[Atlantis]

So, conquering and looting is alright as long as we claim that it's done in the name of Allah? This really isn't funny anymore. The scary thing is that Turks seem to buy into this BS. Did they smoke out Bagdhadi just for Erdogan to follow in his footsteps?

On August 26, 2020, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave a speech at Manzikert National Park in Turkey at an event celebrating the 949th anniversary of the Battle of Manzikert. He said that for Turkey, conquest is not occupation or looting. Rather, he said that it removes oppression and brings Allah's justice to the conquered region. He said that Turkey will claim its right in the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black seas, that it will do whatever is necessary politically or militarily, that it will never cede any of its territory, and that its patience, capabilities, or courage are not to be tested. He added: "If there is anyone who wants to stand against us and pay the price, let them come."

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: "In our civilization, conquest is not occupation or looting. It is establishing the dominance of the justice that Allah commanded in the [conquered] region.

[...]

"First of all, our nation removed the oppression from the areas that it conquered. It established justice. This is why our civilization is one of conquest.

[...]

"Turkey will take what is its right in the Mediterranean Sea, in the Aegean Sea, and in the Black Sea. Just as we are not eyeing the soil, sovereignty, or interests of anyone else, we will never give any concession from ours. This is why we are determined to do whatever is necessary politically, economically, or militarily. We invite our interlocutors to put themselves in order and stay away from mistakes that will open the way for them to be destroyed.

[...]

"We want everyone to see that Turkey is no longer a country whose patience is to be tried or whose determination, capabilities, and courage are to be tested. If we say we'll do it, then we will. And we will pay the price.

[...]

"If there is anyone who wants to stand against us and pay the price, let them come. If not, let them get out of our way, and we will see to our own business.

[...]

"And what did [Turkish poet] Yahya Kemal say? In the spirit of the armies here: 'This storm breaking out is the Turkish army, oh Lord! The army that dies for your sake is this one, oh Lord! May your renowned and strengthened name be raised up with the calls to prayer! Make us the victor, because this is the last army of Islam!"

[Istanbuller]

So, conquering and looting is alright as long as we claim that it's done in the name of Allah? This really isn't funny anymore. The scary thing is that Turks seem to buy into this BS. Did they smoke out Bagdhadi just for Erdogan to follow in his footsteps?

You just buy it by watching highly edited videos on the internet.

Erdoğan was talking at the annual event of 949th anniversary of Battle of Manzikert. It is am important milestone in Turkish history. It is mostly accepted as first Turkish entrance to Asia Minor.

Also why would someone be annoyed by God's justice? These people are devout people. I see you are not into it.

[Rugoz]

Confirming the world's prejudices about Muslims, way to go Erdowahn.

Also why would someone be annoyed by God's justice? These people are devout people. I see you are not into it.

You mean the "justice" of a bloodthirsty pedophile that lived a millenia ago.

[Patrickov]

Erdoğan was talking at the annual event of 949th anniversary of Battle of Manzikert. It is am important milestone in Turkish history. It is mostly accepted as first Turkish entrance to Asia Minor.

Also why would someone be annoyed by God's justice? These people are devout people. I see you are not into it.

While I fully understand that denouncing the said conquest would destroy Turkish legitimacy to even live in Asia Minor, I really don't think glorifying it is a good idea.

The Turks have been here for almost a millennium and they had (relatively) recently repelled an attempt of re-conquest by Greece, both of which already gave sufficient legitimacy for the Turks to be around.

Turkey is already larger than Greece several times in size, for Allah's sake. Implying they are justified to do more is itself a very unjustified statement.

You have a problem similar to Chinese Wumao here.

[Atlantis]

While I fully understand that denouncing the said conquest would destroy Turkish legitimacy to even live in Asia Minor, I really don't think glorifying it is a good idea.

The Ottomans were a nomad people like the Mongols. They arouse when the last of the Mongol Empires collapsed in the 15th century probably from much of the same ethnic stock that constituted the Mongol hordes. The Ottoman conquest of the Arab world retarded Arab culture just like the Mongol and Manchu conquests of China retarded Chinese culture. As a warlike nomad people they conquered culturally more advanced peoples. Instead of advancing the cultures they conquered, they invested all their efforts into consolidating their hold on the conquered people.

During all this time, the Ottomans had access to European science and technology without ever learning to profit from it. The cannons build by Hungarian engineers for the siege of Constantinople were still used by the Ottomans against the British 3 centuries later without any improvement whatsoever. They even prohibited the introduction of book printing, which had led to a surge of learning during the European Renaissance.

In all those years, they have learnt nothing. Today, Erdogan is again suffocating Turkish culture by persecuting the most talented intellectuals, driving them in internal or external exile, and replacing them by dimwitted apparatchiks. Erdogan wants to replace the teaching of evolution at school with the teachings of jihadism. They are their own worst enemy.

They should go back to where they came from and do with the goats whatever it is they do with the goats.

[Istanbuller]

Confirming the world's prejudices about Muslims, way to go Erdowahn.



You mean the "justice" of a bloodthirsty pedophile that lived a millenia ago.

Your comment made me realize that you don't know anything about religion. Firstly, Prophet Muhammad is not God. He is the envoy of God. Secondly, your language is very provoking. You are not in a position to discuss anything about Islam and prophet with that faulty language. Your ignorance makes you look like a complete idiot.

While I fully understand that denouncing the said conquest would destroy Turkish legitimacy to even live in Asia Minor, I really don't think glorifying it is a good idea.

The Turks have been here for almost a millennium and they had (relatively) recently repelled an attempt of re-conquest by Greece, both of which already gave sufficient legitimacy for the Turks to be around.

Turkey is already larger than Greece several times in size, for Allah's sake. Implying they are justified to do more is itself a very unjustified statement.

You have a problem similar to Chinese Wumao here.

What do you want us to do? Giving up our rights and bow to other countries? Does "defending your country's rights" equal to being "a ultra-nationalist"?

The day you give up defending Hong Kong's rights against China, I will give defending Turkey's rights at the same time.

In all those years, they have learnt nothing. Today, Erdogan is again suffocating Turkish culture by persecuting the most talented intellectuals, driving them in internal or external exile, and replacing them by dimwitted apparatchiks. Erdogan wants to replace the teaching of evolution at school with the teachings of jihadism. They are their own worst enemy.

They should go back to where they came from and do with the goats whatever it is they do with the goats.

Your comment is utter nonsense.

You suddenly become anti-Turkish because Erdogan made you all look stupid. Americans do not take your seriously anymore. Russians do not take seriously either. Merkel and Macron are downgraded at world politics stage.

Turkey have better relations with both America and Russia. Erdoğan mastered Turkey's decades old balanced foreign policy strategies. It is something that you will never be able to reach.

[Patrickov]

The day you give up defending Hong Kong's rights against China, I will give defending Turkey's rights at the same time.

As I said, you behave like a Wumao, because you rally for the big buy.

I already said that Turkey is big enough that it is not bowing to other countries even if they don't assert the rights we are talking about.

It is an insult for you to even compare yourself with our kind.

[Patrickov]

They should go back to where they came from and do with the goats whatever it is they do with the goats.

Hell no. China and Mongolia are already very crowded.

[Deutschmania]

@Istanbuller said ,

Your comment made me realize that you don't know anything about religion. Firstly, Prophet Muhammad is not God. He is the envoy of God. Secondly, your language is very provoking. You are not in a position to discuss anything about Islam and prophet with that faulty language. Your ignorance makes you look like a complete idiot.

While I do not agree with @Rugoz 's inflammatory rhetoric , it is via al Rasullah ( the Prophet of Allah ) that we are supposed to come to know what the word , and ways of the Lord God is supposed to be . As Revelator , Muhammed serves as a reflection upon the very character of Allah , for worse as well as for better , fair or not .

What do you want us to do? Giving up our rights and bow to other countries? Does "defending your country's rights" equal to being "a ultra-nationalist"?

The day you give up defending Hong Kong's rights against China, I will give defending Turkey's rights at the same time.

First off , no nation should be advancing its interests at the expense of other people . Hitler , as a pan-German nationalist was wrong to infringe upon those such as the Jews , and Erdogan , as a pan-Turkish nationalist , is wrong to infringe upon those such as the Kurds . Secondly, your remark regarding Hong Kong constitutes a type of whataboutism . If @Patrickov were an advocate of reviving the Chinese Empire , and subjugating such minorities that are not ethnic Han Chinese https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_China , it might arguably be comparable . But as far as I know , he does not advocate such an outcome . Erdogan however , as I understand it , favors both Turkic unity , and Islamic supremacy . https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/08/10/erdogans-neo-ottoman-aspirations-inspire-islamists-and-endanger-world-peace/ , https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2020/07/20/The-law-of-the-sword-of-Turkey-s-neo-sultan-Erdogan

[Atlantis]

First off , no nation should be advancing its interests at the expense of other people . Hitler , as a pan-German nationalist was wrong to infringe upon those such as the Jews , and Erdogan , as a pan-Turkish nationalist , is wrong to infringe upon those such as the Kurds

The root cause of all problems is excessive greed as manifested in imperialism and monopoly-capitalism. Imperialism is an excessive form of nationalism that attempts to impose its will on other people. Wannabe imperialists like Turkey and Russia are just as bad as the current American imperialists and the future Chinese imperialists. Past imperialists like the Brits and French are just deluded.

The EU is a Union of small and medium sized countries united to defend against imperialism. As such, the EU is the only true defender of anti-imperialism.

[Patrickov]

The EU is a Union of small and medium sized countries united to defend against imperialism. As such, the EU is the only true defender of anti-imperialism.

Erm... you sure France and Germany aren't imperialism wannabes?

In fact I heard some people believing EU as an imperialism tool for Germany...

(Although I like Germany enough that I wouldn't see it a bad thing)

[Atlantis]

In fact I heard some people British imperialists believing EU as an imperialism tool for Germany...

There, fixed that for you.

The imperialists will of course accuse others to cover their own crimes.

Ask yourself what constitutes imperialism! From known examples we know that:

1. Erdogan changed Turkish parliamentary democracy into a presidential system in which the president has wide powers to pursue imperialist policies with military missions in neighboring countries.

2. The US has an "imperial presidency" to pursue imperialist military missions abroad.

3. France and Russia have presidential systems to pursue imperialist policies.

4. The UK has a two-party system to allow a majority government pursue imperialist policies (the UK can't have an imperial president because of the Monarchy).

5. Xi Jinping is increasing the powers of the presidency in order to consolidate China's influence in the world.

6. One of the first things Hitler did was to abolish Germany's federal structure it inherited from the HRE to build a centrally governed state capable of pursuing imperialist policies.

What does that tell you? Imperialism needs a strong central decision-making organ to dispatch troops abroad at short notice in order to pursue imperialist policies. That is an indispensable feature of imperialism. Imperialism is not the intention expressed by this or that leader. Imperialism is enshrined in the very constitution of a state.

Germany like the EU has federal structures that prevent imperial policies. A coalition government of 3 or more parties, or an EU commission of 27 countries cannot pursue imperialist policies. The German federal republic and the EU are consensus-based organisation that make imperial policies impossible. For example: Merkel had to create a consensus in her party for a refugee policy, then she had to create a consensus between her CDU and the CSU, then she had to create a consensus between CDU/CSU and the SPD coalition partner. Then she had to create a consensus with the Green party to get an agreement in the Bundesrat upper house, then she had to create a consensus with 27 sovereign states in Brussels. Yet, after 5 years and Germany agreeing to take most refugees, a number of member states are still digging in their heels. But Germany is dictating EU policies ... I mean get real.

The British imperialists know this because they accuse the EU of being the Fourth Reich while at the same time mocking the EU's lengthy decision-making processes. Deviousness is 2nd nature to the Perfidious Albion. That's why they are so good at the imperialist divide and conquer game.

[Patrickov]

There, fixed that for you.

The imperialists will of course accuse others to cover their own crimes.

China is the worst offender, since they like to accuse others of "intervening in internal matters" when they actively do so (Look at the HK National Security Law to see how, in theory, anyone in the world can be persecuted. They can make anybody Julian Assange if they want to)

Ask yourself what constitutes imperialism! From known examples we know that:

1. Erdogan changed Turkish parliamentary democracy into a presidential system in which the president has wide powers to pursue imperialist policies with military missions in neighboring countries.

2. The US has an "imperial presidency" to pursue imperialist military missions abroad.

3. France and Russia have presidential systems to pursue imperialist policies.

4. The UK has a two-party system to allow a majority government pursue imperialist policies (the UK can't have an imperial president because of the Monarchy).

5. Xi Jinping is increasing the powers of the presidency in order to consolidate China's influence in the world.

6. One of the first things Hitler did was to abolish Germany's federal structure it inherited from the HRE to build a centrally governed state capable of pursuing imperialist policies.

What does that tell you? Imperialism needs a strong central decision-making organ to dispatch troops abroad at short notice in order to pursue imperialist policies. That is an indispensable feature of imperialism. Imperialism is not the intention expressed by this or that leader. Imperialism is enshrined in the very constitution of a state.

Germany like the EU has federal structures that prevent imperial policies. A coalition government of 3 or more parties, or an EU commission of 27 countries cannot pursue imperialist policies. The German federal republic and the EU are consensus-based organisation that make imperial policies impossible. For example: Merkel had to create a consensus in her party for a refugee policy, then she had to create a consensus between her CDU and the CSU, then she had to create a consensus between CDU/CSU and the SPD coalition partner. Then she had to create a consensus with the Green party to get an agreement in the Bundesrat upper house, then she had to create a consensus with 27 sovereign states in Brussels. Yet, after 5 years and Germany agreeing to take most refugees, a number of member states are still digging in their heels. But Germany is dictating EU policies ... I mean get real.

The British imperialists know this because they accuse the EU of being the Fourth Reich while at the same time mocking the EU's lengthy decision-making processes. Deviousness is 2nd nature to the Perfidious Albion. That's why they are so good at the imperialist divide and conquer game.

For your interest I am a British Imperialism advocate.

Point 3 already proved the correctness of my question. (I asked "you sure France and Germany aren't imperialism wannabes?")

France have the heart, but in terms of implementation Germany has the greatest potential. Again, given them being corrected by others so many times if there can be a "good imperialistic country" Germany will be it.

Just curious... are you German?

[JohnRawls]

Erm... you sure France and Germany aren't imperialism wannabes?

In fact I heard some people believing EU as an imperialism tool for Germany...

(Although I like Germany enough that I wouldn't see it a bad thing)

EU is complicated.

The initial idea for the EU was that it will be:

1) Unifying force to prevent war.

2) Internal market.

Over the years, the ideas morphed a bit to become an ever closer union of sorts. But in the middle of it all there was a bit of a change to the 2 ideas above. Basically several more things were added for practical reasons:

3) Internally EU is a protectionist entity that defends the internal market from foreign abuse of sorts.

4) Externally EU is a globalist and ever expanding trade zone.

Eu does not engage in imperealism though if you don't consider the expanding trade agreements as imperealist influence which is a stretch. When we talk about imperealism then usually it is the member countries like France or Britain that we talk about. EU can be connected to this in a sense that if Britain and France have problems in this regard then they obviously can way their influence inside of the EU to get support for something from other member states. Same goes if something goes wrong.

[Skynet]

You mean the "justice" of a bloodthirsty pedophile that lived a millenia ago.

Pedophile? According to Quran she was 16.

Therfore the conference of Islamabad set the minimum age at 16 for marriage. In Vatican State you are 13 an adult.


Childprostitution occurs even in the richest countries with a strong state

[Atlantis]

@Patrickov, you didn't understand what I wrote, but since you are a self-confessed imperialist, that is not surprising.

Answer me this, what is the value of imperialism for small countries like Lithuania or Bulgaria? They don't have a chance of building their own empire. Their choice is

1) to become a vassal state or

2) to unite with other such countries to defend their sovereignty against imperial powers.

This is not a difficult choice unless you have masochistic tendencies.

Imperialists are on the wrong side of history.

[Patrickov]

This is not a difficult choice unless you have masochistic tendencies.

Hong Kong flourishes under British rule but keeps deteriorating under Chinese rule.

Even you are not in approval of China yourself.

Period.