History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedFall of Constantinople 29th May 1453

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
Author
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5713
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 18:19
Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

Your statement regarding Ferdinand, Isabella, and the muslim mosques of Spain is wrong.  The muslim mosques were built by muslim invaders after destroying Christian churches and cathedrals (in many cases, being built directly over the ruins).  The Church of Cordoba (built as a mosque) is a good example of this (it was originally a Visigoth church before the muslims tore it down and built their mosque on top of it).  Ferdinand and Isabella were simply restoring the sites to their previous condition, before intolerant invaders destroyed the original churchs.


Not really wrong at all. Most Christian churches in the early medieval period were not Christian to begin with. They typically started out as pagan places of worship, before the intolerant Christian church decided to steal these places and kill their followers. Guess your argument falls flat on its face. The Christians never had a God given right to these places, they took them through sword and thievery like any medieval people. So my example is even more valid than I supposed originally, the churches of early medieval Europe simply being another example of places of worship being stolen, Christians taking them from pagans who had worshiped at them for perhaps thousands of years prior.

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

This is equivalent to when the Byzantines reconquered Constantinople from the crusaders and converted Hagia Sophia back to an Orthodox church (from a Catholic cathedral).


Not really equivalent. The Byzantines actually constructed Haghia Sophia from the ashes of a previous church which burnt down during a riot, a building of ultimate pre-eminence to the Greeks. Ferdinand and Isabela captured a building their people had neither constructed nor which held any particular spiritual pre-eminence for the Spanish.

Also, the Haghia Sophia had been lost barely two generations before being recaptured. The Cordoba mosque had been constructed 8 centuries before the Spaniards had taken it. You cannot equate a reconquest of land lost less than 60 years before to land lost 8 centuries before. This is an example of your lack of equitable thinking.

It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5713
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 18:26
Originally posted by digenis digenis wrote:

For the examples:i would agree only with the spanish and muslim spain.The other examples are either not changing religion or destruction of temples.
I would add also the Parthenon's convert to Church of Mary.


I think all the examples I mentioned are good examples of how conquerors stole the places of worship from the losers. The Aztec temple was destroyed and its worshipers were forcibly converted to Catholicism. In the medieval period, a heretic was almost considered as foreign as someone of a different strain of the Abrahamic faith. The Byzantines in particular were rarely more merciless than when crushing heretical Christians such as the Paulicians (it goes without saying the Paulician places of worship were converted or destroyed). For the Celts of Ireland the destruction of the Celtic hierarchy was as good as replacing it with a different religion, instead they had to attend church services conducted in a language they did not understand (Latin) and saw many of their traditions of worship banned. The Greeks could hardly have felt the Latins to be Christian brothers, the Crusaders having desecrated Constantinople (see Nicetas Choniates) in such a way to make Nicetas declare that even the Saracens would not inflict such damage. The crushing of heretical religions in the medieval era was not as bad as crushing another religion entirely, usually it was far worse (the ecclesiastic hierarchy usually felt more threatened by heresy).
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
BlindOne View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 06:35
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon Ponce de Leon wrote:

CANT WE JUST ALL AGREE THAT IN THE END IT WAS A GOOD THING THAT CONSTANTINOPLE FELL?
 
For the Turks .. perhaps
 
For the people that lived in Balkans and central Europe... just a nightmare
That I am stricken and can't let you go
When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know
That I am crippled by all that you've done
Into the abyss, will I run


Back to Top
Arbėr Z View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 26-May-2006
Location: Albania
Status: Offline
Points: 599
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 10:05
Never a conqueror can be good or bad. He is a hero for his people, but the evil for the conquered. The same goes to Mehmet II.
Probably Ponce de Leon wants to say that our modern world couldnt exist if those historical events wouldnt happen. And we dont know if it would be better or worst. Anyway, the wars brought terrible results, thats for sure, but we shouldnt deny that some of them brought an end to decaying civilisations, and a beggining to new ones. This is history.
Prej heshtjes...!
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:06
Originally posted by Bashibozuk Bashibozuk wrote:

 
Quote (an evil, perverted person) 
 
Watch your language kid. I guess you're passing the limits of criticizing.
 
 
 
That statement was in reference to an incident where Mehmet attempted to molest the son of Lucas Notaras and then executed Notaras and his son when they refused.  You should read the link below about the incident and perhaps then you will understand.
 
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:20
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

Your statement regarding Ferdinand, Isabella, and the muslim mosques of Spain is wrong.  The muslim mosques were built by muslim invaders after destroying Christian churches and cathedrals (in many cases, being built directly over the ruins).  The Church of Cordoba (built as a mosque) is a good example of this (it was originally a Visigoth church before the muslims tore it down and built their mosque on top of it).  Ferdinand and Isabella were simply restoring the sites to their previous condition, before intolerant invaders destroyed the original churchs.


Not really wrong at all. Most Christian churches in the early medieval period were not Christian to begin with. They typically started out as pagan places of worship, before the intolerant Christian church decided to steal these places and kill their followers. Guess your argument falls flat on its face. The Christians never had a God given right to these places, they took them through sword and thievery like any medieval people. So my example is even more valid than I supposed originally, the churches of early medieval Europe simply being another example of places of worship being stolen, Christians taking them from pagans who had worshiped at them for perhaps thousands of years prior.

Your argument here is not really relavent.  A population changing religion and therefore adapting its existing religious buildings for the new religion is different than a conquering enemy invading their territory, converting religious buildings for their own uses, and settling their own people in the conquered territory to use the buildings.  The pagan places of worship you speak of where still being used by the same people when they were converted to Christian places of worship.  When the Turks converted churches into mosques they were converting them to worship in themselves, Christian Greeks were not allowed into the buildings.  That is why the buildings were stolen.  I highly doubt the resident Greeks were very supportive of Hagia Sophia becoming a mosque.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

This is equivalent to when the Byzantines reconquered Constantinople from the crusaders and converted Hagia Sophia back to an Orthodox church (from a Catholic cathedral).


Not really equivalent. The Byzantines actually constructed Haghia Sophia from the ashes of a previous church which burnt down during a riot, a building of ultimate pre-eminence to the Greeks. Ferdinand and Isabela captured a building their people had neither constructed nor which held any particular spiritual pre-eminence for the Spanish.

Also, the Haghia Sophia had been lost barely two generations before being recaptured. The Cordoba mosque had been constructed 8 centuries before the Spaniards had taken it. You cannot equate a reconquest of land lost less than 60 years before to land lost 8 centuries before. This is an example of your lack of equitable thinking.

 
Equitable thinking has nothing to do with it.  It was just as wrong and illegal for the Turks to sieze Hagia Sophia as it was for other muslims to sieze the land that the church that originally occupied the site of the Cordoba mosque was built on.  Theft is theft.  Just because it took 8 centuries for the Spaniards to take back Cordoba and return the site of the mosque to its original use (as a church) does not mean that they did not have a right to do it.  The site was originally a Christian place of worship and they therefore restored the site and righted the wrong that the muslims had committed 8 centuries before.  Hagia Sophia was never a mosque or associated with Islam in any way before it was taken and converted by the Turks.  Example:  If someone steals your car and you find it many years later and take it back from the thief, does this mean that you stole the car from him?  Of course not, because it was originally stolen from you, you therefore would have a right to reclaim it.  You guys are using very strange logic in a desperate attempt to exonerate Mehmet's actions, but they are wrong no matter which way you look at it.
 


Edited by R_AK47 - 05-Jun-2006 at 23:22
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5713
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 05:42
My argument here is perfectly relevant and equitable thinking has everything to do with it. Your argument has a number of flaws which demonstrate your clear pro-Christian agenda, an agenda you follow while paying no heed to things such as weighing of evidence or examining both sides of a story.

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

A population changing religion and therefore adapting its existing religious buildings for the new religion is different than a conquering enemy invading their territory, converting religious buildings for their own uses, and settling their own people in the conquered territory to use the buildings.  The pagan places of worship you speak of where still being used by the same people when they were converted to Christian places of worship.  When the Turks converted churches into mosques they were converting them to worship in themselves, Christian Greeks were not allowed into the buildings.  That is why the buildings were stolen.  I highly doubt the resident Greeks were very supportive of Hagia Sophia becoming a mosque.


This is yet another example of a combination of either your historical ignorance or your sheer incapacity to see the deeds of Christians in a negative light thanks to your shameless bias. If you were better informed, or had the impartial qualities of the historian, you would know that the majority of pagan places of worship in the Western Empire were not peacefully turned into Christian places of worship. Instead, the newly Christian elites confiscated pagan property, tortured pagan leaders, excluded pagans from high positions and blatantly stole places of worship which had been pagan for centuries. In the Western Empire Christianity was often forcibly imposed, only after overwhelming violence and pressure against pagans did a majority of people convert to Christianity. Christians used violent means to alter religion in society. My earlier argument stands.

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

Equitable thinking has nothing to do with it.  It was just as wrong and illegal for the Turks to sieze Hagia Sophia as it was for other muslims to sieze the land that the church that originally occupied the site of the Cordoba mosque was built on.  Theft is theft.  Just because it took 8 centuries for the Spaniards to take back Cordoba and return the site of the mosque to its original use (as a church) does not mean that they did not have a right to do it.  The site was originally a Christian place of worship and they therefore restored the site and righted the wrong that the muslims had committed 8 centuries before.  Hagia Sophia was never a mosque or associated with Islam in any way before it was taken and converted by the Turks.  Example:  If someone steals your car and you find it many years later and take it back from the thief, does this mean that you stole the car from him?  Of course not, because it was originally stolen from you, you therefore would have a right to reclaim it.  You guys are using very strange logic in a desperate attempt to exonerate Mehmet's actions, but they are wrong no matter which way you look at it.


In reference to my first answer, the Cordoba "church" was originally a pagan temple. The Christians briefly stole it from the pagans for two to three centuries, before the building was levelled to make way for a much improved and architecturally stunning complex. Your claim the Christians were taking back what was rightfully theirs falls on its face, they simply re-stole something they earlier on had not been strong enough to defend.

I'm not exonerating Mehmet, simply saying his actions were typical of the bulk of medieval conquerors, Christian and Muslim alike. Equitability IS important. Your silly analogy makes me pose this question: would it be ok for your decendents 8 centuries into the future to steal the vehicle or something important from the descendents of a guy who stole your car yesterday? No, of course not. The passage of time makes a huge difference, you saying that it is ok to steal from others EIGHT CENTURIES after their ancestors stole from your ancestors is simply further proof of your lack of equitable thinking. You use the flimsiest of excuses to excuse Christian aggression, yet the moment a non-Christian is guilty of the same aggression you think they should be utterly condemned.

Also your claim that Mehmet's actions were illegal is baseless. In the Middle Ages the conqueror gained the right to do with conquered property what he wanted. Just like Ferdinand in Spain, Henry II in England, Emperor Constantine I and the anti-Paulician Emperor Michael III, Mehmet was exercising his power in exactly the same way as any other medieval conqueror. His actions were not illegal, because in the Medieval world, might meant right.


Edited by Constantine XI - 06-Jun-2006 at 06:02
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1233
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 05:51
 I can't help but find this a little petty, by your logic R_AK47 anything taken no matter how long has passed ought to be returned. It goes without saying the implications that would have on Americans and the land they now inhabit LOL i'm sure that'd go down well.
 
 These events took place centuries before you were born in places you yourself probably have little or no association with yourself. Unless i'm very much mistaken the Romans were less than gentle themselves when they stripped pagan temples and sites in Greece and Egypt to enrich Constantinople, a Christian city.
 
 In basic terms when a people conquer a territory and establish a permenant presence then they can do whatever they wish to it, as it is now their land. These sites wernt stolen, the land was conquered and everything within it became the property of the conqeueror whether the population liked it or not, a simple fact of life.
 
 I have absoutely no idea where you got the idea of the Turks taking Hagia Sophia as being "illegal", your judging 15th century people with a 21st century mindset. Which is utterly ridiculous.
 
 I doubt anybody here revels and likes the fact that as a result of Mehmets conquest of Constantinople many people were slaughtered ettc, but I think everybody also understands that you cannot look at the past as you do at the present. There is by the standards of the 15th century, nothing to exonerate Mehmet of, in this instance he merely added more territory to his empire, the fact it was Constantinople is the only thing that makes it stand out.
 
 I personally don't see a problem with Hagia Sophia having been converted into a mosque, at least this way it could be preserved and maintained, something the late Byzantines were unable to do.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 694
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 13:42
Originally posted by Heraclius Heraclius wrote:

 
 I personally don't see a problem with Hagia Sophia having been converted into a mosque, at least this way it could be preserved and maintained, something the late Byzantines were unable to do.


Confused ?
Do you know that the mosaics were covered with plaster?
Today only fragments survived..
Any relics,and religious ornaments left by 1204,vanished.
As for preservation ,you can check the horrible condition that Haghia Sophia is today...Ready to collapse after a great earthquake...

Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 21:10
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

My argument here is perfectly relevant and equitable thinking has everything to do with it. Your argument has a number of flaws which demonstrate your clear pro-Christian agenda, an agenda you follow while paying no heed to things such as weighing of evidence or examining both sides of a story.

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

A population changing religion and therefore adapting its existing religious buildings for the new religion is different than a conquering enemy invading their territory, converting religious buildings for their own uses, and settling their own people in the conquered territory to use the buildings.  The pagan places of worship you speak of where still being used by the same people when they were converted to Christian places of worship.  When the Turks converted churches into mosques they were converting them to worship in themselves, Christian Greeks were not allowed into the buildings.  That is why the buildings were stolen.  I highly doubt the resident Greeks were very supportive of Hagia Sophia becoming a mosque.


This is yet another example of a combination of either your historical ignorance or your sheer incapacity to see the deeds of Christians in a negative light thanks to your shameless bias. If you were better informed, or had the impartial qualities of the historian, you would know that the majority of pagan places of worship in the Western Empire were not peacefully turned into Christian places of worship. Instead, the newly Christian elites confiscated pagan property, tortured pagan leaders, excluded pagans from high positions and blatantly stole places of worship which had been pagan for centuries. In the Western Empire Christianity was often forcibly imposed, only after overwhelming violence and pressure against pagans did a majority of people convert to Christianity. Christians used violent means to alter religion in society. My earlier argument stands.
 
You are not getting the point.  You are trying to compare the actions that took place when a population changed its religion (and therefore modified its places of worship) to a foreign power invading a nation (and forcibly converting the inhabitants and their places of worship).  These are two completely different types of historical events.  The pagans and Christians you speak of in your argument were both part of the same empire and often of the same culture/population.  This is completely different from the situation that took place in Constantinople in 1453.  Your argument collapses once again.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by R_AK47 R_AK47 wrote:

Equitable thinking has nothing to do with it.  It was just as wrong and illegal for the Turks to sieze Hagia Sophia as it was for other muslims to sieze the land that the church that originally occupied the site of the Cordoba mosque was built on.  Theft is theft.  Just because it took 8 centuries for the Spaniards to take back Cordoba and return the site of the mosque to its original use (as a church) does not mean that they did not have a right to do it.  The site was originally a Christian place of worship and they therefore restored the site and righted the wrong that the muslims had committed 8 centuries before.  Hagia Sophia was never a mosque or associated with Islam in any way before it was taken and converted by the Turks.  Example:  If someone steals your car and you find it many years later and take it back from the thief, does this mean that you stole the car from him?  Of course not, because it was originally stolen from you, you therefore would have a right to reclaim it.  You guys are using very strange logic in a desperate attempt to exonerate Mehmet's actions, but they are wrong no matter which way you look at it.


In reference to my first answer, the Cordoba "church" was originally a pagan temple. The Christians briefly stole it from the pagans for two to three centuries, before the building was levelled to make way for a much improved and architecturally stunning complex. Your claim the Christians were taking back what was rightfully theirs falls on its face, they simply re-stole something they earlier on had not been strong enough to defend.

I'm not exonerating Mehmet, simply saying his actions were typical of the bulk of medieval conquerors, Christian and Muslim alike. Equitability IS important. Your silly analogy makes me pose this question: would it be ok for your decendents 8 centuries into the future to steal the vehicle or something important from the descendents of a guy who stole your car yesterday? No, of course not. The passage of time makes a huge difference, you saying that it is ok to steal from others EIGHT CENTURIES after their ancestors stole from your ancestors is simply further proof of your lack of equitable thinking. You use the flimsiest of excuses to excuse Christian aggression, yet the moment a non-Christian is guilty of the same aggression you think they should be utterly condemned.

Also your claim that Mehmet's actions were illegal is baseless. In the Middle Ages the conqueror gained the right to do with conquered property what he wanted. Just like Ferdinand in Spain, Henry II in England, Emperor Constantine I and the anti-Paulician Emperor Michael III, Mehmet was exercising his power in exactly the same way as any other medieval conqueror. His actions were not illegal, because in the Medieval world, might meant right.
 
What makes you think that the mosque that was built in Cordoba was "much improved and architecturally stunning complex" in comparison to the original church/pagan temple that occupied the site?  Do you have drawings or plans of the original structure that you have compared with the current one to determine this?  I have never seen any.  According to your flawed logic, it is okay for someone to steal, murder, etc as long as the person is able to avoid capture for a long length of time.  I still argue that your argument of "equitable thinking" has nothing to do with it.  The fact is, no matter what you argue, Mehmet's actions were still wrong and would be considered intolerant and illegal by nearly every standard.  If might means right in the medieval world and conquerors have the right to do what they want with conquered buildings, then why do you claim that it was wrong of the Spaniards to convert the Cordoba mosque into a church?  You are using a flimsy argument involving the Roman Empire changing religion to support your claims?  Doesn't sound like you are being very "impartial" in your examination of the situation.
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 21:17
Originally posted by Digenis Digenis wrote:

Originally posted by Heraclius Heraclius wrote:

 
 I personally don't see a problem with Hagia Sophia having been converted into a mosque, at least this way it could be preserved and maintained, something the late Byzantines were unable to do.


Confused ?
Do you know that the mosaics were covered with plaster?
Today only fragments survived..
Any relics,and religious ornaments left by 1204,vanished.
As for preservation ,you can check the horrible condition that Haghia Sophia is today...Ready to collapse after a great earthquake...

 
Digenis is correct, many relics and mosaics were destroyed by the Turks within Hagia Sophia and the building is in terrible condition today.  There is a UNESCO report on the structure on the internet you can read.  It speaks of dirty/crumbling plaster, broken windows, and other problems.  The building has not been preserved very well and is in fact neglected.  If it were returned to Orthodox control I am sure that the Orthodox community would be happy to fund a complete restoration of the structure.
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 1381
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 08:53
Quote the building is in terrible condition today


Not only Hagia sophia, most of the Ottoman remains are in terrible condition as well. There isn't a special situation about the byzantine buildings.

Guys, Keep in mind that Turkey is a poor country.

Quote Orthodox control I am sure that the Orthodox community would be happy to fund a complete restoration of the structure.


I would have to say that I agree with you AK 47.


Istanbul sahipsiz bir handır,
Istanbul şehr-i perişandır.


 
Back to Top
BlindOne View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 09:12
Originally posted by The Hidden Face The Hidden Face wrote:

Quote the building is in terrible condition today


Not only Hagia sophia, most of the Ottoman remains are in terrible condition as well. There isn't a special situation about the byzantine buildings.

Guys, Keep in mind that Turkey is a poor country. 
 
 If Turkey is a poor country then why it spent so much money for millitary equipment???
 
 
That I am stricken and can't let you go
When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know
That I am crippled by all that you've done
Into the abyss, will I run


Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 10:04
from what i heard, the miltary set the budget not the government, Hidden Face is right, it is relatively poor, military get first take on the money. I will repeat myself, but (i normally dont agree with you AK) but the orthodiox community would look after those buildings better. It is theirs in the first place and im sure it would do wonders for breaking down walls.
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 1381
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 10:15
Even though Turkey is poor, she (the Turkish oligarchy) likes acting like a powerful country. Furthermore Turkish citizens also like it even If they are hungry.

But I share the same opinion that Turkish budget for her military is a big taboo in Turkey.

Back to Top
Bashibozuk View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 316
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 11:05
Quote If it were returned to Orthodox control I am sure that the Orthodox community would be happy to fund a complete restoration of the structure.
 
We are a secular country, and as we don't use the structure as a mosque today, we shouldn't let it be used as a church after more than half a millenia. And since we should spend our limited budget on social welfare, education and related things, we shouldn't just waste it by restoring ex churches or mosques. We should either use Hagia Sophia as a museum as we do today, or we may convert it to a shopping mall or maybe demolish it and build a swimming pool on the ruins, just like Lenin did once. It might be a nice way to respond people still with stupid religious obsessions.......
 
Quote But I share the same opinion that Turkish budget for her military is a big taboo in Turkey.
 
I wish we wouldn't be in such a threatening, dangerous, and unstable region with hostile enemies, so that we could have spent our worthy income on more schools and railroads instead of more F-16s to deal with daring Greek kamikazers.
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.
Back to Top
BlindOne View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 12:06
Originally posted by Bashibozuk Bashibozuk wrote:

 I wish we wouldn't be in such a threatening, dangerous, and unstable region with hostile enemies, so that we could have spent our worthy income on more schools and railroads instead of more F-16s to deal with daring Greek kamikazers.
 
 I shouldn't expect anything else from a person that have such nick and see warehouses as mosques. It is starting to because hilarius.
 
 You know that one of the symptoms of Histeria is to see all the others as enemies....
 
LOLLOLLOL
That I am stricken and can't let you go
When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know
That I am crippled by all that you've done
Into the abyss, will I run


Back to Top
sultanfatih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 08-Jun-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:16

you are totally wrong i think because its name is don't come from Is tin Polin”   İSTANBUL comes from İSLAMBOL which means that the city is full of islam



Edited by sultanfatih - 09-Jun-2006 at 15:19
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 3705
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:47


but the orthodiox community would look after those buildings better.

Most probably this offer would be refused, do you have any idea why It would be refused RAK 07?
Back to Top
Bashibozuk View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 316
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:54
Quote shouldn't expect anything else from a person that have such nick and see warehouses as mosques
 
I didn't know ex mosques are used as warehouses in your country.
 
BTW what's wrong with my nick, the great nicked "blind one"?LOL
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.055 seconds.