 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by laurentius
Maybe so, but I find discussion about current members past crimes irrelevant to this discussion about whether we should accept Turkey in. |
But fundamentally, if France, Spain or Britain weren't member-States, and applied today, would you oppose their entry?
Please don't say "this question is irrelevant". Please answer. These countries have done crimes probably worse than Turkey's in the same timeframe, and never significantly atoned for them, just like Turkey. Do you think they'd deserve to be in the EU less than Lybia or Tunisia?
quote:
I said if they would meet the criteria. At the moment they dont and I never said they did. |
But why would you (basically) eternally exclude Turkey, even if it met the criteria? Turkey will likely meet the criteria much sooner than the others bar Israel.
quote:
Anyway Israel and Palestinians might be finding a solution soon, so another obstacle from their membership might be gone soon. |
So do the Turks in Cyprus. The ones who made an obstacle to the peace agreement in Cyprus were the Greek Cypriots.
quote:
Sure and I appreciate you opinion. In fact I thank you for the first matter-of-fact comments so far made by anyone. Again, i know I'm repeating myself here but the subject at hand is Turkey, not Spain, not France, not UK, but Turkey. So lets talk Turkey who wants to be in not the current members who we cant throw out just like that. |
Yes, but the problem with your argument, is that you reject Turkey on some grounds, but you wouldn't reject any other country on the same grounds. This means that you are singling out Turkey. It looks like you oppose Turkey not for the reasons of principle you have mentioned (democracy, human rights, history), but because it is Turkey.
quote:
Tunisia and Libya were included because of the sophistication of those societies. They have problems, they dont meet the criteria yet, but their problems with democracy can be solved as well as anyones. Neighbouring Algerias, Moroccos or Egypts problems are of a whole other magnitude. Dont you agree? |
I don't know anything about Lybian society, so I can't tell. From those I met (in Germany), the Turks are quite "Europeans" in the meaning that they are acceptably tolerant, treat women like human beings, etc. True, those are urban expat students I'm talking about. But in comparison with some other nationalities from the same milieu, they were quite progressively minded.
quote:
I dont hate Islam, I dont hate the Turks as a people. I only hate the mindset in Turkey atm and the official denial they live in. So please stop all this racist bullshit. OK? |
OK, but please make more explicit what you call the "mindset in Tukey atm". I don't know what that is.
quote:
What does the american indians or blacks rights have to do with Turkeys membership in the EU!?
Cant you at least try to keep this on topic? |
It IS the topic! You pretend that Turkey is unacceptable because of its horrible history. I mention that some of our members have a horrible history on their own, but it's somehow irrelevant. You only apply your principles to Turkey, but do not apply them to anybody else.
This means that you don't want Turkey to be in, and rationalize this opposition afterwards, by using arguments you would never use about any other country. I believed I could find another explanation, but I actually couldn't.
Care to enlighten me? Why should a dark history be relevant to Turkey's membership in the EU, but irrelevant for any other country?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by laurentius
The thing many of you dont seem to get is that while Spain, England, Belgium, France and many other EU member states have committed atrocities in the past, they are already members and so they are irrelevant to what we are discussing here, wich is; Why shouldnt Turkey be let in.
The only thing we should be focusing here is what Turkey has done, since its is the one wanting to be a member. |
Your statement begs the question, what moral power do you have to judge others for their "past atrocities" when you did not apply the same scrutiny for your existing members?
quote:
Where have I overlooked at the atrocities of the current members btw?I'm pro basque nation, I'm pro united Ireland and I think Frnace should apologise Algerians. I dont over look anything Mr. I just think those issues are irrelevant ot the matter at hand. |
Then what makes you not adopt the same concerned attitude after the Turks are in, and be pro-Kurdish then? The answer lies in the fact that such statements so far are a smoke screen for what you really have in mind, which is so totaly unrelated with the EU in general:
quote:
Calling city names barbaric is part of my personal vendetta against the barbarisation of Greaco-Roman heritage in general. Non-constructive? Maybe, but I would like to see latin as EUs lingua franca too. Thats again just my wish. Turkey being the target here only because their hypoctitical way of making money with other peoples past while having destroyed the places and killed the people themselves. |
Your personal vendetta against what?? Turkey's EU membership is not about anybody's personal vendettas for historical might-have-beens. The European project was exactly designed to prevent the very kind of habits of keeping historical hatreds alive, of which you have unwittingly displayed a brilliant example.
Your examples are only as consistent. How many of the Roman cities on the north african coast (where some prospective members exist according to your selectiveness) remain the same? How many cities in Britain? France? Or should we hate France for not calling Paris Lutetia? Vienna as Vindebona? But no, since they are already EU members, this is irrelevant, according to you.
And what about this statement about making money on whatever? You mean, Turks adverrtise about ancient Greek and Roman cities as touristic highlights in the face of the fact that they do not directly descent from those who built these. So for any country to open its historical sites to tourism, they have to be direct descendants and God forbid not be conquerors of those places? That's what I can fathom from your statement.
Europe suffered enough from this kind of senseless romanticism for the past, and you can still get out of it. You can admire the ancent Greece and Rome and not have a personal vendetta against Turkey at the same time. It is possible, others have done it; so can you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
laurentius
|
 |
Helsinki, Finland
Jun 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Care to enlighten me? Why should a dark history be relevant to Turkey's membership in the EU, but irrelevant for any other country? |
Again, this is not something I said. Any applicant to EU meets just the same criteria as Turkey. What I said was that the talk about how some of the current member states have dark pasts is irrelevant to Turkeys membership. You talk about crimes done against native americans and black people. Well, hello, USA is not the issue here. As far as I know they have yet to file their membership application. But since you asked. Yeah I'm outraged about them, I would be happy to help the native american tribes gain full independence from USA if they wish or atleast get their lands back.
To me the issue here right now is Turkey and Turkey alone. Its the one on trial here.
quote:
But fundamentally, if France, Spain or Britain weren't member-States, and applied today, would you oppose their entry?
Please don't say "this question is irrelevant". Please answer. These countries have done crimes probably worse than Turkey's in the same timeframe, and never significantly atoned for them, just like Turkey. Do you think they'd deserve to be in the EU less than Lybia or Tunisia?
|
I indeed would. I would oppose to the UKs entry before Northern Ireland questions is solved or Basques have what belongs to them. The same rules apply to every new member. Unfortenately when those nations joined the Union the standards were different since the Union was more of a politico-economical alliance of the West to counter the Soviet bloc. The Unions has changed remarkably after that though and its new standards include respect for certain things.
quote:
But why would you (basically) eternally exclude Turkey, even if it met the criteria? Turkey will likely meet the criteria much sooner than the others bar Israel.
|
Eternally? I said "not soon if ever". That is only my pessimistic vision of them meeting the criteria. I'm much more optimistic about Isreal solving their problems tan seeing Turkey withdrawing from Cyprus. This is maybe something we disagree on.
quote:
So do the Turks in Cyprus. The ones who made an obstacle to the peace agreement in Cyprus were the Greek Cypriots.
|
No. Turkey still illegally occupies the Northern part of the Island. Why should the Greeks accept that illegal occupation?
quote:
Yes, but the problem with your argument, is that you reject Turkey on some grounds, but you wouldn't reject any other country on the same grounds. This means that you are singling out Turkey. It looks like you oppose Turkey not for the reasons of principle you have mentioned (democracy, human rights, history), but because it is Turkey.
|
While I may not be very sympathetic to Turkey I dont single them out or discriminate them. Such allegations are nonsense, and I proved them false earlier.
quote:
OK, but please make more explicit what you call the "mindset in Tukey atm". I don't know what that is.
|
From what I have gathered its much like the one in USA atm. Its easier to believe the official lies and pretend innocent that confront the reality.
quote:
It IS the topic! You pretend that Turkey is unacceptable because of its horrible history. I mention that some of our members have a horrible history on their own, but it's somehow irrelevant. You only apply your principles to Turkey, but do not apply them to anybody else.
This means that you don't want Turkey to be in, and rationalize this opposition afterwards, by using arguments you would never use about any other country. I believed I could find another explanation, but I actually couldn't.
country? |
Again things done by already members or third nations are totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion. The same rules apply to everyone, unfortenately they havent always been the same.
You are right in one thing though. I dont want Turkey in EU this day, this time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Is Finland the most xenophobic country in Europe?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by laurentius
Dont be stupid. Of course we are not. (Why am I replying to trolls) |
You don't have any foreigners in Finland, you're a closed country anyway, and you get more from EU budget than you pay into it.
So what is the explanation for your stances?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by laurentius
Spif, Do I now make any sense? |
Yup.
I strongly disagree with your arguments, but they are indeed not racist. You have made it clear that you would apply the same principles to other countries if the question was relevant, so it's not like you're singling out Turkey. As such, your argument doesn't look anymore like: "I hate Turkey for a reason I better not reveal openly, and I'll rationalize it with arguments that would hit other countries harder".
Nonetheless, I think the prospect of EU entry is the main motivation as to why the Turks will work out on pretty much everything you say, except the "US-like" mentality and their view of history, for they are no entrence criteria. So I think the prospect of letting Turkey join the EU (and the eventual adhesion, because I don't like to mislead millions) is a seriously positive push. That's why I would accept Turkey's entry in a heartbeat, once the time is right*.
*Note also that I oppose the entrance of any new member, even a non-controversial one like Switzerland or Norway, until we have a more efficient decision-system, where the supranational layer has more power than the intergovernmental layer.
Such institutional arrangement will also weed out those who want to join only for the money, and not for the commitment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:22
|
|
laurentius: Remember how you started your argument initially?
quote:
Because of the past crimes they have committed and still are. Occupation in Cyprus, killing and persecution of the Greeks, Armenians, Nestorians and Kurds. Converting Asia Minor to islam, destrying the byzantine and hellenic heritage, even raping the city names like Ephesos and Constantinople with barbaric Efes ans Istanbul. Disgusting respect for the right-wing, nationalistic, military dictator and creation of the modern Turkish semi-military dictatorship. The nation that gave us the Kebab. I just wouldnt want to see that nation in EU. |
and this:
quote:
If you read my post slow enough you will understand how it is the Turks who have been the greatest racists of them all. And since some of you dont know how Asia Minor was converted to islam. In the Ottoman era, the Turks snatched christian greek children from their prents and raised them to be muslim fundies. Not so nice eh. |
and this:
quote:
Calling city names barbaric is part of my personal vendetta against the barbarisation of Greaco-Roman heritage in general. Non-constructive? Maybe, but I would like to see latin as EUs lingua franca too. Thats again just my wish. Turkey being the target here only because their hypoctitical way of making money with other peoples past while having destroyed the places and killed the people themselves. |
But we need not worry, for in fact:
quote:
While I may not be very sympathetic to Turkey I dont single them out or discriminate them. Such allegations are nonsense, and I proved them false earlier. |
and
quote:
I dont hate Islam, I dont hate the Turks as a people. I only hate the mindset in Turkey atm and the official denial they live in. So please stop all this racist bullshit. OK? |
"State of denial" only becomes one when what's denied has some semblance of verity. Your statements are very strongly biased and hopelessly subjective, to say the least, as anyone who has a bit of knowledge about Turkey and Turkish history would attest.
What's more, despite your later corrective attempts, you certainly do give the impression to be talking out of sheer despise towards Turkey and the Turks (the nation that gave you the kebab). Or else I failed to see the love. 
Your further argument that certain rules should apply only to Turkey, despite the fact that in your own opinion there are existing members that do not fit the same rules (basque, northern ireland, etc etc), only makes your points more inconsistent, if not double-standarded. Also, for your information, the EU Commission found no gravity in the state and treatment of Kurds to prevent the start of accession talks with Turkey.
In light of all these, it's no surprise you may expect Ghaddafi's Libya to reach the EU standards before Turkey.
quote:
No. Turkey still illegally occupies the Northern part of the Island. Why should the Greeks accept that illegal occupation? |
The Turkish Cypriots voted for the UN plan which envisioned the unification of the island and removal of Turkish troops. If the Greek Cypiots voted yes, there would be no Turkish "occupation" to talk about. Unfortunately, a partnership arrangement in which Turks and Greeks are equal in the organisation of state was not acceptable to Greek Cypriots.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
 indeed.
Nilay Dorsa
Beautiful women.
I am not sure if this pic is ok, btw, so if they mods object this, or any of you guys, for that matter, pm me, and I'll remove it.
These pics, btw, represent the fact that turkey's society, even though I am sure has it's dose of prudes and chauvenists, is accepting sexuality more ( much like here ). I don't think that one will see these things in other muslim countries. For example from the same forum I got this pic, the next reply to the thread was:
"tupid idiot person, showing your country women in shameless manner, get a life." from a certain member from a middle east.
Sexuality
Prudes 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2005 21:32
|