[joebobby]

Since I can't be arsed to read the entire thread I'll just make my own contributions.

- Macedonia is Greek. It's no wonder the Greek are concerned and are making a big deal of this issue. Why would they, as a state, want to lose their land in a slow fashion? Can't blame em.

- Greeks are not the same Greeks from ancient times. Try to fool yourselves and the ignorant ones around the whole world all you want, but you are not ancient Greeks. The best example would be if you look at the statues made in those times and compare them with the hairy daygoes that inhabit Greece today. The current Greeks are a mixture of Persians and some other societies (can't remember who, it's been a long time since I researched that).

- Citizens of Turkey are not Turks... duh. The 'pure' Turks are around Ozbekistan and Mongolia and stuff. They ain't a nation based on race but instead a nation based on what it labels as 'the Turkish people', in other words people of a nation where race does not have any effect whatsoever on the nationality (hard for Euros and Yanks to grasp; took me a while).

Hum... that is all for now as I resurrect this thread. Have a nice day and live in peace, etc.

Edit: Speeling errors.

[noemon]

Greeks are not the same Greeks from ancient times. Try to fool yourselves and the ignorant ones around the whole world all you want, but you are not ancient Greeks. The best example would be if you look at the statues made in those times and compare them with the hairy daygoes that inhabit Greece today. The current Greeks are a mixture of Persians and some other societies (can't remember who, it's been a long time since I researched that).

Right, maybe we should start calling ourselves Persians, and our language Persian, or Slavic, perhaps?

A scholar who is actually aware of what it is that matters on ethnic-identity, and is currently one of the major specialists in the area, writes:

It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier, felt that their ‘Greekness’ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such affiliations made them feel themselves to be members of one great ‘super-family’ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies are constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece.

For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ‘Greek revival’ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage.

Again, one could point to both ethnic continuity and ethnic recurrence.
Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Persians, Chinese and Japanese could be cited as examples of ethnic continuity, since, despite massive cultural changes over the centuries, certain key identifying components—name, language, customs, religious community and territorial association—were broadly maintained and reproduced for millennia.
In other cases, such as the peoples of Ethiopia, the Fertile Crescent, northern India and the Balkans, ethnicity has been more of a recurrent phenomenon.

And lets not forget that all you know about ancient Greece and Rome in all aspects(philosophical, historical, political) comes from the Greeks of the 15th and 16th centuries but also survived due to them as well. (-Michael H. Harris, History of Libraries in the Western World, and J.J. Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium). And you might find this work interesting as well, in case you do have a sincere interest regarding this subject.


------

On linguistics:

Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, Cambridge University Press

To speakers of modern Greek the Homeric poems of the 7th century BC are not written in a foreign language. The Greek language has enjoyed a continuous tradition from earliest times until now. This book traces its history from the immediately post-classical or Hellenistic period to the present day. The aim is both to analyse the changing structure of a language stabilised by a peculiarly long and continuous literary tradition, and to show how changing historical circumstances are reflected in its development.

From his introduction:


Another book on linguistics:



The Greek people need not convince anybody, evidently. There are plenty of studies out there, which have published their conclusions, it is people like you that seem to need to convince themselves and the fools around them that others are not what they name themselves -and have been named by others for centuries- to be.

---

Regarding your statue comment read here. Though i personally find this quite idiotic, since the statues are idealized human forms and were never meant to be representative of the mob, but the idiocy is not there, is that no ethnic-group defines itself in a particular racial model taken from statues, maybe except for the Nazis.

But just for the sake of it, a nationalist is able to nit-pick a few male-models from Greece and let them stand next to the statues and make a case, the same one can do with nit-picked models from Italy and wherever really.

[joebobby]

Well that was certainly an interesting read, cheers for that. (Wasn't able to read the whole book from the last source) I wish I came across sources like this before to see it from the other end of the spectrum clearly.

Anyways perhaps I was too blunt in saying the statue thing and one of the sources you suggested (I believe it was the Macedonia one) made a good case with Jesus and how some things may 'portray' societies in a misleading fashion. It was also rather interesting that this source was claiming there were assumptions that ancient Greeks consisted of nords (info which I hadn't come across before).

However as much as they may try to claim I find it quite hard how one of the sources claims the societies did not blend in with invaders or even neighbours. Though neither do they claim that the Greeks of today are purely the Greeks of ancient times, fair enough. I just mentioned 'the Persians and other societies etc' as being an addition to the ancient Greek society already living there. Anyhow the whole region there consists ancestry of ancient Greeks (including what is now Turkey) but with a well mix of others too, even though Albanians love to claim they're purely Illyrian but let's not get into that.

Those articles make a good point about religion and culture (especially language). The Greece of today does indeed attempt to maintain the culture of what it was thousands of years ago and succeeds up to an extent, but I wouldn't really go as far as calling the people pure Hellenic. The case it makes with the Muslim Greeks considered as 'Turks' during the population exchange was interesting as well and can be one of the reasons (not solely) why the people of the 2 nations look so much alike and have similar cultures (religion aside). But yes it's not really a question of ethnicity (which I went into) but instead culture, and in that case the Greek of today is close to ancient Greece yes.

Thanks again though for the read.

P.S: Just out of curiosity, is the current alphabet exactly the same as it was back then?

[noemon]

It was also rather interesting that this source was claiming there were assumptions that ancient Greeks consisted of nords (info which I hadn't come across before).

I dont know the literature regarding this matter as it never interested me greatly, i remembered i had seen something relevant, in that thread, and posted it.

From what i remember the Ancient Greek society, was composed of various types of what is today, Alpine, Nordic, Mediterranean and so on, with the Athenians being predominantly Med, and the Spartans being predominantly Alpine, or something like that. If you search in that thread you might find more info.

However as much as they may try to claim I find it quite hard how one of the sources claims the societies did not blend in with invaders or even neighbours.

I don't know where are you referring to, but there are certain periods of time and each period is different from the other, when the Greeks run an empire in the Byzantine times, they certainly blended with various people that migrated within their domain most prominent group among them being the Armenians and the Serbs, because that is what happens in multi-ethnic states to the elite ethnicity. When the Greeks lived under the Ottomans they did not blend, or actually they did, but the offspring moved upwards inside the Ottoman society as was the law and as such the Greek people remained very insular during that period of time and that explains how the Turks changed in form. What happened to the Ottomans, most probably happened to the Greeks during Byzantium with others. That is usually what happens to the nation of the empire and not the other way around as many believe.

Those articles make a good point about religion and culture (especially language). The Greece of today does indeed attempt to maintain the culture of what it was thousands of years ago and succeeds up to an extent, but I wouldn't really go as far as calling the people pure Hellenic.

There is no such thing as calling something, half this or that. That is at best an insult. Can i say you are not properly Belgian? And there is no such thing as something being purely this or that. Not even nationalists claim any such thing, and i do not see why it is so important for you. For the ancient Greeks themselves it was not and identified themselves in linguistic lines, Thucydides and Herodotus and Plato, and Isocrates proclaimed "Greek is he who speaks Greek" some of them added "and participates in the Hellenic society". The very science of ethnos in which Anthony Smith is a major proponent, does not rely on pure descent. And even attempting to say the Greeks mixed, or me saying they did not is impossible both ways, because neither of us knows who the Greeks fucked or did not. It is a mundane argument used in superficially elitist circles.

P.S: Just out of curiosity, is the current alphabet exactly the same as it was back then?

From 5th BCE Athens, is exactly the same. The Attic alphabet went through some changes under the reign of Euclid(not the mathematician, but the tyrrant of Athens) during the 5th BCE, he dropped from use the Sampi sign, the digamma F and one more and made the alphabet from 27 to 24 letters and also standardized the use of H from aspirate to I sound or more particularly as ee as in thee, though these letters were retained for numerals. The alphabet that got standardized back then, is the same as the modern Greek, the Koine Greek, and the Medieval Greek. The Aeolian alphabet is the Latin one used in western Europe today.

[joebobby]

Cheers for the responses, I'll read more up on that book.

And as you say there's no half this or half that ye, sorry if you regarded it as offensive, as every society in the world is basically like that (even Iceland!). I don't really like getting into discussions of pure races myself as that is too nationalist ye, I just wanted to shed some light upon the heritage of the region. You make an interesting case with the offsprings, I'll be sure to look into that while reading as well. As for the Belgian thing, I'm afraid that's a question we even ask each other =( 'What does it mean being Belgian exactly?', it's just a society being under one state (kingdom) I always would say.

Oh and since I didn't want to drag the other thread off topic too much I'll post my reply about it here.


Well ye saying it's exactly like Wallonia-Flanders is a bit off as that is pretty visible, but I was under the impression that there were at least some groups of Slavs within Greek Macedonia, is there really no sign of them whatsoever at first hand (because they're really claiming there's a small group of Slavs there)? If not then what is the rationale behind FYROM demanding Greek Macedonia and spreading maps of a 'Macedonia'? Is it just due to the name that they see it as a right for themselves that if they call themselves 'Macedonia' instead of FYROM that they'll be entitled to all Macedonias? That's how I perceived it up till now.

[noemon]

And as you say there's no half this or half that ye, sorry if you regarded it as offensive, as every society in the world is basically like that (even Iceland!). I don't really like getting into discussions of pure races myself as that is too nationalist ye, I just wanted to shed some light upon the heritage of the region. You make an interesting case with the offsprings, I'll be sure to look into that while reading as well. As for the Belgian thing, I'm afraid that's a question we even ask each other =( 'What does it mean being Belgian exactly?', it's just a society being under one state (kingdom) I always would say.

Well we ask ourselves the same question as all others, and we generally agree that Greek is he who speaks Greek and participates in Greek norms. And when we are addressed by others we do not expect to be addressed as Greeks/2. Just like we do not address people that way either, and i do not think that nations address the others in this manner. This is worse than nationalism in fact cause even nationalists conform to basic rules, it approaches nazism and "untermensch". And i doubt that your OP sheds any light to the heritage of the region, it is nothing more but a condescending and insulting post, which happens to be fallacious as well(both the pure race position and the argument used to suppose that position) as illustrated by the subsequent reply.

Well ye saying it's exactly like Wallonia-Flanders is a bit off as that is pretty visible, but I was under the impression that there were at least some groups of Slavs within Greek Macedonia, is there really no sign of them whatsoever at first hand (because they're really claiming there's a small group of Slavs there)? If not then what is the rationale behind FYROM demanding Greek Macedonia and spreading maps of a 'Macedonia'? Is it just due to the name that they see it as a right for themselves that if they call themselves 'Macedonia' instead of FYROM that they'll be entitled to all Macedonias? That's how I perceived it up till now.

In Greek Macedonia, there are a few slavic people who vote for Rainbow the Pro-FYROM party of Greece and and counted 5000 votes 3000 of them from the Turks of Thrace. So 2000 people in a Greek Macedonia of 2.5 mil. is the proper amount.

Yes, they believe that if they take the name all of Macedonia should rightfully go to them. They generally try to baptize people "Macedonians" and request for compensations for the Greek civil war, ie the Greek communists who fled, and various other crap. Their whole story is so pathetically complex, that i am at this moment tired to deconstruct it in a comprehensive manner.

Read in the previous pages, my discussion with Falx, and see the Bulgarian committees, how they had to call for "Macedonian independence" instead of "Bulgarian annexation" during the Balkan wars, so that they get the Great powers on their side as the former idea would have been more appealing. In essence 4 wars have been fought for Greek Macedonia the past century:

a) Balkan wars, victory for Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria against the Ottomans, Macedonia is annexed from the Ottoman empire
b) Balkan wars II victory for Greece and Serbia against Bulgaria who wanted a bit more of Macedonia, but her army had not make it there in time.
c) WW2 Bulgaria occupies Macedonia under the auspices of the Nazis so as to annex it, with the collapse of the Nazis, it comes back to Greece.
d) During the Greek civil war(right after 1945), Bulgaria was too weak to supply the Slavs of Greece with ammo, so that task was taken up by Tito, who found the civil war as pretext to annex Greek Macedonia and made a pact with the Greek communists to give them weapons and 20.000 soldiers in return for Greek Macedonia should they be victorious. They werent.

Ever since then, whatever slavs had remained were deported together with the communists as communists according to the percentages agreement of the Americans with Stalin. And the rest are these 2000 that vote for Rainbow.

Thats more or less, the story. Tito though took the Bulgarian narrative a step forward, he founded a new state, with a new language, with a new church, Tito is also the first communist to have founded a church himself(ie the FYROM church) the todays FYROM within socialist Yugoslavia which was founded on paper without any revolution of any kind or sort, so that he claims both Greek Macedonia, but also takes away from the Serbs their acquisitions during the Balkan wars, which when Yugoslavia collapsed broke away from Serbia, despite that these were her acquisitions and not Yugoslavias.

Thats more or less, the best i could do at this time of hour.

[Anothroskon]

Very good response Noemona. I am also familiar with Smith's work and consider it quite usefull in rebutting the typical antihellenist tirades. The parallelization with the case of Jesus Christ is also quite apropos. All cultures that are heavily influenced by another tend to appropriate and nativize their chosen acquisitions and symbols. This is why the European Jesus does not look like a Middle Eastern Jew and the Japanses Buddha like an Indian Hindu.

The case of Jews and the replacement theology practiced by Christianity (Christians are the "true" Israel not the "degenerated" Jews) is another parallel of the cultural replacement attempted by Westerners viz-a-viz the "degenerated" Greeks who do not "deserve" their heritage

The following is also illuminating.

Anthony D. Smith Myths and Memories of the Nation, pp.78-79, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0198295340

Whereas Turkish myths of descent tended to blur the lines between genealogical and ideological impulses and promote an ethnic myth with strong racial and territorial implications, Greek myths were counterpoised to each other in often open rivalry. On the one hand) there was the ‘Hellenic’ myth which can be traced back to the neo-Platonist Pletho in the early fifteenth century, developed by Theophyllus Corydaleus in the early seventeenth century, and finally elaborated by Adamantios Korais in the late eighteenth century; according to it, present-day inhabitants of Greece were descended from the ancient Hellenes, since they shared their language and culture. and only the values of classical Athenian antiquity could therefore serve as the basis for Greek self-renewal today (Campbell and Sherrard 1968:22—43). Language played an important role in this ideological myth; unfortunately the intellectuals disagreed on the appropriate version of Greek. some like Katartzis and Rhigas favouring the more ‘demotic’ forms spoken in the Niorea, and others like Korais throwing their weight behind a ‘purified’ form which was a mixture of classical Greek and the modern Greek spoken by the educated middle classes (Koumarianou 1973). This difference mirrored a split between intelligentsia and peasantry. and he- came intertwined with the claims of the alternative ‘Byzantine’ imperial myth. which the Orthodox clergy and their congregations (most of whom were peasants and shepherds) espoused. In this more traditional image, the restoration of Christ’s kingdom on earth was coeval with the wresting of power from infidels. Turks or Franks, and the restoration of the Byzantine hierocratic imperium (Frazee 1969: 20—25; Sherrard 1959). Within this empire, Greek was the natural language of religious communion and the Greeks would once again become its spiritual and temporal rulers, as, in fact with the advance of the Phanariots in the administration of the Porte, they already appeared to he doing. Here, too, genealogical elements became intertwined with religio-ideological myths; for, despite the fact that the leading ‘princely’ Phanariot families can be shown to have originated in the provinces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, claims of aristocratic Byzantine ancestry were made by and for them, and their self-image and vision o’ the world was saturated by Byzantinism. Like the Orthodox Patriarihate, they dreamed not of the regeneration of Greece, (with a few exceptions like Rhigas Velestinlis, whose ‘Balkan federation’ was little more than a semi-secular Byzantine democracy), but of the impending restoration of the Byzantine empire and its religious culture (Mango 1973; Stavrianos 1961: ch. 9; Dakin 1972: chs. 1—2).

But, as Rhigas’ example shows, Hellenism and Byzantinism were not mutually exclusive, even though their inspiration and spirit was mutually opposed. In a sense, both were ‘revolutionary since even the restoration of Hyiantium demanded popular mohili7ation (and foreign intervention). Both, too, had dramatic territorial consequences, though here they led in opposite directions. ‘The Hellenic ideal, centered on Athens was western in orientation and based upon mainland Greeik; the Byzantine myth, centered on Constantinople, looked to the east and spanned the area from Moscow to Alexandria (Henderson 1971; Demos 1958). In the event, however, Western intervention, by confining the new Greek state to the Morea and southern central Greece and thereby excluding so many Greek- speaking communities, helped to promote the Megale ided (Great idea). the quest for a much larger, inclusive Greek state stretching into Thrace and Asia Minor, which had been the dream of the Byzantine restoration, with disastrous consequences, both military and economic, for (;rLek regeneration (Dakin 1972; Campbell and Sherrard 1968: chs. 4—5; also Jelavich 1977: chs. 5, 12, 18 ).

Even the Hellenic ideal has been sharply criticized for holding hack economic and educational development in Greece, despite the romantic claims of Korais and his followers; both Hellenism and Byzantinism appear to be backward-looking ideologies. characteristic of the Greek intelligentsia and clergy (Pcpdassis 1958). In their time, however, both myths provided vital foci of identity; even if they collided at times. they helped to rally purely sectional interests—clerical, bourgeois, intellectual, klephtic— into a single struggle for national regeneration. In terms of enhanced dignity, territorial expansion and autonomy, both ethnic myths initiated and guided subsequent policies, even when they later promoted internal divisions. 01 course, the content of the myths differed greatly; their golden ages. the heroes they revered, the reasons for decline they propounded, were entirely divergent. Even the location of origins, in the one case Asia Minor, in the other the Peloponnesus, differed, as did their mythic genealogies of descent. In the end, too, an ideological Hellenism, geared to western thought and rational institutions, won out, mainly through force of external circumstances. Yet, in the origins and development of the Greek nation-state during the nineteenth century, both myths played a vital formative role in identifying the nature of ‘Greek’ character and guiding its regeneration in the light of their theories of origins.

[Benjamin]

This is not a new problem. Nations like Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs are not denying only the rights of Slavic Macedonians. They are also denying the rights of Montenegrins which are also Ortodox Christians. Political and intelectual establishments of Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria are calling Mntenegro marionetic state. They are denying the rights of Montenegrin Ortodox Church to exist. Also, Montenegro as an indepenent state existed in ancient times. It roots more then 1000 years back in the past. Smaller nations are always under a threat from the bigger ones.

Greeks would be very happy if Ortodox Christians and Muslims start the war inside FYR of Macedonia. But it will not happen.

I also noted Noemon wrote that Greece was under attack from FYR of Macedonia. Complete nonsense.

[Aekos]

Why are you going on about Montenegro now? Most Montenegrins (read: not nationalists) support the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro. The "Montenegrin Orthodox Church" was created by some nationalists with little public support.

Also, don't pretend like you know shit about the history of Montenegro. It was a large part of one of the most powerful medieval Serbian states, Rascia. After the Turks came, Montenegrins stayed free longer than most other Serbs and were thus politically isolated.

The modern concept of "ethnic" Montenegrins is a communist construction. Take it from a Montenegrin. And FYROM does hold irredenist views against Greece, so at least ideologically they pose a threat.

[noemon]

I also noted Noemon wrote that Greece was under attack from FYR of Macedonia. Complete nonsense.

I said that Greece was attacked by that State, that is after 1991? Where is that dear? Is this a desperate and to quote by yourself "a paranoid" straw-man attempt? LOL.

Ill just let a brief American airgram reply to you. And if you would like a concise Historical analysis on the activities of the SNOF during the Greek civil War, let me know.

[Benjamin]

Aekos, it just isn't true. There are around 42% of ethnic Montenegrins / Ortodox Christians in Montenegro. They have their own church which is unrecognized by both Serbia and Greece. Despite Montenegrins were always under pressure of Serbia they always have been a different nation. The same happened in FYR of Macedonia. Both Greece and Serbia do not recognize Macedonian Ortodox Church. They are denying their rights, and only if they could, they would destroy them.

Noemon, you said you supported Serbs cause they were bombed? This isn't true! You supported them in their crimes. The history has recorded it.

http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2002/michas.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n14692324
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/ja ... .warcrimes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/au ... es.comment
http://www.theopavlidis.com/reviews/rev_michasUA.htm

Greeks have openly supported Serbs in their goal to make Greater Serbia. They've supported them all the way and were proud of Serbian crime acts during the war. There was a major cryout in the end when Serbs started loosing.

[noemon]

The fact that you are trolling should go without saying, since you ignore to even address the relevant points that you yourself raised. The FYROM church was founded on paper by Tito, I dont see any reason as to why the Orthodox world as a whole, has any obligation to recognize it, or any reason as to why I should apologize for its limbo status.

And i said, you said, should be qualified with relevant quotes.

As for the 12 individual Greeks, in the Serbian battalion during the massacre, I have nothing to apologize for, these 12 Greeks were volunteers and not official Greek army, and the Greek state is chasing them. Michas argues that they were members of Chrysi Aygi, a neo-nazi party in Greece currently disbanded.

[Benjamin]

The system in the whole was supporting Serbs in their acts all the time. All supplies for Serbia were going through Greece breaking UN sanctions. Greece was sharing NATO classified information with Serbs.

[noemon]

Greece was quite open about her support to Serbia, during that time, and it is no secret anywhere, nor has it been denied by myself or any other in here.

[Benjamin]

Noemon, inside this thread you have tried to represent Greece as a moral authority. You said like your country was protesting against the bombings of Serbia, just like you protested against the war in Georgia. Those are not facts. Your country is far from being a moral authority. You supported Serbs only cause they were Ortodox Christians fighting against some Muslims. That's the only reason.

I made a single mistake, missunderstood your comment about FYR of Macedonia. You claimed in this thread that someone attacked Greece twice in the recent past. Who the hell that is?

About tactics, in your last post you accepted the fact that Greece has openly supported Serbs. In the post before you have denied it saying: "I have nothing to apologize for, these 12 Greeks were volunteers and not official Greek army, and the Greek state is chasing them.", minimizing the whole issue.

Anyway, my point is that many of your posts in this thread do not correspond with the facts. You have supported Serbs. Fine, no problems. But it's not ok to represent your country as a moral authority like you did in here.

[noemon]

Noemon, inside this thread you have tried to represent Greece as a moral authority. You said like your country was protesting against the bombings of Serbia, just like you protested against the war in Georgia. Those are not facts. Your country is far from being a moral authority. You supported Serbs only cause they were Ortodox Christians fighting against some Muslims. That's the only reason.

The fact is that we did not take double-standards and support the Russian block in Georgia. Our official policy is drawn by the same lines. In both cases, Greece supported status qvo and legally recognized borders, not which superpower stands behind each. And that is a major distinction in international relations.

I made a single mistake, missunderstood your comment about FYR of Macedonia. You claimed in this thread that someone attacked Greece twice in the recent past. Who the hell that is?

Why dont you, quote, instead of posting innuendo?

About tactics, in your last post you accepted the fact that Greece has openly supported Serbs. In the post before you have denied it saying: "I have nothing to apologize for, these 12 Greeks were volunteers and not official Greek army, and the Greek state is chasing them.", minimizing the whole issue.

What is that exactly that you are unable to make out?

Greece did not participate in the massacre, and these 12 Greeks that did, are chased by the Greek state. Greece did help Serbia quite openly during that time, but this does not make the Greeks responsible for the Serbian War Crimes. It is not mutually inclusive.

Anyway, my point is that many of your posts in this thread do not correspond with the facts. You have supported Serbs. Fine, no problems. But it's not ok to represent your country as a moral authority like you did in here.

The only allegation of all the crap you posted, that might in some dimension hold some water, is the fact that Greece supported Serbia, and condemned the NATOic attack, despite the fact that she participated in it later on. In the grander scheme of things that makes Greece close to Russia, but in the War in Georgia, Greece also condemned the Russian invasion, which shows that Greece is much more neutral than conceived by Doomhammer in the relevant post.

[Benjamin]

Noemon, you wouldn't be angry on USA if they have supported you in your goal to destroy Turkey. That's the fact. You're blaming them only cause they did not support you in the case of Cyprus and other issues that you have with Turks. Greek support of either Georgia or Russia in the recent conflict is irrelevant as it happened far away from Greece and is not directly influencing Greece in any way.

Greece is partially responsible for what hapened in former Yugoslavia, as Serbs have been recieving oil, weapons and other vital supplies through Greece. However, Greek political and intelectual establishment was aware of what was the Serbian purpose during the war.

Here is another link which shows how moral your country is: http://www.nytimes.com/specials/bosnia/ ... reece.html

[noemon]

Noemon, you wouldn't be angry on USA if they have supported you in your goal to destroy Turkey. That's the fact. You're blaming them only cause they did not support you in the case of Cyprus and other issues that you have with Turks. Greek support of either Georgia or Russia in the recent conflict is irrelevant as it happened far away from Greece and is not directly influencing Greece in any way.

Both Greeks and Turks have more than enough reasons to be skeptical of American hegemony. Greek support to Georgia is not irrelevant at all in the international stage. It indicates fence-sitting. And Greece does not sit according to a particular superpower status, most obviously.

edit:

Greece is partially responsible for what hapened in former Yugoslavia, as Serbs have been recieving oil, weapons and other vital supplies through Greece. However, Greek political and intelectual establishment was aware of what was the Serbian purpose during the war.

Ive already replied to this above.

[Rodion]

Thread purged.

Again.

I'm gonna pretend this is the first time I say this: stay on topic. Act like the other guy is a bot.

[Aekos]

Aekos, it just isn't true. There are around 42% of ethnic Montenegrins / Ortodox Christians in Montenegro. They have their own church which is unrecognized by both Serbia and Greece.

Uh, I don't think you're in a position to tell me what's true or not. I'm (half) Montenegrin, and I identify as a a Serb as all Montenegrins have had until the mid-20th century. Their "own" church is a farce. They've tried stealing Serbian Orthodox churches and have caused public protests and had to return the churches.

They are denying their rights, and only if they could, they would destroy them.

Sorry, but I don't even know why we argue with you, you're obviously racist against Serbs and Greeks. We want to destroy everyone in the region and reign supreme? Get real.

You supported Serbs only cause they were Ortodox Christians fighting against some Muslims. That's the only reason.

You don't understand the region. At all. It's not about religion, how many times do we have to say that?

Noemon, you wouldn't be angry on USA if they have supported you in your goal to destroy Turkey.

Beyond ridiculous.

To stay on topic, I'll say that the Orthodox church doesn't have an obligation to accept any separatist churches, especially ones with dubious authority and fringe support. The church in FYROM has had frequent conflicts with neighboring Orthodox churches, and imo it needs to be a team player before it can be considered for recognition.