Print Page | Close Window

Expansionist States of Today

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: AE Geopolitical Institute
Forum Description: Implications of Strategic Policies.
Moderators: Pikeshot1600, Sparten, Leonidas
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=20398
Printed Date: 15-Dec-2018 at 00:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Expansionist States of Today
Posted By: kurt
Subject: Expansionist States of Today
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 00:20

I was wondering, almost all of the world's powers today aren't concerned with territorial acquisitions at all. It seems the age of conquest is over. However, there are still expansionist states in the world today. I think Morroco is one, having annexed Western Sahara, Armenia is another, having taken territory from Azerbaijan in 1994, and from what i've read aparently they wish to take territory from Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Syria as well, although the party in control right now has denounced expansionist intentions.

I'm thinking mainly of the balkans when i ask this, but which nations of today have expansionist policies?



Replies:
Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 00:40
Argentina Tongue

-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 01:10
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Armenia is another, having taken territory from Azerbaijan in 1994,


     Its been said many times on this forum that the Karabagh war was between the Azeri state and Karabagh Armenians, not against the Armenian army. Karabagh was an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR, and it declared its independence from the Soviet Union through a democratic vote and it never formed part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan invaded the region and got beat by a numerically and technologically inferior force. But we shouldn't get into this since theres already a thread about this somewhere in the modern history section (but its important to correct the false premise of your post).


Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

and from what i've read aparently they wish to take territory from Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Syria as well, although the party in control right now has denounced expansionist intentions


     So if the party in power has denounced expansionist intentions, on what basis do you brand them as expansionist?

     Armenia wants to annex lands from Syria? How did you manage to include Syria? They have nothing to do with anything.


     Kurt, I must ask, where did you get this information? Confused

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 01:20
     As for expansionist countries, I think some obvious ones are the U.S., Israel, Turkey and Russia.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 02:33
China and Vatican.


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 02:38
Originally posted by axeman axeman wrote:

Vatican.
 
 
WinkLOL
 


-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 04:05
India has designs on all its neighbours, Pakistan feels Afghanistan and Central Asia is its backyard, Iran may soon feel the same about The Mid East, while Israel it seems will not rest until it has annexed all the territory from the Nile to the Euphrates.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 04:50
As far as physical expansionism goes:
 
 
- UAE with its claims on Iran's Persian Gulf islands (abu Mussa and Greater and Lesser tunbs) which were obtained in exchange, fair and square for Bahrain with Britain in 1971, the same year UAE was created.
 
- ISrael and its wholly illegal occupations and settlements.
 
- Argetina with its flawed claim on the Falklands, as mentioned.
 
- Morocco, as mentioned.
 
- Turkey? If it has designs on Northern Iraq?
 
- Iran in Southern Iraq?
 
- Pakistan, messing around with Afghanistan?
 
- And let's not forget, the worst offender, America - invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretences and building permanent and huge bases in both - such as a five km x 90m military runway in N. Iraq - to fight insurgents? lol.  Also with its ambition of completely surrounding and disintegrating Russia and Iran for material gain.


-------------


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 06:02
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Turkey? If it has designs on Northern Iraq?


     That might happen soon enough, but don't forget northern Cyprus.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 06:27
You fogot India Zagros. In Nepal, bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 06:45
That might happen soon enough, but don't forget northern Cyprus.
Standart armenian approach?
 
Turkey is not expansionist for now..
 


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 15:01
Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

Standart armenian approach?
 
Turkey is not expansionist for now..


     What does me being Armenian have to do with anything... Are you saying the Turkish military doesn't have tens of thousands of troops stationed in Cyprus?

     Do you also deny that Turkey has thousands of troops across the border from Iraqi Kurdistan, ready to invade when the time is right?

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 15:53
China in Tibet
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 18:26

I am not familiar with India's geopolitics and had never generally seen it as an aggressive nation, but I iwll probably revise that stance in due course.

Britain - the happy-go-lucky opportunist.


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 00:07
with india, like the PRC in non Han area's, there is territory that probably doesn't really fit in to the broader "Indian" nation.  generally Sikkim and most While Ladakh is culturally a part of Tibet.

I'll throw in Ethiopia in this mix, it occupation of parts of Somalia is just an extension of its occupation of the Ogaden.

Sudan on Chad and CAR.

Georgia in Sth Ossetia

Nth ossetia in ingush



Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 06:10
I guess a better question would be which countries are not expansionist.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 07:41
 What does me being Armenian have to do with anything... Are you saying the Turkish military doesn't have tens of thousands of troops stationed in Cyprus?
 
Like greece. Should I remind you close relation within ROA and Karabag? I think no need to double standard.

     Do you also deny that Turkey has thousands of troops across the border from Iraqi Kurdistan, ready to invade when the time is right?
 
I am sure you know difference between PKK and north iraq.
 
I am also sure you know difference between karabag(even I accept your karabag ideas.) and occupied azeri lands..
 
I dont care If you call Turkey as expansionist but I dont like double standarts.. It is funny you protect ROA and accuse Turkey..
 
Some people have expansionist ideas at north iraq but elected goverment has no interest with occupying north iraq..
 
 
 


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 08:25

Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^) Super Goat (^_^) wrote:

I guess a better question would be which countries are not expansionist.


Most.


Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 08:34
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:



     Its been said many times on this forum that the Karabagh war was between the Azeri state and Karabagh Armenians, not against the Armenian army. Karabagh was an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR, and it declared its independence from the Soviet Union through a democratic vote and it never formed part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan invaded the region and got beat by a numerically and technologically inferior force.


The secetionists in Karabakh can ask for whatever they like, but the fact of the matter is that the Soviets never recognized Karabakh as an independent state, and that is why the international community continues to consider it  an integral part of the sovereign Azeri state which Armenian forces continues to occupy illegally despite numerous UN resolutions. The Armenian regime back then actively aided the secetionist insurgents in Karabakh and participated in the ethnic cleansing of the region from its indigenous Azeri population.



Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 09:03


In the classical meaning of "expansionist" - connected to the territorial possessions of a country - neither Turkey or Russian federation could be described as such. How could be an exspansionist country that only loses territory in the last 100 years? Just take a look at the historical maps - Russia reached it's territorial zenith in 1914, Turkey a few centuries earlier. Now both are in their most compact forms since ages.
Japan was a clear example for an expansionist country before 1945, Germany before 1914. Well, currently there're no countries with comparable characteristics. Probably Argentina was such before the Falkland war, closest example in the near future could be Albania (but for now she's expanding only demographically). USA is a more complex case. A country with a short colonial past and a great neocolonial present.


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

with india, like the PRC in non Han area's, there is territory that probably doesn't really fit in to the broader "Indian" nation.  generally Sikkim and most While Ladakh is culturally a part of Tibet.

I'll throw in Ethiopia in this mix, it occupation of parts of Somalia is just an extension of its occupation of the Ogaden.

Sudan on Chad and CAR.

Georgia in Sth Ossetia

Nth ossetia in ingush

There is no such thing as an "Indian Nation." Its a state.


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 09:14
Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:



     Its been said many times on this forum that the Karabagh war was between the Azeri state and Karabagh Armenians, not against the Armenian army. Karabagh was an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR, and it declared its independence from the Soviet Union through a democratic vote and it never formed part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan invaded the region and got beat by a numerically and technologically inferior force.


The secetionists in Karabakh can ask for whatever they like, but the fact of the matter is that the Soviets never recognized Karabakh as an independent state, and that is why the international community continues to consider it  an integral part of the sovereign Azeri state which Armenian forces continues to occupy illegally despite numerous UN resolutions. The Armenian regime back then actively aided the secetionist insurgents in Karabakh and participated in the ethnic cleansing of the region from its indigenous Azeri population.

your confirming the original point. The loss of karabagh was due to secession not expansion (with aid or not with aid).

edit. Sparten your correction is, well, spot onEmbarrassed




Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 21:10
Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

Like greece. Should I remind you close relation within ROA and Karabag? I think no need to double standard.


     Close relations have nothing to do with military aid. Karabagh Armenians were the ones fighting the war, while the Turkish Cypriots only won due to the active participation of tens of thousands of Turkish troops. If Turkish Cypriots had fought the war on their own (like the Karabagh Armenians did) then there would be no need to keep all those Turkish troops in Cyprus for 30+ years. If you want to compare, the ROA has no troops stationed in Karabagh, they have their own army, made up of people who live within Karabagh's borders.


Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

I am sure you know difference between PKK and north iraq.


     I do, but that has nothing to do with Ankara's intentions in the region. This is the same state which denied the existance of Kurds in their own country, and banned their language from 1923-1991. If they deny the existance of Kurds in their own country, I don't think they will treat Kurds from another country any better.


Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

I dont care If you call Turkey as expansionist but I dont like double standarts.. It is funny you protect ROA and accuse Turkey..


     Well, lets think about it, ROA has no troops stationed outside its borders, while Turkey has troops stationed in Cyprus.

 
Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

Some people have expansionist ideas at north iraq but elected goverment has no interest with occupying north iraq..


     Even with all those oilfields in the region? Plus, Ankara probably thinks Iraqi Kurdistan is populated by "mountain Turks" who need to be liberated.


Originally posted by bg_turk bg_turk wrote:

The secetionists in Karabakh can ask for whatever they like, but the fact of the matter is that the Soviets never recognized Karabakh as an independent state


     The Soviet union gave Azerbaijan the Armenian territories of Nakhichevan and Karabagh, even though for decades this was opposed by every form of popular and political protest. Even the Azeri leader at the time wanted to give these regions back to Armenia, but the Soviet regime did not let him because they wanted to get in good with Turkey. Basically, the Soviet Union was the only entity that was keeping this Armenian-populated region part of the Azerbaijan SSR, so naturally when the Soviet Union faded away, so did Azerbaijan SSR's hold on Karabagh. Plus, as Leonidas said, you just confirmed that Karabagh seceded, and was not the result of ROA's expansion.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 22:34
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:


     
     Well, lets think about it, ROA has no troops stationed outside its borders, while Turkey has troops stationed in Cyprus.

 
Just out of curiousity, as I don't hold much info about the current situation. Armenia does not have any single soldier or any piece of ammonution or rifle in Karabag


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Aleksey Groz
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 22:43
I really think that today, in modern political constelation, is very hardthat any state has any seriouse atenttion to be expansionistic. Today, that's possible only for few of them ( nuclear power coutries, for example Pakistan). But, today, I don't think.....

-------------
Historia magistra vitae est


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 23:44
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

Just out of curiousity, as I don't hold much info about the current situation. Armenia does not have any single soldier or any piece of ammonution or rifle in Karabag


     Karabagh has its own army which works independent of the ROA's army. It is made up of people who actually live in Karabagh. Although their interests coincide mainly because both nations are isolated, this does not mean that the ROA has troops stationed in Karabagh. Karabagh can defend itself against Azerbaijan without military support from the ROA.

     During the war, the only support that Karabagh recieved from Armenia was some electricity and a few gallons of petrol here and there. Armenia had just gained independence, was blockaded from both sides, and just had an earthquake in 1988 which killed 25,000 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless, so they were not in a position to give much material support to Karabagh.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: white-wolf
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 06:58
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

Just out of curiousity, as I don't hold much info about the current situation. Armenia does not have any single soldier or any piece of ammonution or rifle in Karabag


     Karabagh has its own army which works independent of the ROA's army. It is made up of people who actually live in Karabagh. Although their interests coincide mainly because both nations are isolated, this does not mean that the ROA has troops stationed in Karabagh. Karabagh can defend itself against Azerbaijan without military support from the ROA.

     During the war, the only support that Karabagh recieved from Armenia was some electricity and a few gallons of petrol here and there. Armenia had just gained independence, was blockaded from both sides, and just had an earthquake in 1988 which killed 25,000 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless, so they were not in a position to give much material support to Karabagh.
 
So, Kocaryan, The current Armenian President, was not Karabagh President? 
 
It is very comic to say Armenian did not do anything at the war back then.
 
Please, answer; how much percentage of Azerbaijan is under Armenian (or Karabagh) occupation apart from Karabagh?


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 07:54
^ actually lets just drop karabagh out of this for the sake of this thread

 we have a whole thread dedicated to that conflict and is a much better format to get into the details. 


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 14:42
Originally posted by white-wolf white-wolf wrote:

So, Kocaryan, The current Armenian President, was not Karabagh President? 
 
It is very comic to say Armenian did not do anything at the war back then.
 
Please, answer; how much percentage of Azerbaijan is under Armenian (or Karabagh) occupation apart from Karabagh?


According to your logic, if Vartan Oskanian (the Armenian FM, born and raised in Syria) becomes next president of Armenia, then Armenia has expansionist ideals on Syria? Confused

Yes, Armenia gave some material support, not much, but it did nevertheless. Its also true that Armenian volunteers went and fought in the Karabakh war. Azeri side also had foreign troops fighting on its side, such as Chechens (basaev) and Afghan mujahadeen...does this mean that Afghanistan was an expansionist state? or Chechnia?

Lands apart from Karabakh are under the control of Armenians (of Karabakh) not the state of Armenia. Moreover, in case you do not follow the peace discussion of the two nations, Armenians have stated multiple times that lands outside of Karabakh would be given back to Azerbaijan, if Azerbaijan recognizes Karabakh as an independent state.

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

^ actually lets just drop karabagh out of this for the sake of this thread


That would be great, but I believe the hidden agenda of the person who started this thread was to "discuss" Karabakh...even though I believe this was just another blatant provocation.

EDIT: Spelling


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 17:52
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

I was wondering, almost all of the world's powers today aren't concerned with territorial acquisitions at all. It seems the age of conquest is over.



Well I wouldn't say that. There are different forms of expansionism. One of them is irredentism, which is as alive as it ever was.

Colonialism was a particular kind of expansionism that hasn't been relevant or beneficial for over a century now (with a few exceptions, such as Imperial Japan). Britain began a process of deliberately disinvesting itself of colonial possessions as early as the Imperial Conferences of the 1920s. It's actually more expensive to colonize a country - and pay for things like defence, internal security, and so on - than it is to simply dominate it economically and politically. It is now possible to get all the benefits of conquest without actually having to hang around, pay to clean up the mess, and fund defence and security. All these costs - monetary, political, social, the whole lot - can be passed on to the inhabitants through a fiction of sovereign rule. It's not even strategically important since military bases are frequently established in such countries by dominating foreign powers.


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 08:50
Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:

Originally posted by white-wolf white-wolf wrote:

[QUOTE=Leonidas] ^ actually lets just drop karabagh out of this for the sake of this thread


That would be great, but I believe the hidden agenda of the person who started this thread was to "discuss" Karabakh...even though I believe this was just another blatant provocation.

EDIT: Spelling
 
Yes, you caught me. In my spare time i like to make threads about broad topics such as this one only to hide my true intent of discussing Armenian politics in an attempt to "blatantly provoke" people who live hundreds of kilometers away from me and who i have never met. However, i never suspected a genius such as yourself would see my "hidden agenda" and expose it. Nice work, Sherlock Holmes.
 
I was actually thinking of Serbia and whether or not that nation has an expantionalist policy today, however if i made such a thread it would simply degenerate into rabble where nationalist insults rather then knowledge was exchanged. So instead i made a thread concerning the entire globe and a rather vague reference to Serbia so as to gain a response about Serbian policy. Besides which, other interesting nations might be discussed, such as Israel and her occupation of the Golan Heights.
 
In future, you should try substantiate your claims rather then pull ______.
 
**Edited for inappropriate language**
 
PS. Next time I won't be so kind.


-------------
Karadenizli


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 13:44
Oh right, you were actually thinking about Serbia but wrote Armenia...whoops

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:


I was wondering, almost all of the world's powers today aren't concerned with territorial acquisitions at all. It seems the age of conquest is over. However, there are still expansionist states in the world today. I think Morroco is one, having annexed Western Sahara, Armenia is another, having taken territory from Azerbaijan in 1994, and from what i've read aparently they wish to take territory from Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Syria as well, although the party in control right now has denounced expansionist intentions.

I'm thinking mainly of the balkans when i ask this, but which nations of today have expansionist policies?


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 08:53
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Armenia is another, having taken territory from Azerbaijan in 1994,


     Its been said many times on this forum that the Karabagh war was between the Azeri state and Karabagh Armenians, not against the Armenian army. Karabagh was an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR, and it declared its independence from the Soviet Union through a democratic vote and it never formed part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan invaded the region and got beat by a numerically and technologically inferior force. But we shouldn't get into this since theres already a thread about this somewhere in the modern history section (but its important to correct the false premise of your post).


Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

and from what i've read aparently they wish to take territory from Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Syria as well, although the party in control right now has denounced expansionist intentions


     So if the party in power has denounced expansionist intentions, on what basis do you brand them as expansionist?

     Armenia wants to annex lands from Syria? How did you manage to include Syria? They have nothing to do with anything.


     Kurt, I must ask, where did you get this information? Confused
 
Provide a link to the thread on Karabakh. We can discuss it there.
 
The party in power now may have denounced expansionalist intentions, but that was only two years ago, and who's to say that after the next election a pro-expansion party will come into power?
 
They have nothing to do with anything. Repeat that statement to yourself a couple of times. Do it again, just to be sure. Perhaps you now understand why i will not respond to such an inane prompt.
 
These are things i've read mainly from www. http://www.armenianforum.com - bbc.com and http://www.turkishdailynews.com - www.turkishdailynews.com .


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 09:02
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

     As for expansionist countries, I think some obvious ones are the U.S., Israel, Turkey and Russia.
 
US - please specify
Israel - i assume you're speaking of the golan heights?
Turkey - Not expansionist, full stop. There are ultra-nationalists who speak of creating a turkmen state in northern Iraq, but the government has no expansionalist intentions. Ataturk himself denounced expansion after the anatolian heartland was recovered and stated "Every nation has the right to demand proper treatment and no country should violate the territory of any other country. "
Russia - please specify. Are you speaking of Chechnya?


Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 09:52
Turkey is  claiming  greek thrace the aegean  and already occupies european territory that  is half of Cyprus.

-------------
http://www.hoplites.net/


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 11:09
Originally posted by olvios olvios wrote:

Turkey is  claiming  greek thrace
 
No, Turkey has no claims over Western Thrace. 
 
Originally posted by olvios olvios wrote:

the aegean 
 
I assume you are talking about the issue of continental shelf. That is absolutely a legal issue.
 
But if you wanna know what the issue is; Greece insists on 12 miles for its territorial waters, Turkey, as a persistent objector to 12 miles rule, insists that it is 6 miles. This blacklisted issue will not be discussed, but nothing to do with expansionism, for both sides. This is a legal dispute. Another dispute which is regarding the Continental Shelf has been taken to International Court of Justice in 1970s and the court stated that it has no jurisdiction over the issue.
 
Originally posted by olvios olvios wrote:

and already occupies european territory that  is half of Cyprus.
 
I can understand your point of view regarding Cyprus, and around here we usually have a different one then yours. but I don't get what the usage "european territory" is trying to imply.  


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 11:59
His youtube account says what kind of "historian" he is. 

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 12:19
Kapi is right, cyprus , aegean (i think) are black banned and i dont think most members here can give a quick mention without throwing darts at each other.

  • Cyprus has already been mentioned and point is taken
  • Thrace is about minority rights- legalities over their status not territory.
  • Aegean is a legal question but really is over resources with some politics when you get down to it
  • Karabakh has another thread and i have had enough of its mention in  this thread

 No one ethnicity really has a high ground when you think about it in a honest way, so lets talk about everything other than Balkans/Asia Minor politics. move on to countries like Ethiopia - eritria  or Sudan- CAR/Chad type expansion examples.






Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:10
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

But if you wanna know what the issue is; Greece insists on 12 miles for its continental shelf, Turkey, as a persistent objector to 12 miles rule, insists that it is 6 miles. This blacklisted issue will not be discussed, but nothing to do with expansionism, for both sides. This is a legal dispute. Dispute has been taken to International Court of Justice in 1970s and the court stated that it has no jurisdiction over the issue.
 
 
When a Turkish jet pass over a Greek island (happen 1 or 2 times per year), when Turkey dispute the ownership of many small islets-islands even Gaydos (behind Crete) (and all these after 1974) dont you think that we can call this expansionism? (rhetorical question i m not waiting for an answer)
Well anyway i know that this is blacklisted issue i just wanted to mention the above ,personally i would be very happy  if it was just a legal dispute (of continental shelf) (easy job to be share)but the reality give us other conclusions (the undeclared battle over the Aegean) and when the Greek government is ready to negotiate for the continental shelf Turkey put  "everything" (only God knows the content of "everything") on the table  and negotiations never start.


-------------

By http://profile.imageshack.us/user/antioxos - antioxos at 2007-08-20


Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:32
Spain is yet unmentioned. They are constantly claiming soveregnity over portuguese territory in the border and the islands, and are eagerly looking for the anexation of Gibraltar...
 
EDIT - Oh, the irony! I have just reached 500 posts with a post on Spain... Dead


Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:33
Originally posted by DayI DayI wrote:

His youtube account says what kind of "historian" he is. 

I beg your pardon? I am not a historian nor claimed to be one.I am into economics.


-------------
http://www.hoplites.net/


Posted By: Neoptolemos
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 16:39
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

I assume you are talking about the issue of continental shelf. That is absolutely a legal issue.
 
But if you wanna know what the issue is; Greece insists on 12 miles for its continental shelf, Turkey, as a persistent objector to 12 miles rule, insists that it is 6 miles. This blacklisted issue will not be discussed, but nothing to do with expansionism, for both sides. This is a legal dispute. Dispute has been taken to International Court of Justice in 1970s and the court stated that it has no jurisdiction over the issue.

Not planning to discuss the blacklisted, just want to correct some inaccuracies.
6-12 miles issue has to do with the territorial waters and not the continental shelf.
Continental shelf is indeed a legal dispute open to negotiations, interpretations etc. Territorial waters is a different issue; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is pretty clear on the subject. Greece took the issue of continental shelf (not 6/12 miles) to the ICJ on 1976. Turkey claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction. On 1978 the Court decided that, under the conditions at that moment, it had no jurisdiction.
Finally, I don't understand how Turkey is a "persistent objector to 12 miles rule", when she has exercised that right herself.


-------------


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 23:13
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:


. Territorial waters is a different issue; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is pretty clear on the subject. Greece took the issue of continental shelf (not 6/12 miles) to the ICJ on 1976. Turkey claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction. On 1978 the Court decided that, under the conditions at that moment, it had no jurisdiction.
Finally, I don't understand how Turkey is a "persistent objector to 12 miles rule", when she has exercised that right herself.
 
Excuse me, you are right, I used the wrong terms, confusing them up, as we learn them in Turkish in our international law courses, I mix up the English legal terms sometimes when I write things hastily.
 
Turkey is not a party to 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, nor it is obliged to be one. In any case, 12 miles is not defined as the actual and certain territorial waters. It is the "maximum" it can be. 
 
For Aegean Sea, 12 miles leave Turkey in fact no area to even breath, blocks free passage to the international waters. Simply makes Aegean Sea a Greek sea due to 3000 islands Greece has on the sea. In 1920s, the territorial waters of both sides were set at 3 miles. In 1936, Turkey accepted the Greek decision of increasing the territorial waters to 6 by staying silent(Covert acceptance). In Aegean Sea, Turkey is keeping its position since then, objecting any attempts to further increase the territorial waters. It is not a party to the convention,too. Persistent objection in the Aegean Sea comes from there.In Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, it has set the territorial waters on principle of reciprocity. There are no objections by or disputes with any related country in in both seas.
 
So it is still a legal issue, not much different.
 
 


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Neoptolemos
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 02:51
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

Turkey is not a party to 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, nor it is obliged to be one.
I know, Turkey is one of those few countries that don't want to sign the Treaty (unfortunately for Greece).
 
Quote For Aegean Sea, 12 miles leave Turkey in fact no area to even breath, blocks free passage to the international waters. Simply makes Aegean Sea a Greek sea due to 3000 islands Greece has on the sea.
UNCLOS Article 17: "Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea." So, no, free passage to international waters will not be blocked.

I don't continue it, because it's not only blacklisted as you said, but also off-topic. Territorial waters in the aegean have nothing to do with expansionism.


-------------


Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 04:56
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:


your confirming the original point. The loss of karabagh was due to secession not expansion (with aid or not with aid).

edit. Sparten your correction is, well, spot onEmbarrassed


Was the loss of the six surrounding territories whose total area by far surpasses that of Karabakh province, and was the ethnic cleansing of around a million Azeri citizens, also part of a secession? Secession by whom? By the non-existent Armenian population in those provinces?

Also regarding the Aegean, I really do not understand how it is possible that Turkey is the expansionist country, when it is Greece that is trying to expand its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles?



Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 07:18
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:


UNCLOS Article 17: "Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea." So, no, free passage to international waters will not be blocked.
 
I don't continue it, because it's not only blacklisted as you said, but also off-topic. Territorial waters in the aegean have nothing to do with expansionism.
 
We can go on with the legal issue of it, it is no real problem as long as we keep it there on the legal part. I agree that it is not a matter of expansionism,too.
 
OK, convention brings a procedure about free passage, through the territorial sea, however there are some conditions for it in international law..Like; the ships passing through others' territorial water shall not create problems of security to the owner of the territorial water. For example, this can be interpreted very broadly and still if the owner of the territorial state is not good willed at individual events, this can bring huge crisis.
 
By the way, have you also studied law, I was wondering, we've had several discussions before about international law.Smile


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 09:06
Quote The party in power now may have denounced expansionalist intentions, but that was only two years ago, and who's to say that after the next election a pro-expansion party will come into power?


Source? you still have not given any sources for any of the claims you have made.

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

These are things i've read mainly from www. http://www.armenianforum.com/ - bbc.com and http://www.turkishdailynews.com/ - www.turkishdailynews.com .


There are not sources, you merely cited two very large news organizations...where is the specific article that justifies your claims?

Originally posted by Turk Turk wrote:


US - please specify
Israel - i assume you're speaking of the golan heights?
Turkey - Not expansionist, full stop. There are ultra-nationalists who speak of creating a turkmen state in northern Iraq, but the government has no expansionalist intentions. Ataturk himself denounced expansion after the anatolian heartland was recovered and stated "Every nation has the right to demand proper treatment and no country should violate the territory of any other country. "
Russia - please specify. Are you speaking of Chechnya?


US - are you serious? Confused
Turkey - not expansionist because Ataturk said so 80 years ago? Confused
Russia - again, are you serious? Confused

Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

Was the loss of the six surrounding territories whose total area by far surpasses that of Karabakh province, and was the ethnic cleansing of around a million Azeri citizens, also part of a secession? Secession by whom? By the non-existent Armenian population in those provinces?

-1 million is an Azeri overestimation (International bodies give 850,000 max)
-dont forget the 350,000 Armenian refugees
- The territory outside of Karabakh is not far larger than Karabakh
- Karabakh side has stated over and over again that lands outside of Karabakh would be given back if Karabakh is recognized as an independent state, and is no longer under Azeri threat. In which case the Azeri refugees would come back to their lands (maybe except the 30,000 who fled karabakh proper), whereas the Armenian refugees would remain so...I don't think they would be too welcome in Baku.

EDIT: Spelling


Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 10:19
Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:


Also regarding the Aegean, I really do not understand how it is possible that Turkey is the expansionist country, when it is Greece that is trying to expand its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles?

 
This subject has been discussed several times ,make a small search to this forum and you ll find all the answers to all the questions(also about the legal rights of every country that comes from the international laws) that you might have on this matter.


-------------

By http://profile.imageshack.us/user/antioxos - antioxos at 2007-08-20


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 11:18
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

 
OK, convention brings a procedure about free passage, through the territorial sea, however there are some conditions for it in international law..Like; the ships passing through others' territorial water shall not create problems of security to the owner of the territorial water. For example, this can be interpreted very broadly and still if the owner of the territorial state is not good willed at individual events, this can bring huge crisis.
 

 if your interested kapikulu, I'll try and find find a report (which i posted looong ago about this topic) by an American. he did a good job describing both sides positions from a neutral stand point. legalities over defining maritime boundaries is at best complicated and I know  that from what ive read about the Iran - uk sailors scandal let alone the Aegean.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm - www.un.org > UNCLOS


edit:
there right of innocent passage is defined in article 19




Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 12:01
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Israel - i assume you're speaking of the golan heights?

and the west bank. They only left southern Lebanon after heavy and ultimately successful Shiite resistance. They left Gaza because it simply too densely populated, has no resources and is to hard and expensive to occupy. This country is clearly a expansionist state, making its occupied areas as Jewish as possible via illegal settlements.

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Turkey - Not expansionist, full stop. There are ultra-nationalists who speak of creating a turkmen state in northern Iraq, but the government has no expansionalist intentions.

hang on, not that simple in relation to North Iraq. true that the government officially hasn't followed a claim, but individuals in government have come close or crossed that line. It seems there is a  last resort card Turkey uses that puts historic claims, even if this is more political pressure tactics than real ambitions.

yaser yakis almost step over the line in Jan 2003, it must be noted his claims were economic not purely territorial, but it pissed the Arabs off either way.

"
Alarm bells began to ring loud among Turkey's neighbours when Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis announced that Turkey was inspecting old treaties to find out whether or not we have lost our rights to this region. Mosul and Kirkuk lie just outside the semi-autonomous region of Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Turkey claimed Mosul and Kirkuk for itself when it declared its borders after the collapse of the Ottoman empire in 1920. Even then the area's oil wealth was evident. But Turkey never secured the territory. It recognised Iraqi control of the area in a treaty signed with Britain in 1926." http://www.gasandoil.com/GOC/news/ntc30874.htm -
but there is there was a territorial claim by another individual (the prime minister) in 1995 even for a very brief moment

"In 1995, then-president Suleyman Demirel suggested that Iraq's northern boundary be revised so that Kirkuk and Mosul became parts of Turkey. Although Demirel eventually retracted, he failed to convince public opinion in Arab countries that Ankara had no views over its former Ottoman possessions. Yet, it seems that security concerns rather than neo-imperialistic ambitions prompted Demirel's remarks, which were made at a time when northern Iraq was serving as a rear base for some PKK fighters." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB06Ak01.html - www.atimes.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0ZIQHSI0S2PLVQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/01/07/wturk107.xml -



Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 12:41
Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:


-1 million is an Azeri overestimation (International bodies give 850,000 max)

It is not an overestimation, becuase it also includes those two hundred thousand ethnic Azeris that were Armenian citizens but were ethnically cleansed from Armenia during the conflict, as I explained to you for the millionth time.

Quote
- The territory outside of Karabakh is not far larger than Karabakh

The sovereign Azeri territory which is now illegally occupied by Armenian forces is at least 3 times the size of Karabakh province.

Quote
- Karabakh side has stated over and over again that lands outside of Karabakh would be given back if Karabakh is recognized as an independent state, and is no longer under Azeri threat.

What propaganda the Armenian side uses to justify the illegal annexation of ethnically Azeri land is irrelevant to the fact that the annexation of that land was clearly and obviously an act of EXPANSIONISM.


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 13:10
I think we should limit the defination of expansionist to being simply an active desire to expand territory and influence, not simply pressure tactics and claims based upon "historic boundries".
 


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Neoptolemos
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 13:55
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

OK, convention brings a procedure about free passage, through the territorial sea, however there are some conditions for it in international law..Like; the ships passing through others' territorial water shall not create problems of security to the owner of the territorial water. For example, this can be interpreted very broadly and still if the owner of the territorial state is not good willed at individual events, this can bring huge crisis.
Yes, it's also matter of good will and non-provocation from both sides. That could be solved, however, if Greece explicitly leaves a couple of sea-lanes free to all (international waters), denouncing her territorial rights there. Still, though, Turkey would object. Let's face it: both countries want to get as much as they can in the Aegean. Greece wants to do it through the UNCLOS. Turkey doesn't want it because UNCLOS (and geography) doesn't favour her and prefers 'political' negotiations instead. In order the issue to be solved (with peaceful means), both states should accept a specific legal framework (I guess that's one of the basics in International Law, eh?). To be honest, I don't see this happening any time soon. And imagine that the Continental Shelf issue is a much more complex one...
 
Quote By the way, have you also studied law, I was wondering, we've had several discussions before about international law.Smile
No, I've never studied Law. I have read, however, legal documents, Treaties, ICJ desicions etc in the cases that interest me. Most of them have to do, one way or another, with the Greek-Turkish relations. You know, it's better to read a legal document yourself and form an opinion, than just trust somebodie's interpretation. Are you studying (International) Law? If yes, I should be more careful with you TongueSmile


-------------


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 01:11
Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:


Originally posted by Turk Turk wrote:


US - please specify
Israel - i assume you're speaking of the golan heights?
Turkey - Not expansionist, full stop. There are ultra-nationalists who speak of creating a turkmen state in northern Iraq, but the government has no expansionalist intentions. Ataturk himself denounced expansion after the anatolian heartland was recovered and stated "Every nation has the right to demand proper treatment and no country should violate the territory of any other country. "
Russia - please specify. Are you speaking of Chechnya?


US - are you serious? Confused
Turkey - not expansionist because Ataturk said so 80 years ago? Confused
Russia - again, are you serious? Confused

 
When you are ready to have a discussion or an argument with me on expansionist states, please inform me. In the meantime, do not waste my time with your condescending responses.
 


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 01:14
Originally posted by Frederick Roger Frederick Roger wrote:

Spain is yet unmentioned. They are constantly claiming soveregnity over portuguese territory in the border and the islands, and are eagerly looking for the anexation of Gibraltar...
 
EDIT - Oh, the irony! I have just reached 500 posts with a post on Spain... Dead
 
I have never heard of this plan to annex the Gibraltar Straits, and to be honest, it sounds somewhat far-fetched. The Europeon Union condemns expansionism, or so they claim. Please elaborate on these "policies".


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 17:34
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

When you are ready to have a discussion or an argument with me on expansionist states, please inform me. In the meantime, do not waste my time with your condescending responses.


     Well, in all seriousness, you really don't know how the U.S., Russia and Turkey are expansionist states?

     U.S.- Hawaii, forced Japan to end its isolationist policies, Phillipines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America etc.

     Russia- Chechnya, Dagestan, north Ossetia, etc.

     Turkey- northern Cyprus, soon-to-be northern Iraq.



Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

What propaganda the Armenian side uses to justify the illegal annexation of ethnically Azeri land is irrelevant to the fact that the annexation of that land was clearly and obviously an act of EXPANSIONISM.


     Actually, I have said many times, and you even said it earlier in this thread, that the Karabakh war was because of secession, not expansionism. If you still disagree, can you please show a source which proves that ROA troops are stationed in Karabakh?


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 00:48

Can i vote for the martians, the last i heard... they nearly succeeded in wiping out the human population of the world, in their quest for expansion and domination. Like we really need any help from a bunch of aliens! I mean hollywood say's so...

(**Note**) This is not offical sarcasm from me. Just trying too bring a little levity too a thread that will eventually evolve into a bunch of flaming post's!


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 05:47
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

When you are ready to have a discussion or an argument with me on expansionist states, please inform me. In the meantime, do not waste my time with your condescending responses.


     Well, in all seriousness, you really don't know how the U.S., Russia and Turkey are expansionist states?

     U.S.- Hawaii, forced Japan to end its isolationist policies, Phillipines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America etc.

     Russia- Chechnya, Dagestan, north Ossetia, etc.

     Turkey- northern Cyprus, soon-to-be northern Iraq.

 
Look, i specifically stated that i will not enter a disccusion where one incessantly patronizes me. Your insistence to maintain this attitude is extremely irritating. I've already reported you to the moderators.
 
Regarding your points:
 
The US is the most powerful country in the world. If any nation could stop them from annexing pretty much any territory they wanted, why didn't the UN denouncement of the Iraq invasion stop them? Whilst the US is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not annexing these territories, which is a prerequisite of expansion. Please elaborate on American intentions regarding the Phillipines, Hawaii, Japan and Latin America.
 
Russia - Chechnya was Russian territorry, then successfully secceeded into its own nation-state, only to be annexed again by Russia. However, Chechnya as a nation only existed for about three years, and was never legitimized as a state officially in the UN. Despite these factors, i suppose on a technicality, Russia is expansionist. I would appreciate if you would elaborate as to the situations regarding Dagestan and Ossetia, whilst i have never even heard Of Ossetia, I am vaguely familiar with Dagestan and from what i know it have been Russian territory for about two centuries now.
 
Turkey - Northern Cyrpus is its own nation state. If Turkey wished to annex it, they would not have allowed its people to vote for independence, which they did. Regarding northern Iraq, the Turkish government has no intentions of annexing this territory. Government officials are specifically quoted as wishing to maintain an Iraqi government in the territory, which controls its Kurdish minority. Whilst there are ultra-nationalist groups who believe a Turkmen state should be created in northern Iraq, none of the ultra-nationalists are in power and can influence or create an official expansionist policy. Provide a quote from an individual from the party in power in Turkey where an intention to annex northern Iraq is stated, i highly doubt you will find one. Think about it, if Turkey wanted to annex Iraq, sure they would have participated in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Instead, they denounced the Americans for invading. If you like, I will provide a quote from the 1990's where Nixon suggested that if Turkey allowed America to use their airspace in an invasion of Iraq, Turkey would be given Northern Iraq. Yet Turkey did not participate.
 
Like i said, i'm all for discussing this topic, but please maintain a respectful attitude towards me. It requires pure malice to consistently provoke and condescend to me like you have done, and all i want in this thread is to prevent a flame war and to learn to a little about Serbian policy. Maintain respect, ok? I'd appreciate if you could do as such when conversing with me.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 13:07
China has grabbed a chunk of Kashmir and India, also Tibet and soon Taiwan(although that is just a runaway province)

Japan wants its Kuril Islands back one day by hook or by crook

Pakistan already grabbed 1/3 of Kashmir, Annexed much of Balochistan including Kalat and wants the rest of Kashmir

Afghanistan wants to annex all of western pakistan and if possible the rest of pakistan to reestablish the Durrani empire

India annexed the independent state of Hydrabad, part of Kashmir and wants even more lands up there

Turkey wants to annnex some or all of Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Armenia and dump as many kurds as possible into Iraq

Iran wants to annex southern Iraq or at least rule it by proxy for a few decades first, and also trying to annex Azerbaijan in competition with Turkey.

US wants to annex Mexico and Canada into a North American Union

Greece wants to annex some if not all of Cyprus in competition with Turkey

Libya has been messing with Chad quite a bit, dunno the details

Iraq was trying to annex their province Kuwait back a few years ago.

But besides all that we have a lot of secessionist movements or "contractionist" forces like the Tamil tigers, basque seperatists, Baloch separatists, Kurd separatists, muslims in philipines and of course former Yuguslavia...


Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 15:47
As for the people who say Turkey want Northern Cyprus: Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Turkey one of the only nations to recognize North Cyprus as an independant country, rather then Turkish land?

-------------
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 16:10
Originally posted by aslanlar aslanlar wrote:

As for the people who say Turkey want Northern Cyprus: Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Turkey one of the only nations to recognize North Cyprus as an independant country, rather then Turkish land?

That's just a show. I remember, once a Turkish general scolded CTP members, the party which formed the N. Cyprus government, for not playing Turkish national anthem during their congress.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 16:18
Originally posted by aslanlar aslanlar wrote:

As for the people who say Turkey want Northern Cyprus: Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Turkey one of the only nations to recognize North Cyprus as an independant country, rather then Turkish land?


Yes I think Turkey recognizes the legitimate rights to sovereignty of North Cyprus but I just made a very stretched assumption that eventually pan turkism would motivate north cyprus to want to unite with the motherland for the sake of a better economy and defence.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 16:30
Originally posted by Desperado Desperado wrote:

 

closest example in the near future could be Albania (but for now she's expanding only demographically).
 
 
 
how could albania posibly be an example in the near future,when albania is sorrounded by albanian-speaking people on all sides?And as a matter of fact albania is not expanding demographicaly,like the rest of europe albania has a problem with increasingly old population in the next few years.or u just posting something for the sake of it even if u dont thing before u right,i thinkj thats the case.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 22:51
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Can i vote for the martians, the last i heard... they nearly succeeded in wiping out the human population of the world, in their quest for expansion and domination. Like we really need any help from a bunch of aliens! I mean hollywood say's so...

(**Note**) This is not offical sarcasm from me. Just trying too bring a little levity too a thread that will eventually evolve into a bunch of flaming post's!
 
Thank you Orson Welles Smile. Your display of levity is appreciated in this thread.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 02:18
Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

China has grabbed a chunk of Kashmir and India, also Tibet and soon Taiwan(although that is just a runaway province)

Japan wants its Kuril Islands back one day by hook or by crook

Pakistan already grabbed 1/3 of Kashmir, Annexed much of Balochistan including Kalat and wants the rest of Kashmir

Afghanistan wants to annex all of western pakistan and if possible the rest of pakistan to reestablish the Durrani empire

India annexed the independent state of Hydrabad, part of Kashmir and wants even more lands up there

Turkey wants to annnex some or all of Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Armenia and dump as many kurds as possible into Iraq

Iran wants to annex southern Iraq or at least rule it by proxy for a few decades first, and also trying to annex Azerbaijan in competition with Turkey.

US wants to annex Mexico and Canada into a North American Union

Greece wants to annex some if not all of Cyprus in competition with Turkey

Libya has been messing with Chad quite a bit, dunno the details

Iraq was trying to annex their province Kuwait back a few years ago.

But besides all that we have a lot of secessionist movements or "contractionist" forces like the Tamil tigers, basque seperatists, Baloch separatists, Kurd separatists, muslims in philipines and of course former Yuguslavia...
 
Afghanistan wants to annex territories? Surely the puppet regime the Americans have installed are more concerned with internal tribalism then expansion. Where have you read this?
 
Turkey doesn't want to annex any territory. But assuming they did, why would they want to annex Armenia, and their own brethren, Azerbaijan? The Azeri's are the greatest ally Turkey has.
 
Iran is trying to annex Azerbaijan too? Provide a source.
 
US wants to annex Mexico and Canada into a North American Union. That's an interesting claim, can you validify it with a source? I think you've misinterpretted the definition of annexation. Perhaps the US is pressuring its neighbours to enter an economic union, however, this does not qualify as expansion.
 
Greece is not expansionist. If they were, they would not support the Turkish bid for membership in the Europeon Union.
 
As for China, India, and Pakistan, i agree that they are expansionist states, in spite of the fact that none of them officially have an expansionist policy. I suppose in this case it is a matter of speculation.
 
Regarding Japan, i assume you are speaking of their territorial disputes with Russia. I am not really sure what the status quo is in this situation, perhaps you should discuss it in further detail.
 


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 04:47
Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:


Japan wants its Kuril Islands back one day by hook or by crook
getting back territory grabbed off you is not expansionist. USSR took those islands at the end of WW2 when Japan couldnt defend them. If anything it shows Russian expansion.

Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

US wants to annex Mexico and Canada into a North American Union

you mistake annex with control. which BTW would be more than just their immediate sphere Wink

Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

Greece wants to annex some if not all of Cyprus in competition with Turkey

Greece has no interest in annexing, occupying, controlling or uniting with Cyprus. Cyprus has no interest in uniting with Greece either, but she has the right to. EU membership is enough for both.



Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 10:15
Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

Yes I think Turkey recognizes the legitimate rights to sovereignty of North Cyprus

That's a lie.


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:54
Feanor, you need to substantiate your arguments, rather then simply making blank claims like that. Why do you believe Turkey doesn't recognise the sovereignty of North Cyprus?


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 02:44
Are you joking? Of course it doesn't.

Originally posted by Feanor Feanor wrote:

That's just a show. I remember, once a Turkish general scolded CTP members, the party which formed the N. Cyprus government, for not playing Turkish national anthem during their congress.



Posted By: Joe Boxer
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:03
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

 
Look, i specifically stated that i will not enter a disccusion where one incessantly patronizes me. Your insistence to maintain this attitude is extremely irritating. I've already reported you to the moderators.
 
Regarding your points:
 
The US is the most powerful country in the world. If any nation could stop them from annexing pretty much any territory they wanted, why didn't the UN denouncement of the Iraq invasion stop them? Whilst the US is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not annexing these territories, which is a prerequisite of expansion. Please elaborate on American intentions regarding the Phillipines, Hawaii, Japan and Latin America.
 
You dont have to tell everyone your "annexing" such and such an area. I mean Historians dont fall for that kind of lingo. The British Empire, back in the 1910s told the World they were bringing Democracy to the Levant by helping Arab tribes fight off the Ottoman Empire.
 
What happened? The Brits made a deal with the French: Sykes-Picot agreement.
 
Its a play of words. Only really simple people fall for that kind of sh*t. Sometimes i honestly wonder, if being booksmart makes you lose your street smarts. Western Nations are obviously book-smart, but they struggle in a world of theories and ideas too much while the reality is occuring under their noses.
 
Do you think the French flaunted themselves as an Empire when they ruled over Al'Djazair {Algeria}?
 
Americans are empire-phobic, naturally their leaders have to play a game of diction to make their permanent stay in Iraq more appealing. Afterall no one builds a $14 billion dollar "Embassy". Thats a one helluva embassy you got there.
 
Nur al Maliki is the "Governor-General" so to speak. So is that dude who runs Kabul in Afghanistan. And thats pretty much all he runs, Kabul.


-------------
Mughal-e-Azam


Posted By: Joe Boxer
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:10
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

 
 
Russia - Chechnya was Russian territorry, then successfully secceeded into its own nation-state, only to be annexed again by Russia. However, Chechnya as a nation only existed for about three years, and was never legitimized as a state officially in the UN. Despite these factors, i suppose on a technicality, Russia is expansionist. I would appreciate if you would elaborate as to the situations regarding Dagestan and Ossetia, whilst i have never even heard Of Ossetia, I am vaguely familiar with Dagestan and from what i know it have been Russian territory for about two centuries now.
 
 
To me, Russia is that one Empire that just wont collapse. Tongue
 
When did they begin expanding Eastwards? Then to the South? China is also a modern day empire. They took over Tibet and East Turkestan and who knows what will happen in 50 years?


-------------
Mughal-e-Azam


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:31

Going by what people here are saying, Iran would not be annexing Azerbaijan, even if it were trying (I don't know if it is or not) since Russia annexed it from Iran in 1812 - it would be more a case of reunification.



-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:39
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Going by what people here are saying, Iran would not be annexing Azerbaijan, even if it were trying (I don't know if it is or not) since Russia annexed it from Iran in 1812 - it would be more a case of reunification.

 
Revanchism is a powerful force (often used by politicians).  Iran would re-annex Azerbaijan if she could get away with it. 
 
But that would probably mean war with Russia.  An "independant" Azerbaijan will be tolerated by Russia as long as no one else controls it. 
 
 


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:23

Well in order to re-annex it, Iran would have had to have annexed it in the first place, or do you refer to the Achaemenid unification of Persia and Medea as the initial annexation? In which, case you would at least be half correct.  Until 1812, with brief intermissions caused by invaders Albania/Arran/Shirvan (first referred to officially as Azerbaijan by Russia and Ottomans with designs on Azerbaijan proper since 1918), was very much a part of every major Iranian state - Sassanid border fortifications as far north as Dagestan attest to this.  And I don't know how averse the republic's population would be to the notion considering the highly favourable social and economic status of Iranian Azaris which has led to a net migration to Iran over the last few years of the republics highly impovrished population.



-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:46

Re-annexation was taken from your date of 1812. 

All I can say is that Russia is hardly likely to allow Azerbaijan to fall under the control of "another power" without serious consequences.



Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:26
I think by and large the best places to look for this sort of thing is in africa and in the future the case of who owns what in antartica with reference to possible oil supplies.
 
I think on the whole most countries expand via economics rather than war these days.
 
As far as american expansion is concerned, this has been the turning point in the rise of america as a lone superpower.
Give it twenty years or so and i think they will be down to fourth place on the world stage.
Only time will prove that right or wrong.
 
I would like to add that in reference to part of the thread starter, for the intermediate future atleast yes i do think that vast expansions are a thing of the past.
though that time may come again.


Posted By: Joe Boxer
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:49
American Empire.
 
Clearly it is expanding, i dont understand why you guys are denying it. Theres no reason to implement Aristotilean Greek logic to discuss if it is an Empire or not.
 
America has been an Empire since 1783.
-Manifest Destiny (as long as you consider the native americans as real human beings with rights, a sense of human value, and a right to their land, only then will you realize America's imperialism of manifest destiny)
 
Manifest Destiny for non-Americans: Americans believed they had the right to move all the way to the Pacific Ocean. It was their destiny to do so. God wanted them to expand from the 13 colonies to the other end of the ocean.
 
-obtaining Phillipines post American Empire vs Spanish Empire.
-Mexican American War and then the annexxation of the Republic of Texas
-Japanese intervention (Commodore Perry)
- WW1
- WW2 and China intervention
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- American - Iraqi War 1
- American Afghano-Iraqi War
 
Just because they dont formally declare it, doesnt mean they arent an empire.
 
I doubt the Roman Republic, after conquering the Carthiginian Empire, proclaimed "vive la imperiamos!" (or however they say it). They didnt have to say it, we made them an Empire by neatly placing them in that category. Same thing we do for Han Empire, Tang Empire, Sassanid Empire, Axumite Empire, etc. No reason America has to formally declare it either. It just is one.
 
Historians when they look back at the USA are going to see its expansion from Virginia to the Pacific Ocean, and then its brief pauses in Phillipines, war with Mexico, and intervention/location elsewhere as an Empire-Building tactic.
 


-------------
Mughal-e-Azam


Posted By: Joe Boxer
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:55
BTW- being an Empire isnt neccessarily bad. Its about what you do with your power.
 
America, believe it or not, was loved by everyone, even the Muslim world -
 
ESPECIALLY the Muslim World (who viewed them as helpers against Russian Expansion)
 
It was only during the Vietnam War - America's Battle of Lepanto so to speak - that it began utilizing tougher measures to make itself victor.


-------------
Mughal-e-Azam


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 15:43
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Re-annexation was taken from your date of 1812. 

All I can say is that Russia is hardly likely to allow Azerbaijan to fall under the control of "another power" without serious consequences.

 
Oh, I see.  But yes, we were speaking speculatively without consideration of any variables, what's more is that in this day and age it is hardly possible to physically annex another country.   The only way it would be possible would be through soft measures, not militarily.


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 04:38
Azerbaijan is more or less under Turkish - UK - US influence anyway. No need to make a take over formal, if you already have a friendly government and a  pipeline


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 04:49
What about expansion in the space? I guess The US, Russia, The EU, Japan and China come at the top..
Colonilazition of the space might well mark the coming centuries..


-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!



Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 18:37
#1 USA. Yup, the first spot is, hands down, taken by the USA. While USA has no direct territorial claims, and IMO doesn't have plans to actually annex any country, the style is still that of expansionism, or, colonialism. Iraq war for instance for oil and control of the region (plan failed though), conflicts in Latin America (various interests), interfering with internal affairs of Iran etc. A lot of scheming done with UK. (Engdahl: A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order)

#2 Islam. While not a state in itself, muslims first and foremost declare themselves as "muslims" and only after that as citizens of some states (unlike everyone else, more or less). The "panislamic state" is spreading fast via hyperpopulation (check demographics of Kosovo, last 50yrs), and once it reaches majority, the exodus of non-islamic population starts and the country becomes islamic republic. Panislamic state has a perfect strategy to counter military superior West, it uses western tools to achieve their goal (=democracy, and 'lets tolerate all'). Unlike other religions, Islam is the only religion (that i know of) which was founded by an imperialistic charismatic figgure (a conquerer, pillager of caravans etc), and the only that i know of, which clearly states that everyone should be offered to convert to Islam or die. Unlike the organized expansionist states such as USA for instance, the "panislamic state" is passive and at first seems more chaotic and divided, but is winning over the years.

#3 Serbia. I'll nominate this one, and it has been mentioned already in the thread. Serbia is, no matter how you measure it, an imperialistic country. The only problem they have is they try to take more than they can chew. In last 20 years alone, Serbia has waged war with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and had a conflict with Albanians in Kosovo in two occasions. Even after these conflicts, a large population of Serbia (as well as Serbian emigration) still has territorial claims for Bosnia and parts of Croatia. In 1914 it was Serbia who started First World War by assassinating Austrian archduke.


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 18:50
Originally posted by Josip Josip wrote:


#2 Islam. While not a state in itself, muslims first and foremost declare themselves as "muslims" and only after that as citizens of some states (unlike everyone else, more or less). The "panislamic state" is spreading fast via hyperpopulation (check demographics of Kosovo, last 50yrs), and once it reaches majority, the exodus of non-islamic population starts and the country becomes islamic republic. Panislamic state has a perfect strategy to counter military superior West, it uses western tools to achieve their goal (=democracy, and 'lets tolerate all'). Unlike other religions, Islam is the only religion (that i know of) which was founded by an imperialistic charismatic figgure (a conquerer, pillager of caravans etc), and the only that i know of, which clearly states that everyone should be offered to convert to Islam or die. Unlike the organized expansionist states such as USA for instance, the "panislamic state" is passive and at first seems more chaotic and divided, but is winning over the years.


 
Your knowledge on Islam bases on those sources that reinforce Islamophobia in the societies of European countries as well as in the United States. First and foremost, there is not a Pan-Islamist State. Today there are around 51 states with a majority of population who practice Islam. This means that Muslims have been diveded in more than 50 states! In addition to that these countries have also been waging war against each other througout history and for the fact that they are neighbours to each other in two spesific regions like the Near East and Southern Asia, there are numerous international disputes among these people.
 
Calling the Holy Prophet an imperialist also lacks of true intellectuallness. The Prophet did not suggest to colonize or kill non-Muslims. Actually those prisoners of war who taught Muslims how to read and write were efen left free.


-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!



Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 01:17

Josip, although i wont contend you to look up your idea of Islam as an expansionist state, i will advise you to brush up on your Islamic Knowledge.



-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 07:19
I have by no means an intention to insult forum members, and i will abide to the rules of the forum, but if you expect of me to defend nazism or islam, im sorry, I'd rather not say anything then.

Originally posted by TheDiplomat TheDiplomat wrote:

Your knowledge on Islam bases on those sources that reinforce Islamophobia in the societies of European countries as well as in the United States.


Exactly. Since my opinion of islam is bad, it does reinforce islamophobia. My opinion of communism is also bad, and it reinforces islamophobia. My opinion of nazism is bad, and it reinforces naziphobia. My opinion of racism is bad, and it reinforces racisophobia. My opinion of Bush is bad, and it reinforces bushophobia.

So what are you trying to say? That no one should have any phobias and we should accept everything equally, or that phobias are OK if justifed? If you think my islamophobia is not OK because it's not justified, then we can debate about it, if im willing because really, I'd rather do something else than debate the obvious, just because some people are too lazy to read stuff.

Quote there are numerous international disputes among these people


That's not questionable. What I'm saying is - that doesn't stop them from the common goal, just as the conflicts between European states didn't stop them from launching crusades.

Quote Calling the Holy Prophet an imperialist also lacks of true intellectuallness. The Prophet did not suggest to colonize or kill non-Muslims


Look, you're from Turkey. So far 100% of muslims I've talked with, said they are not familiar with the biography of Mohammad nor Quran nor Suras, and that stuff they taught them in schools says all the best regarding Mohammad. Therefore, I'm very hesitant to enter any debate here because I have nothing to gain, but I have a lot to lose.


Now, you say that Mohammad did not colonize nor suggest to kill non-muslims? Right? Then how do you explain this:

Quran:
#  "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)

# "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God˘s religion shall
reign supreme" (8:39)

# "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are
utterly subdued." (9:29)

Sura 5:54
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends
and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he
amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God
guideth not a people unjust."

4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."


Also:
http://humanists.net/alisina/janus_face_of_islam.htm

I hope that your reply will not be along the lines "that translation is invalid" or "you misunderstood it". Im sure you can use real arguments to counter mines. If not, I'll stick to my islamophobia, thanks.

Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

i will advise you to brush up on your Islamic Knowledge.


My knowledge of Islam isn't that of someone who has studied it for years and years, but my understanding and knowledge of Islam has so far proved to be better than all muslims I've faced. Therefore If you consider that my knowledge of Islam is insufficient, you can pick a topic and we can debate it. If i have free time and will to do it.


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 07:45
Originally posted by Josip Josip wrote:


Originally posted by TheDiplomat TheDiplomat wrote:

Your knowledge on Islam bases on those sources that reinforce Islamophobia in the societies of European countries as well as in the United States.


So what are you trying to say? That no one should have any phobias and we should accept everything equally, or that phobias are OK if justifed? If you think my islamophobia is not OK because it's not justified, then we can debate about it, if im willing because really, I'd rather do something else than debate the obvious, just because some people are too lazy to read stuff.
 
What I am trying to say that Muslims are much weaker than Samuel Huntington thought. There is not unity among Muslims from different parts of the world. The Idea of a Pan-Islamist State itself can cause wars among Muslims over ''who should lead?''. But with the fall of Soviet Communism, some mind-shapers in the Western Countries wanted to create a new enemy so that they could keep their 'West'' united... And they replaced the Red Enemy with the so-called ''Green'' Enemy. Nothing unites people more than a common enemy.
 
Do you know what Hitler said once? ''If the Jews didn't live, we would have to invent them.''
 
 
Quote
Quote there are numerous international disputes among these people


That's not questionable. What I'm saying is - that doesn't stop them from the common goal, just as the conflicts between European states didn't stop them from launching crusades.
 
To begin with, there is no one single state with a Muslim majority that has achieved industrialization and high standarts of living. The Muslim countries are yet to develop themselves. The Common goal for the Muslims is prosperity not wars nor the defeat of ''The West''... Because Muslims place a very high value on the life after. This world domination  does not mean much to them.

Quote
Quote Calling the Holy Prophet an imperialist also lacks of true intellectuallness. The Prophet did not suggest to colonize or kill non-Muslims


Look, you're from Turkey. So far 100% of muslims I've talked with, said they are not familiar with the biography of Mohammad nor Quran nor Suras, and that stuff they taught them in schools says all the best regarding Mohammad. Therefore, I'm very hesitant to enter any debate here because I have nothing to gain, but I have a lot to lose.
 
Make no mistake. The fact that I come from Turkey does NOT  make me believe someone who believe in the ultimate superiority Muslim people. However, the allegation that the Prophet was a bloody imperialist has no any ground. He only waged wars in the DEFENSE of Islam. Because The Allmight forbids him to do the opposite.


Quote Now, you say that Mohammad did not colonize nor suggest to kill non-muslims? Right? Then how do you explain this:

Quran:
#  "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)

# "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God˘s religion shall
reign supreme" (8:39)

# "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are
utterly subdued." (9:29)

Sura 5:54
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends
and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he
amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God
guideth not a people unjust."

4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."


Also:
http://humanists.net/alisina/janus_face_of_islam.htm

I hope that your reply will not be along the lines "that translation is invalid" or "you misunderstood it". Im sure you can use real arguments to counter mines. If not, I'll stick to my islamophobia, thanks.
 
Let me tell you that I am not a scientist on Quran. Therefore I do not know each sentence in Quran. But I also know that what you are doing here are ''out of context'' stuff to buttress your opnion.
 
If you knew Islam, you would understand that one of the basic teachings of Islam about sins is that if you kill someone, you will be judged as if you killed the whole people in the world when it comes to the Judgement day that everyone shall stand before the Allmighty one day. So Islam is very clear here..Killing anyone is one of the worst sins to be committed.



-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!



Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 09:12
Quote Let me tell you that I am not a scientist on Quran


That's OK because there's not much science in Quran :)

Quote Therefore I do not know each sentence in Quran. But I also know that what you are doing here are ''out of context'' stuff to buttress your opnion.


Aha. Oh wow. So, you don't really know Quran, never really read it as a muslim, but you're 100% that someone else is wrong?

Im having a strange deja vu, because that's exactly the same thing everyone else told me. I had a christian guy telling me that im all wrong with whatever I said, and he never ever read a single line of any muslim text, book, or even article. Fascinating.

Quote If you knew Islam, you would understand that one of the basic teachings of Islam about sins is that if you kill someone, you will be judged as if you killed the whole people in the world when it comes to the Judgement day. So Islam is very clear here..Killing anyone is one of the worst sins to be committed.


If you knew about Islam, you would know that there's a huge difference between muslim and muslim, and muslim and non-muslim.

If you say that islam is very clear here abou that, would you mind:
1) Providing me with a quote from a holy scripture
2) Explaining to me how come it was OK for Mohammad to pillage, torture cruelly people to tell him where they hid the treasure, and kill
3) Explain to me how come the greatest intelectuals of islamic world of today, are OK with killing, and actually promote the killing of infidels
4) Explain to me how, if killing anyone is wrong in Islam, how can it happen that every muslim soldier is yelling Allah'u akbar in battle? Are you saying that 100% of muslims including Mohhamad have a wrong interpretation of islam, and yours is correct?

Quote To begin with, there is no one single state with a Muslim majority that has achieved industrialization and high standarts of living.


That's true. And it has something to do with Islam. You say they have yet to develop themselves, but how is that exactly going to happen if muslims are stuck in the 7th century? This is a history forum, I'm quite sure everyone here knows at which point did Europe start a massive growth and development.

Quote Because Muslims place a very high value on the life after


Agreed. They place very high value on afterlife, which means they have no problems suiciding themselves in this life to earn the 'eternal reward' as they see it.

Quote He only waged wars in the DEFENSE of Islam


Yes, I agree. And considering that every infidel who exists is insulting for islam, Mohammad and other muslims need to wage wars for the defense of islam until everyone else is either exterminated or converted.


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 09:28
Originally posted by Josip Josip wrote:

Quote Let me tell you that I am not a scientist on Quran


That's OK because there's not much science in Quran :)
 
have you ever heard of the term ''theology'', which is a field of Social Scienses? It deals with science, and Quran is also a part of scientific research.

[
Quote quote]Therefore I do not know each sentence in Quran. But I also know that what you are doing here are ''out of context'' stuff to buttress your opnion.


Aha. Oh wow. So, you don't really know Quran, never really read it as a muslim, but you're 100% that someone else is wrong?

Im having a strange deja vu, because that's exactly the same thing everyone else told me. I had a christian guy telling me that im all wrong with whatever I said, and he never ever read a single line of any muslim text, book, or even article. Fascinating.  [/QOUTE]
 
Who said I never read or know anything about Quran? What I said was siple: I am not an expert, I did not memorize...And what you attempted to prove were defintely ''out of context''... You should have put whole suras in order to be able to prevet the objective guy. But You took one sentence out of the whole context in order to buttress your point of view.

Quote If you knew Islam, you would understand that one of the basic teachings of Islam about sins is that if you kill someone, you will be judged as if you killed the whole people in the world when it comes to the Judgement day. So Islam is very clear here..Killing anyone is one of the worst sins to be committed.


Quote If you knew about Islam, you would know that there's a huge difference between muslim and muslim, and muslim and non-muslim.

If you say that islam is very clear here abou that, would you mind:
1) Providing me with a quote from a holy scripture
2) Explaining to me how come it was OK for Mohammad to pillage, torture cruelly people to tell him where they hid the treasure, and kill
3) Explain to me how come the greatest intelectuals of islamic world of today, are OK with killing, and actually promote the killing of infidels
4) Explain to me how, if killing anyone is wrong in Islam, how can it happen that every muslim soldier is yelling Allah'u akbar in battle? Are you saying that 100% of muslims including Mohhamad have a wrong interpretation of islam, and yours is correct?
 
Your concerns does not earn explanations, because such fabricated presentation of history is hopeless. If you wanna really get deep into the subject, just diversify your sources on history.

Quote
Quote To begin with, there is no one single state with a Muslim majority that has achieved industrialization and high standarts of living.


That's true. And it has something to do with Islam. You say they have yet to develop themselves, but how is that exactly going to happen is muslims are stuck in the 7th century?
 
Slowly or in a middle pace Muslims are developing themselves. Some countries already have high GDP per capitas like UAE- where average GDP per capita is above 35.000$. Muslims are not stuck in 7.century.

Quote
Quote Because Muslims place a very high value on the life after


Agreed. They place very high value on afterlife, which means they have no problems suiciding themselves in this life to earn the 'eternal reward' as they see it.
 
So a couple of psychos who committed suicide in the name of religion and killed other people are the true representatives of this religion, despite the fact that overwhelming majority of Muslims strongly condemn that and centuries of teaching and scientists are to be ignored. If this is how you interpret, I have nothing but pity at you.

Quote
Quote He only waged wars in the DEFENSE of Islam


Yes, I agree. And considering that every infidel who exists is insulting for islam, Mohammad and other muslims need to wage wars for the defense of islam until everyone else is either exterminated or converted.
 
There is a nice French proverb: ''There can not be a more deaf person, who does not want to hear you''. Nobody argued or even claimed in the line what you wrote..It is how you wanna see Islam, but to disoppoint you, it will never come out to be true
 
Actually Hadits, the sayings of the prophet, teach us that if the Muslims treat non-muslim living in their countries badly, their countries are doomed and to be invaded.


-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!



Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 09:28
islam is a political definable state, Josip? This isnt a thread on religion.

Quote
Even after these conflicts, a large population of Serbia (as well as Serbian emigration) still has territorial claims for Bosnia and parts of Croatia. In 1914 it was Serbia who started First World War by assassinating Austrian archduke
AFIAK a Serb pulled the trigger not Serbia.




Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 10:24
Josip,what is with the demographic change of Kosova in the last 50 years?????? Or are you now suporting Serb propaganda that Kosovans were people-factory.Before 50 years ago there wa not a single statistic conducted by indipendent body on population numbers in Kosovo,and after that were the Serbian statistics wich many times contradicted themselves and showed that there were no more kosovo albanian births then serbian.
 
 
And to finish with you and if you carry on like this i wil never answer your posts again.
 
Albanian muslims consider themselves albanians and not muslims,they are consious of the fact that their greatgrandfathers converted islam for many reasons,but never really practised it,and mantained their own cultural aspects of life rather then acept islamic culture,thats why albania is who it is,an culturaly europian nation with it own uniques,of tradition well established long time before islam.Nex time talk of that litle you know rather then spit your ignorance.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 11:42
Originally posted by TheDiplomat TheDiplomat wrote:

have you ever heard of the term ''theology'', which is a field of Social Scienses? It deals with science, and Quran is also a part of scientific research.


I was playing a joke on you.  Hence the smiley at the end.

Quote And what you attempted to prove were defintely ''out of context''... You should have put whole suras in order to be able to prevet the objective guy. But You took one sentence out of the whole context in order to buttress your point of view.


See, you're saying I took it out of context, but you don't even know anything of that part, which means that technically you cannot know if it's out of context or not, you're not able to defend it, and you're still saying I'm wrong.

Considering that I
1) did a quote
2) stated where that can be found
3) provided a link to a nicely argumented website (which i know you dont consider valid but still)

...it's quite disappointing that all you can say is "taken out of context" and that i should "quote the whole Quran". I'm sorry but that's just silly, and I have no desire to go into it.

You also call yourself an "objective guy" while being from Turkey. Considering that you
P1 dont know the context
P2 say it's wrong
---------------------
Conclusion: You're biased.

ps: I didn't take one sentence, I took several sentences.

Quote Your concerns does not earn explanations, because such fabricated presentation of history is hopeless. If you wanna really get deep into the subject, just diversify your sources on history.


So, what you're trying to say is, Quran isn't a relevant source when it comes to a discussion of Islam?

Fabrication of history oh sure, let's see, exact quotes from Quran vs your opinion based on fluff and ignorance, with no arguments or logic. Great. I'll take fabricated history any day.

Quote Slowly or in a middle pace Muslims are developing themselves. Some countries already have high GDP per capitas like UAE- where average GDP per capita is above 35.000$. Muslims are not stuck in 7.century.


We will see when the oil runs out.

Quote So a couple of psychos who committed suicide in the name of religion and killed other people are the true representatives of this religion


That's right. Word by word.

Quote despite the fact that overwhelming majority of Muslims strongly condemn


You will have more luck finding the Loch Ness monster, than finding that overwhelming majority.

Originally posted by HEROI HEROI wrote:

Josip,what is with the demographic change of Kosova in the last 50 years??????


OK let's take last 100yrs for a better picture. Kosovo, a Serbian cradle so to speak, has today 95%+ Albanians. The thing is, no one else really wants to live there anymore.

btw,
http://www.bizforum.org/population-mus.htm
Compare that with natality of the western countries, or the lack thereof (except immigration)

Quote Or are you now suporting Serb propaganda that Kosovans were people-factory


That's not propaganda, that's the truth. Hyperpopulation wins in peace, it beats democracy so easily over the years that's it's not even a joke.

And as for me supporting Serb propaganda, I'm Croat. We have the least reasons in the world to support Serb propaganda, but if they're right I'll say they're right.

Quote Before 50 years ago there wa not a single statistic conducted by indipendent body on population numbers in Kosovo


Austrians and French, for start.

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

islam is a political definable state, Josip? This isnt a thread on religion.


As I said, it's not politically definable state, that's why im closing the discussion from my part, because I have no desire to debate with fanatics who will not accept facts because they dont fit their life philosophy, and if I type them down they'll just say it's wrong and won't look it up themselves because they are afraid that the quotes are not out of context.

Quote AFIAK a Serb pulled the trigger not Serbia.


I don't see the difference. If Serbia had something against it, it would put the guy into jail. Since Serbia refused to extradite the man to Austria-Hungaria, it's a bit silly to say that the whole attack was an accident and Serbia has absolutely nothing to do with it. Next thing you know, someone will say Serbia was actually supporting the Austria and the fact that they didn't want to extradite him is fabricated. The fact that Serbia was behind that is just too much for some people to hear.. i mean, sure it's not Serbia who wanted a piece of Bosnia and had a conflict with Austria... it's all science fiction. I'm new to this forum, but so far it seems no different than other forums so I think i'll just leave. It's full of people who are ready to accept what they want to accept, regardless of all evidence pointing otherwise.


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 12:10
exactly,there was no indipendent body if it was from french and austrians.
How could it be posible the numbering of kosovo albanians when is a fact that they lived in montenous regions almost isolated from the rest??????????
And as for kosovo being the cradle of serbia,it is in fact serbian propaganda,that kind of logic is baseless,the albanians have been living in kosovo forever,as they have been perhaps even in croatia before you.so think twice before you write.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 12:18
Originally posted by Josip Josip wrote:



You also call yourself an "objective guy" while being from Turkey. Considering that you
P1 dont know the context
P2 say it's wrong
---------------------
Conclusion: You're biased.

ps: I didn't take one sentence, I took several sentences.
 
As I told, I did not memorize Quran. And especially it is harder to remember these suras when they are in English.
 
I did not say these sentences were wrong. What I said was cyrstal-clear: If you would like to understand the emssage, read the whole sure not put 1 sentence out of context and ask people for clarification.

Quote
Quote Your concerns does not earn explanations, because such fabricated presentation of history is hopeless. If you wanna really get deep into the subject, just diversify your sources on history.


So, what you're trying to say is, Quran isn't a relevant source when it comes to a discussion of Islam?
 
Check out your previous post. Refresh your memory. Your 4 questions requiring explanations were not from Quran. They were the ideas propagandated by some decision makers in other part of the world.



Quote
Quote So a couple of psychos who committed suicide in the name of religion and killed other people are the true representatives of this religion


That's right. Word by word.
 
If you fail to put things in a wider context, I see no reasonable conviction to further the debate with you. You might live by the dream of Pan-Islamist state, which Muslims do not give a care.
 

 


-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!



Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:25
Originally posted by HEROI HEROI wrote:

exactly,there was no indipendent body if it was from french and austrians.


OK, so if it was done by Serbs, it's no good. If it was done by French, no good. If it was done by Austrians, no good. If it was done by Turks, no good.

Do you have a point at all? What kind of independent body would you want? Or is this some kind of a game you're playing, where the most intelligent person will be the first one to stop a debate (non-existent one) with you?


Originally posted by TheDiplomat TheDiplomat wrote:

As I told, I did not memorize Quran


I put the numbers in there, you did not need to memorize it, just read it.

Quote If you would like to understand the emssage, read the whole sure not put 1 sentence out of context and ask people for clarification.


Aha. In other words, I'm right, and you're not able to prove me wrong?

Those lines i quoted are 100% clear. It is *you* who claim they are out of context, so it is up to you to prove that. Saying "read the whole text" is not an argument in a debate. If you're not willing to read it by yourself, then you have been defeated in a discussion because you're not able to provide counterargument. I say it's not taken out of context, you say it is (but you havent read it), and considering that those lines are 100% clear, that's pretty much it. Anyone without a bias would see you're clueless.

Quote If you fail to put things in a wider context, I see no reasonable conviction to further the debate with you


A wider context? You mean, the one that Islam is a religion founded by a pedophile murderer plunderer torturer and lunatic (for all of these there is a source in muslim holy scriptures, so it's not made up), and that Islam itself is a plague which spreads throughout the world? That islam hardly ever invented anything when compared to other civilizations, because they are primitive tribesmen stuck in 7th century? That in islamic countries you're dead if you denounce islam? That Sheria law is the worse law I've seen ever, perhaps close to laws in Old Testament laws but since those are 1000yrs older than Islam, and were overwritten in the process that doesn't even count. That women are treated like baggage? That islamic religious leaders put a price on a head of everyone who disagrees with islam and puts it to question, and now you're gonna say "these are minority"..oh yeah how come they stay in their positions of religious leaders? That on average muslims I've met have lower IQ than non-muslims (atheists included among non-muslims)?


I'm sorry, which context have I missed?


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:36
You are wasting your time with this guy.
 
I have by no means an intention to insult forum members, and i will abide to the rules of the forum, but if you expect of me to defend nazism or islam, im sorry, I'd rather not say anything then.

These words are enough to show his aim. As we all know, There is not relation between nazism and islam but he used two in one sentence. (Lets not forget, There was not any reason to use nazism word too)

It is enough to show his aim..
 
Josip, If you want to attack islam, do it more professionally. At least use islamofacism or such words..
 
By the way, but if you expect of me to reply again you or a fasist , im sorry, I'd rather not say anything then.


Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:41
Those two are not similiar nor did i equalize them. I put them into same sentence because they have one thing in common - wrong ideology. You have also used nazism and islam in the same sentence, perhaps you should apply your advice to yourself as well. 

Quote Josip, If you want to attack islam, do it more professionally.


Why would I waste my time with that here? He complained about context, so i gave him context, hopefully he's happy now.

When I'll want to attack islam professionally, I won't do it online.

Quote By the way, but if you expect of me to reply again you or a fasist , im sorry, I'd rather not say anything then.


That's understandable. You had to pick between "I agree" and "I'm not gonna say anything".


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:46
no my friend, I just dont want waste my time with your schizophrenic ideas like this.
 
 
#2 Islam. While not a state in itself, muslims first and foremost declare themselves as "muslims" and only after that as citizens of some states (unlike everyone else, more or less). The "panislamic state" is spreading fast via hyperpopulation (check demographics of Kosovo, last 50yrs), and once it reaches majority, the exodus of non-islamic population starts and the country becomes islamic republic.
 
As we both know, Majority of people are homo economicus not homo religious.. 
 
Of course, There are some exceptions but even this home religous will find better thing than to do child.(Like you, instead of making child, You are harassing us with your tales about islam at a thread about states.)
 
 
do you afraid from ghosts? Booo..


Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:50
I'm not your friend, no need to entitle me like that in a condescending way.


-------------
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:53
Originally posted by TheDiplomat TheDiplomat wrote:

He only waged wars in the DEFENSE of Islam.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Mohammed was more evil than any other medieval ruler, but this statement is simply false.



Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:58
Originally posted by Josip Josip wrote:


I'm sorry, which context have I missed?
 
The whole context about non-Muslims.
 
Islam considers Jews and Christians as ehl-i kitap, in other words, members of the holy book. So Islam considers the other two Abrahamic religions as ''holy'' religions. One can marry a Jew or Christian, let alone establishing friendship


-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net