too. Interesting isnt it. Look at wiki (or likeones), a considerable amount of articles there about Turkish-Greek issues have been penned and edited by Greeks, even articles relating to only Turkish history are been penned/edited by Greeks. Strange.

This is an obsession on a grand scale, its not normal, this is not a normal human behaviour. And all this is due to the Greek state/cultural policy like the “6th grade history book controversy” that intricately weaves hate and fear in the Greek psyche since childhood, “if you dont kill them they will kill you”, so we have a mass army of pro-active Greeks on the media, whether its in international press or WWW with their “Turks this, Turks that blah blah”. While on the other hands most Turks are busy on the internet in pursuit of a hobby/mate or playing online games while listening to music.

Just a simple, and hopefully an isolated example, I was in Greece a few months ago, in Athens travelling from one address to another, hailed a taxi, we exchanged “kalimera-kalimera” , got in, the taxi driver aged around 45 asked where im from in Greek I answered with a smile in English “We are neighbours, I’m from Turkiye”, he stepped on the brakes started waving his hands telling me to leave his taxi.
Either he doesnt know english or he hates Turks, im sure i didnt have garlic for breakfast, i know it wasnt that.

Anyway, look at the “6th Grade History Book Controversy”:

Athens News
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/battleroyal.html
Ekathimerini
http://users.auth.gr/~marrep/html/intro/articles/History book divides opinion.pdf
Journal of Turkish Weekly
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=43947
Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=76181
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6525899.stm
Herald-Tribune
http://users.auth.gr/~marrep/html/intro/articles/HERALD TRIBUNE.pdf

While the above is going on in Greece, here in Turkiye we hear Greek music (amoung all world music) in cafes (I personally like Greek "Rebetiko”), we have television soaps with actors playing Turkish and Greek characters in such scenarios as living in an old-times village or modern day apartment, getting along and sharing the good and bads of life as neighbours, even some programs where a Turk and Greek gets married and lives happy etc. We have nearly every summer in many cities and municipalities Turkish-Greek Friendship concerts/festivals, with Turkish singers and guest Greek singers (famous or not i dont know, im not much of a paparazzi).

Countries are like individual people, they have their unique character, (I will not comment on Greek side as its sensitive) so (of course not all) but most of us Turks are straight forward, we are direct people, we forget tradegies very quickly (which has a good and bad side), and we accept people on their face value, trust them only until they do us wrong, and we usually dont complain much until they do us great wrong and after a time forget their wrongs too, we take in and accept eveything like as if they are “we”, with the many numerous qualities I can mention, I wont, but we are a simple people, naive people, sometimes goofy people but we are not know to hold grudges. We dont hate you, we hate double standards, Byzantine/Greek Intrigue and injustice.

No two people are the same and no two nations can be the same. But there can only be one peace and that is a mutual peace, with both sides playing the other sides music, and been just and objective, in a taxi and also in history books that mould young minds of the adults of tomorrow, generation after generation.

Cheers.

 

[eliaslar]

Is is very interesting, though i was waitting for this to happen, that you claim Herodotus and Polybious as false.

Professor Eugene N. Borza, which you refere to, claims the following

"The macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples."
E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), page 84

"The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival."

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émi-grés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity."

"It is difficult to know whether an independent Macedonian state would have come into existence had Tito not recognized and supported the development of Macedonian ethnicity as part of his ethnically organized Yugoslavia. He did this as a counter to Bulgaria, which for centuries had a historical claim on the area as far west as Lake Ohrid and the present border of Albania."

“Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors

I hope you will not claim the historian you refered to as false my friend s3kiz

About the taxi driver, maybe he wasn't Greek? I think there are some Kurdish taxi drivers in Greece.

 

[s3kiz]

Start Part 1/2:

Professor Eugene N. Borza, which you refere to, claims the following

"The macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples."
E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), page 84

I have a few opinions to answer to your above quote:

1) The remark in your quote does sound like the beginning of a sentence/paragraph, as scientist do, providing/accepting the possibility of everything and anything before coming to a conclusion, just like "The Macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced Greek people BUT with the latest finding we can ascertain that they are not”… etc etc

2)Have you considered that Professor Borza in the paragraph could have been qouting someone else words, in order to argue against it with his findings, like “Professor Eliaslar claims that the Macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples BUT with the latest finding we can ascertain that they are not”… etc etc

3)Well, if you had read that book you are quoting from as evidence you would also know the book has these, and I’ll give you the page numbers for you to check:

"Thus, long before there was a sufficient ancient evidence to argue about the ethnic identity--as revealed by language--of the ancient Macedonians, there emerged a "Greek" position claiming that the Macedonian language was Greek, and that thus the inhabitants were Greek."
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

The modern Greeks have therefore, developed a position that the Macedonians were Greek, long before there was sufficient ancient evidence to argue about their ethnicity. Yet although modern historiography had long abandoned this prematurely established "Greek" position, modern Greeks are still its most zealous defenders despite the overwhelming evidence available today, which overwhelmingly shows that the Macedonians were not Greeks but a distinct nation. Borza continues:

"For example, recent work describes the funerary stelae found in the tumulus covering the royal tombs at Vergina. These stelae date from the fourth and early third centuries, and the preponderance of names are Greek… The excavator of Vergina, Manolis Andronikos(owner of the underlined words), in a useful summary of the epigraphic evidence, writes: "In the most unambivalent way this evidence confirms the opinion of those historians who maintain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, like all the others who lived on Greek territory, and shows that the theory that they were of Illyrian or Thracian (as they arent Greek) descent and were hellenized by Philip and Alexander rests on no objective criteria."
Manolis Andronikos Vergina:The Royal Tombs, 83-85."”
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

"This argument is true enough only as far as it goes. It neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occurred earlier then the age of Philip and Alexander, and can not therefore serve as a means of proving the Macedonians were a Greek tribe”
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

Indeed, not only Andronakis was obviously wrong to conclude that the Macedonians were Greek, but also notice how the Greek archeologist does not point that the Macedonians might have been a separate nation. Instead he prefers to call it if not Greek, either Illyrian or Thracian, two ancient nations that can not be associated with the Balkans politics surrounding Greece, resulted from the 1913 partition of Macedonia. Also notice how Andronikos used the term "like all the others who lived on Greek territory". It’s like he wants to convince the reader that Macedonia has always been a "Greek territory", which is exactly what he uses as a base for his inaccurate conclusion.

We can see a trend among the Greek scholars (Andronikos, Martis, Daskalakis, Kallaris, and Sakellariou) who desperately want to show the world that the Macedonians "were Greeks", though unsuccessfully.

And here he gives more examples of Greek writers and proves their claims wrong:

"The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study of the Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 488-531, in which alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined exhaustively. A more chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be found in Daskalakis, Hellenism, esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that venerable society of scholars. 44-63."
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.91-92)

Anyway we also know that Thucydides, did not consider the Macedonians to be Greek, despite the myths created on non original works, like the ones he only transmits. Here Thucydides clearly separates the Macedonians from the Greeks (Hellenes):

"In all there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians." (Thucydides 4.124)
"Both Herodotus and Thucydides describe the Macedonians as foreigners, a distinct people living outside of the frontiers of the Greek city-states"
(Professor Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus Princeton University Pres, p.96)

In 1913 when Macedonia was partitioned after the Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part 51%. There was nothing in Macedonia then that connected that land with Greece, apart from the small 10% Greek minority scattered in southern Macedonia among the overwhelming majority of Macedonians who lived throughout the country. That is exactly why the Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek", so that if in ancient times there was a Greek tribe (supposedly Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is Greek.

The above condition of quoting out of context applies to rest of your post, there too quotes are taken out of context. But I dont blame you, in the rush to provide “evidence” againt what I wrote in my previous posts you acted hastily.

But your quotes are wrong. And you are not the only wrong one.

I found over 50 Greek forums and websites that use the exact quotes in the exact order as proof (I got tired so stopped looking, who knows there could be thousands of this false propaganda out there)

Obviously nationalism can blind intellectualism. I suspect this “out-of-context fake quote” was spread amoung Greeks as propaganda material via forums/emails, as ammunition to fire at any opposing view.

But the way it is, its all fake, nothing more than “manipulative, devious, twisting” like the Byzantine/Greek Intrigue is, as deemed in thesaurusi.

Anyway, although the information I provided clearly nulls your previous post, just so you are competely convinced that what you brought as evidence is fake, I can further inform you that the below statements are from Professor Borza at the American Philological Association- Annual Meeting of 1996. 1996 yes, 6 years after the book he wrote which you incorrectly quoted. Reading the below evidence, you can see he hasnt changed his mind that Macedonians and Greeks are two different nations:

"Macedonians…emerged as a people distinct from the Greeks who lived to the south and east. In time their royal court--which probably did not have Greek origins (the tradition in Herodotus that the Macedonian kings were descended from Argos is probably a piece of Macedonian royal propaganda).

On the matter of distinction between Greeks and Macedonians:

1)Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greeks. On the composition of Alexander's army:

2) "Thus we look in vain for the evidence that Alexander was heavily dependent upon Greeks either in quantity or quality."

3) "The pattern is clear: the trend toward the end of the king's life was to install Macedonians in key positions at the expense of Asians, and to retain very few Greeks."

4) "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."

5) On the policy of hellenization with Alexander conquest of Asia and the Greek assertion that he spread Hellenism: "If one wishes to believe that Alexander had a policy of hellenization - as opposed to the incidental and informal spread of Greek culture - the evidence must come from sources other than those presented here. One wonders - archeology aside - where this evidence would be."

6) On the issue of whether Alexander and Philip "united" the Greek city-states or conquered them: "In European Greece Alexander continued and reinforced Philip II's policy of rule over the city-states, a rule resulting from conquest.".

7) On the ethnic tension between Macedonians and Greeks, referring to the episode of Eumenes of Cardia and his bid to reach the throne: "And if there were any doubt about the status of Greeks among the Macedonians the tragic career of Eumenes in the immediate Wars of succession should put it to rest. The ancient sources are replete with information about the ethnic prejudice Eumenes suffered from Macedonians."

8) On Alexander's dismissal of his Greek allies: "A few days later at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed his Greek allies, and charade with Greece was over."

9) On the so called Dorian invasion: The theory of the Dorian invasion (based on Hdt. 9.26, followed by Thuc. I.12) is largely an invention of nineteenth-century historiography, and is otherwise unsupported by either archeological or linguistic evidence."

10) On the Macedonian language: "As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adopted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."
"The main evidence for Macedonian existing as separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically."
"The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic Greek used as a language of the court and of diplomacy."

11) On the Macedonian material culture being different from the Greek: "The most visible expression of material culture thus far recovered are the fourth - and third-century tombs. The architectural form, decoration, and burial goods of these tombs, which now number between sixty and seventy, are unlike what is found in the Greek south, or even in the neighboring independent Greek cities of the north Aegean littoral (exception Amphipolis). Macedonian burial habits suggest different view of the afterlife from the Greeks', even while many of the same gods were worshipped.” “Many of the public expressions of worship may have been different." "There is an absence of major public religious monuments from Macedonian sites before the end of the fourth century (another difference from the Greeks)." "Must be cautious both in attributing Greek forms of worship to the Macedonians and in using these forms of worship as a means of confirming Hellenic identity."
"In brief, one must conclude that the similarities between some Macedonian and Greek customs and objects are not of themselves proof that Macedonians were a Greek tribe, even though it is undeniable that on certain levels Greek cultural influences eventually became pervasive."

12) "Greeks and Macedonians remained steadfastly antipathetic toward one another (with dislike of a different quality than the mutual long-term hostility shared by some Greek city-states) until well into the Hellenic period, when both the culmination of hellenic acculturation in the north and the rise of Rome made it clear that what these peoples shared took precedence over their historical enmities."

13)"They made their mark not as a tribe of Greek or other Balkan peoples, but as 'Macedonians'. This was understood by foreign protagonists from the time of Darius and Xerxes to the age of Roman generals."

"It is time to put the matter of the Macedonians' ethnic identity to rest."
Prof: Eugene N. Borza, 1996 (Abstract from a paper presented at the 1996 Annual meeting of the American Philological Association)
http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/96program.html)
http://www.gate.net/~mango/borza1.htm

And this American Philological Association meetings are nothing small, with Profs, Docs and all sorts of academicians/pipes/cardigans from dozens and dozens of institutions, with just 5 examples below:

Harvard University
Oxford University
Yale University
Xavier University
Loyola University

End Part 1/2

 

[s3kiz]

Start Part 2/2

But a Greek rightfully can say “but ancient Macedonians are different to current ones, the current ones are Slavs who came in the 6th Century to the area, very true, but the below can provide the answer to that too:

“If for the Greeks the "name" issue represents "Support for the State Philosophy" which is overly excessive, then for the Macedonians it represents a risk of "losing their country and ethnic existense". Macedonians have been using this name for at least 1,500 years or since many tribes settled the Balkans and mixed with the indigenous people. Greeks on the other hand have gained Macedonian territory, specifically their northern province which for the longest time they called "Northern Greece" only 95 years ago when they took possession of 51% of Macedonia in 1913. Only in 1989 did Greece change the name of its northern province to "Macedonia" under the motto "Attack is the best defense".

When Slav tribes were settling the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD the ancient Greeks had already abandoned Greece and others settled in their place. For well known reasons the Greeks left Greece at the end of the 4th century but the descendents of the ancient Macedonians remained all while Macedonia was a Roman province. Thus the descendents of the ancient Macedonians lived in Macedonia as the descendents of the ancient Thracians lived in Thrace and as the descendents of the Ancient Epirians lived in Epirus. In time these people assimilated with the Slav tribes who in turn adopted those lands as their home and left their genetic markers in the modern populations. So today we have Slav and ancient Macedonian genetic markers in the blood of the modern Macedonians.

Contrary to any Greek assertions, Greeks in reality never settled Macedonian territories, not in ancient nor any other time until the 20th century. Macedonians on the other hand have conquered and have occupied Greek lands. The ancient Macedonians, through the League of Corinth, held hegemony over the Greeks for over 120 years during which time they also occupied Athens for a short period.

Thus prior to the 20th century Macedonia was never Greek, not during Roman times when both Macedonia and Greece were Roman colonies, not during the Middle Ages, not during Ottoman times and certainly not until after the 1912, 1913 Balkan Wars when Greece, for the first time, by virtue of conquest, was awarded Macedonian lands including Solun and parts of Thrace. And this (victory over Ottoman Empire) Greece did not do alone but with help from its neighbours Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro and with the blessings of the Great Powers (crumbling, the Ottoman Empire was also fighting on other fronts against Russia, in Mid-East and Africa).
Hans Lothar Schteppan, (a former German Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia and author of the book "Macedonian Knot").


I’m all against genetically differentiating people for purposes of prejudice, firstly let me make that clear. So its only for the purpose of our argument, I want to provide some evidence regarding DNA and how it applies to Greek and Macedonian issue.

A 2000 research done by Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology Universidad Complutense, Madrid Spain entitled “HLA genes in Macedonians and Sub-Saharan Origin of Greeks” comments:

“The following conclusions have been reached:

1)Macedonians belong to the “older” Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, french, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks, Armenians and Iranians,

2)Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the “older” Mediterranean substratum,

3)Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mefiterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1112, *1304 and *1310...

The Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occured was ancient but uncertain and might be related to displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt…

There could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occured in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least. The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners establishment.

Also, the time when admixture occured could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties or after undetermined natural catastrophes.

Indeed, ancient Greeks believe that their religion and culture came from Egypt”(Reference to Herodotus.)http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

As you know there are some Greek nationalist who also claim, the army of Alexander the Great travelled far and wide specifically spreading “Hellenism/Greekness”, and one of the place these people claim as leaving Greekness DNA in is in south asia, namely areas in current day Pakistan.

Well regarding that matter here is a study into Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation study done in Pakistan. Unlike Greek claims, the scientific results are very different:

“Overall, no support for a Greek origin of their Y chromosomes was found, but this conclusion does require the assumption that modern Greeks are representative of Alexander’s armies”

But the study has found, with some Pakistani tribes, high percentages and similarities with people from Central Asia (Turkistan, inhabited by Turks for 17 000 documented years). Which is explainable because the Mughal Empire was founded by Babur Sah, a Turk and the Taj Mahal in India was built by another Turk Sah Cihan, in honor for the love he had for his belowed wife Arjumand Banu.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=447589


Anyway, with all this said. Lets all agree not to call Macedonians, “Macedonians”, ok fair enough.

But that still doesnt change the fact that there are about 500 000 people in Greece which the government calls “Slavophones” meaning Slavs spkeakers and who (with another 300 000 Turks) were/are facing a Greek state/cultural “Hellenization”, getting ethnically cleansed, who have the same culture, language, heritage and, think and believe they are same with the people we agreed not to call as “Macedonians” the Macedonians, in Republic of Macedonia.

Its a dilemma.

Finally, I want to remind you eliaslar that before on many occasions you accused me of providing inaccurate links (you even claimed the European Court of Human Rights link I gave was wrong) and you implied dishonesty on my part and each time I proved you wrong with my evidence.

But now....I wont say anymore.

Please, next time dont fall for cheap propaganda material on Greek websites, be more decerning.

And stay clear of the manipulations and devious twisting of Byzantine/Greek Intrigue, does the world a lot of harm, including you.

Cheers.



End Part 2/2

 

[webmaster]

Thread closed

Read the rules:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

s3kiz, I am not sure if you noticed but I am getting a little tired of your copy pastes about greeks/cyprus, etc.

How does "russia vs azerbaijan" warrant a reply about greek/Cyprus issue? People should be banned for their stupidity but we give them a chance and it is usually a one time thing.

Thank you and enjoy!