EU's "Exit from History" - a new meaning to the term "Old Europe"

[Heresson]

A society creates the state, and has the right to protect its identitu

[Kuciwalker]

Society has no rights. Individuals have rights.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Heresson
because they are not only becoming a part of the state, but also a part of the society

Well, then, if they don't become part of society, society doesn't have to deal with them.

[Heresson]

The problem is that they do become a part of another society when they migrate to a country.
And society has rights. A right to create laws by means of the state. Also immigration laws, kucyku.

[Kuciwalker]

Society doesn't have any rights. Individuals have rights. Society only has "rights" to the extent that the individuals that make up that society exercise them as members of that society.

And why shouldn't they form their own society?

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
just like the majority of the historians believe that there was a genocide by turks on armenians.

Spain was powerfull but the real power was in the middle east. after 1700 or so it was equal till 1750 when west europe gained the upper hand.

Tomcat, the assertion that the majority of historians think like that is not true. There's a good number of historians including Bernard Lewis who make it clear that to claim the tragedies of 1915 can be dubbed as 'genocide' is wrong. There's no overall academic consensus on the issue. Anybody who thinks he has the definite opinion on the matter should keep this firmly in mind.

Heresson: Turkish nationalist armies utterly defeated the army of the nascent Armenian state after the first world war before the Soviets moved in to occupy it. If Turks had such diabolic designs on the Armenian race, they could do it then and there. And no, during all the turnoil in 1915, Armenians elsewhere in the empire were not subject to wholesale and systematic massacre as you suggest.

[Ancyrean]

Can anybody tell me what they mean by 'assimilation' or 'fitting in'? What's the European conception of how should a good immigrant behave when they arrive in Europe??

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I personally expect a new baby boom (albeit not one as radical as the one in the 40ies) in Europe before the crap really hits the fan. People will one day understand they'll need children to pay for their retirement, and politicians will one day understand that a natalist policy is extremely important to the continent's future.

A grand opening of the immigration gates would be a terrible blow to social cohesion across Europe altogether. We need time to integrate / assimilate immigrants in our societies, and we have mucho trouble already. The strength of Le Pen, Vlaams Blok, Haider, Pim Fortuyn etc. are symptoms of these difficulties.

You might try not being to bound to the loaf of bread under the arm image of a Frenchman.

You could relax and welcome other peoples and cultures, and not try to ban them based on a 200 year old national fulcrum.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson

[q]they lost hungary cause of the poles attacking then from behind while they were under protection by the ottoman empire and the tartar leader who was supposed to guard the rear left.[q/]

Who was under protection of the Ottoman Empire? Poland?

He means that starting from as late as 1672 (with Treaty of Buczacz, in addition to ceding Podolia to Ottomans) Poland was paying tribute the Ottomans. However during the siege of Vienna, the Polish army unexpectedly arrived on the scene and caused havoc on the besieging Ottomans by attacking their exposed rear, which, combined with the German reinforcements arriving shortly thereafter, had the effect of routing the entire Ottoman army totally. His reference to Tartars is that at a crucial moment in the battle they abandoned the Ottoman ranks, hastening its demise.

Ottomans were never able to put together a fighting force of such strength as they brought before the walls of Vienna (estimated to be numbering between 250.000-300.000, far larger than any army on a European battlefield since the Roman times maybe even before).

The net result of all of this, as you also referred to, is after fighting a losing battle for 16 years against a coalition of European powers, Ottomans signed the Treaty of Karlowitz of 1699, by which they lost Hungary once and for all, and never recovered into a position of strength with regard to Europeans.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Society doesn't have any rights. Individuals have rights. Society only has "rights" to the extent that the individuals that make up that society exercise them as members of that society.

And why shouldn't they form their own society?

I completely agree. About the only thing a society might justifiably demand of such immigrants is respect for the law and perhaps an effort to learn at least one local language. Asking any more quicky begins to infringe on the immigrant's personal liberties.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I completely agree. About the only thing a society might justifiably demand of such immigrants is respect for the law and perhaps an effort to learn at least one local language. Asking any more quicky begins to infringe on the immigrant's personal liberties.

The same You can say that demanding the knowledge of the official language is against the immigrant's personal liberties.

Originally posted by Ancyrean

He means that starting from as late as 1672 (with Treaty of Buczacz, in addition to ceding Podolia to Ottomans) Poland was paying tribute the Ottomans.

The parliament refused to ratify the Buczacz treaty, and Poland managed to built enough big army to defeat Turks willing to punish her for that at Chocim and the general who did that became the new king. Also, earlier an alliance between Poland and Austria has been signed.
Turkey was at this time proud enough to think Poland was its fief and to treat its own illusions as reality. That's proven to be a strategical mistake, that's all

Ottomans were never able to put together a fighting force of such strength as they brought before the walls of Vienna (estimated to be numbering between 250.000-300.000, far larger than any army on a European battlefield since the Roman times maybe even before).

Quantity is not quality

The net result of all of this, as you also referred to, is after fighting a losing battle for 16 years against a coalition of European powers, Ottomans signed the Treaty of Karlowitz of 1699, by which they lost Hungary once and for all, and never recovered into a position of strength with regard to Europeans.

That was only the end of temporary Turkish revival under visier Koprulu dinasty, as long as I can remember.

Bernard Lewis who make it clear that to claim the tragedies of 1915 can be dubbed as 'genocide' is wrong.

It's a discussion whether it should be called genocide or massacre only, not if the massacre took place

Heresson: Turkish nationalist armies utterly defeated the army of the nascent Armenian state after the first world war before the Soviets moved in to occupy it.

Nope, Turks didn't manage to take Erewan.

And no, during all the turnoil in 1915, Armenians elsewhere in the empire were not subject to wholesale and systematic massacre as you suggest.

I do not say it was completely systematic.
But listen; I know people who themselves had to flee from Urfa region. Both are my Arabic teachers. One is ha;f-Armenian, half-Syrian, though his mother tongue is Turkish; his family, according to him, managed to escape, because they were enough rich to buy safety.
Another is Syrian, though having Armenian grandpa; part of his family was killed, the rest fled south.
Armenians in Cilicia and Halab regions were deported too.
And there was a massacre of Armenians in Baku and probably in other cities too

The fact is that, aside from Constantinople, there are no Armenians left anywhere in Turkey.
I don't think Turkey really wanted to exterminate Armenians just because they were Armenian, just because they were christian.
Armenians were dangerous to Turkish posession of Armenia, just like earlier Greeks or Bulgarians were. Turkey knew that she could lose these grounds, if Armenians continued to live there. So it decided to get rid of them - it's rather an ethnical clearing than a genocide and originally Armenians were just supposed to be transported elsewhere. But I guess it got a bit out of control, if Armenians were, and they were, attacked elsewhere.
It wasn't the first masssacre of Armenians in Ottoman Empire anyway.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Geronimo


About the only thing a society might justifiably demand of such immigrants is respect for the law and perhaps an effort to learn at least one local language. Asking any more quicky begins to infringe on the immigrant's personal liberties.

Nobody is supposed not to be aware of the law; this is stated by the law as a logical consequence of the state of law, otherwise, the law would be defeated by the excuse that one does not know the law. This obligation entails the obligation to learn effectively the language, not only to make efforts. This has nothing to do with the personal liberties on the basis of which the prior decision to emigrate was made.

[tomcat ha]

Actually most armenians fleed cause of fearing that the turks would massacre them after the horrible things the some armenians did.

Attacking a army from behind when totally not expecting it is a very good way to destroy a army no matter how strong.

Still after 1699 they were still a world power.

[kronic]

If it wasn't putting that much pressure on our welfare system I wouldn't care about population decline. But what I don't care about is whether Germany or Europe can project more or less power in the world.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Actually most armenians fleed cause of fearing that the turks would massacre them after the horrible things the some armenians did.

How can one actually believe such idiotic propaganda?
Over a million people fled from their homeland on their free will, leaving towns they inhabited for over 2 thousand years, because they had an irrational probably according to You fear Turks will do harm to them because of alleged atrocities commited by some of them?
If they had enough determination that - according to You - they have done horrible stuff there, they would have enough determination to stay there, and fight, or just remain on these lands...
The same You can claim Albanians fled Kosovo because they were afraid that Serbs would massacre them for the "horrible things some of them did"
The same You could claim Jews fled from German army approaching, because " of fearing that the Germans would massacre them after the horrible things the some of them did"

Attacking a army from behind when totally not expecting it is a very good way to destroy a army no matter how strong.

Partisant activity You may consider wrong, but it's no reason to massacre hungreds of thousands and expel the rest