Austrians say: either Croatia is in or we block Turkey

[Dinner]

Of all the Middle eastern food I think I like Lebanese food the best though it does seem to be heavily influenced by the French. Morroco also has great food.

[axi]

Actually, Turkey does not recognise the 10 mile Greek airspace, that's why it feels free to send planes over what it considers as international airspace.

Yet turkish planes have flown above islands (land) in many occasions. Isn't there any Greek airspace?

Turkey asserts that the Aegean, with its thousands of islands all over it, fits into the category of special cases

Special cases need special treaties, like there is a special international treaty about navigation in the Dardanelles. There is no such treaty about the Aegean, so ordinary sea law should apply.

Flight Information Region (FIR) is an arrangement to govern civilian air traffic. FIR lines around the world denote lines of responsibility for air controllers to guide and direct civillian aircraft.

That's why Turkey has issued a NOTAM requesting all civilian flights going through the eastern Aegean to submit flight plans to their controllers, as if it were their own FIR.

It goes more than that. Turkey claims that the arrangements and Treaties that govern the territorial division of the Aegean omit/does not cover small islets (many smalller than a football field, including Kardak/Imia) and as such those are gray areas in terms of anybody's sovereignty.

For unnamed islets, they're supposed to belong to the side who's known territory (islands, coasts) lies closer to the islet. Imia should belong to Greece if they are not in the treaties and are closer to Kalymnos than to the turkish coast, otherwise they should belong to Turkey.

Pheeewww!!!

At least we get to learn our geography better!

[Heresson]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Wernazuma.
You're mistaken, and the cause for that is, as I managed to see in the latter part of your point, that You think "germanisation" must be conducted by force. It doesn't have to be. When I say it got germanised I mean simply that it became German.
Now please re-read my post and apologise me

btw, I recalled that Klagenfurt/Celowiec is a partner city of a city my family comes from.

I wrote a longer reply to that, but it got lost due to a crash.

This part was meant to be biased, Catholicism is medieval in itself to me

Why so?
Btw, it's offensive for a half of the Christianity and a sixth part of the world population.

and when a nation seems to follow those values in a catholic nationalism, I consider it backwards.

Catholic nationalism is an oxymoron. Yup. there are people who do not understand that, but they are a minority.

Like banning abortion alltogether

You're badly informed. Abortion is not banned in every case. If the pregnancy was caused by a rape, or if it may cause a harm to the mother, it is allowed.
me, in fact I believe that in the first case, it shouldn't be allowed as well. It's not a fault of the child how it was conceived.

or censorship of artists for blasphemy.

There were two cases You probably mean by that.
One was a personal struggle between a radical party and director of one museum, and it had nothing to do with Polish law as far as I know. And it was not about a bisasfemy, as depicting a pope crushed with a metheorite perhaps is tasteless, but is not a biasphemy in itself.

The other case, which is more proper, is one in which an "artist" depicted a penis on a cross.
It's not art, it's a vulgar insult of something dear to a definite majority of population and yes, I think that if it shouldn't be banned, it should be condemned at least

I also think it's a shame that pedophile, antisemitic priests in Gdansk (Jankowski) can still have a huge following. I hope you get rid of the swine.

Mr Jankowski is a, uh, interesting personality.
He used to be a hero during communism times, and that's why He is so syupported by old ladies of his city I guess. After the end of it, He attempted to get a public interest focused on himself by various methods, antisemitic remarks were just one of them.
Yup, He's an antisemite.
With his paedophilia, it's not so obvious, though.
He seemed to be in too uh good relationships with the boys often present at his home, but there's no proof he's ever had sex with them. Also, they are of legal age, though one of them was not several years ago, and perhaps then...

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

The difference is that Turkey landed on Cyprus on the basis of the guarantee agreements that set up the Republic of Cyprus, after watching an organised effort to exile the Turks first from their constitutionally-assigned state positions, than phsically from their homes and villages, alongside with numerous attacks and killings that drew the infuriation of the whole world for 11 years. The island was taken over in 1974 by Greek Cypriot fascists who had a declared agenda to unite the island with Greece which is what triggered the guarantee clauses.

Whereas, in Armenia's case it was plain agression on a neighbour in the turmoil of the implosion of the USSR, pure and simple.

Not at all.
I'll not discuss the Cypriote case, but I assure You Azerbeycan Armenians felt the same persecuted as Cypriote Turks.
Also, while the creation of the republic of northern Cyprus was definitely due to Turkish action, it is not THAT obvious in Armenian-Karabach case.
Both Azerbeycan and Armenia were part of USSR, and if somebody lost more due to it, it was Armenia. It used to be the most technologically developed part of USSR, and what is it now?
Of all European and Europe-aspiring states, only Turkey seems to see Armenia as an agressor in this case.
Also, while Armenians are the original population of Karabach, and were a majority of clear area, Turkish population of Cyprus is not autochtonic, and it was, at least according to ethnical maps I've seen, not quite that centered in one place.

Firstly, Hatay border is not an international problem, it's Syria's unwillingness to come to peace with the fact of that province's union with Turkey some 70 years ago. Syrians themselves are careful not to rise it in any forum, let alone make it a foreign policy issue/priority.

You got the land a long time before, and I doubt a status of the land would ever change, and I don't think it should, nevertheless a case exists

Secondly, I don't think Turkey would veto Armenia's potential membership. It would on the contrary encourage it, as a fully democratic Armenia (unlike now) is to the benefit of everyone. It would be Armenia itself who'd have a hard time in withdrawing from Nagorno-Karabakh, in recognising both Turkey's and Azerbaijan's borders, and in saying goodbye to the Russians and their protection.

the question remains.
Why should Armenian Karabachians resign of their independance if Turkish Cypriotes do not?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
Wernazuma.
You're mistaken, and the cause for that is, as I managed to see in the latter part of your point, that You think "germanisation" must be conducted by force. It doesn't have to be. When I say it got germanised I mean simply that it became German.
Now please re-read my post and apologise me

Why should I? Even worse then, if anything German is so inherently bad for you that some region becoming "Germanized" through normal cultural developments is "unfortunate" even if nothing amoral happened.

Why so?
Btw, it's offensive for a half of the Christianity and a sixth part of the world population.

I'm sometimes much more offensive to even larger parts of humanity (namely muslims).
To me, Catholicism is offensive too. If Catholics say all divorced remarried people are condemned to hell, that's offensive to a large group too, don't you think? If Catholics (or any other religious group) basically says: "You bad, all go to hell" I consider it offensive. When I try to live a moral life and a, in many parts, rotten organization claims the sole morality, I consider it offensive.

Catholic nationalism is an oxymoron. Yup. there are people who do not understand that, but they are a minority.

Still, catholic nationalism is an important phenomenon. Maybe there are few who developed it to a theory and follow it ideologically, but it's an important force. Just as early modern Spain developed such a strong national identity through Catholicism.


You're badly informed. Abortion is not banned in every case. If the pregnancy was caused by a rape, or if it may cause a harm to the mother, it is allowed.
me, in fact I believe that in the first case, it shouldn't be allowed as well. It's not a fault of the child how it was conceived.

There were two cases You probably mean by that.
One was a personal struggle between a radical party and director of one museum, and it had nothing to do with Polish law as far as I know. And it was not about a bisasfemy, as depicting a pope crushed with a metheorite perhaps is tasteless, but is not a biasphemy in itself. The other case, which is more proper, is one in which an "artist" depicted a penis on a cross.
It's not art, it's a vulgar insult of something dear to a definite majority of population and yes, I think that if it shouldn't be banned, it should be condemned at least

Yes, I knew about the 2nd case.
Condemn what you like. It's not that I were a great fan of such blatant provocations, but it shouldn't be banned.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Why should I? Even worse then, if anything German is so inherently bad for you that some region becoming "Germanized" through normal cultural developments is "unfortunate" even if nothing amoral happened.

I was making fun of it.
But yes, I am not happy about it, because Slovenians are Slavs, and therefore I feel attached to them.

I'm sometimes much more offensive to even larger parts of humanity (namely muslims).

there are about the same Muslims and Catholics in the world. A milliard (billion in American?) that is.
And that You act badly towards more than one group doesn't make it good.
Sometimes religion or at least its followers deserve a criticisement, but You definitely overdo it.

To me, Catholicism is offensive too. If Catholics say all divorced remarried people are condemned to hell, that's offensive to a large group too, don't you think?
If Catholics (or any other religious group) basically says: "You bad, all go to hell" I consider it offensive. When I try to live a moral life and a, in many parts, rotten organization claims the sole morality, I consider it offensive.

You don't go to hell just for divorcing. It's not like that every sin sends You directly to Hell.
Especially in catholicism, where we have the purgatory or whatever's the name for it in English.
Why is it offensive to think that divorce is something bad? It's a broken promise and sometimes a mock of a sacrament, a part of religious ritual, and of the catholic meaning of marriage itself. That's why it is condemned.
And it's not like that You can not divorce at all. You can, just it is damn hard, too hard, true.

Still, catholic nationalism is an important phenomenon. Maybe there are few who developed it to a theory and follow it ideologically, but it's an important force. Just as early modern Spain developed such a strong national identity through Catholicism.

It's not a phenomenon. Armenians have Armenian church, Jews have Judaism, the Dutch used to have calvinist church, many nations have islam, Hindus have hinduism as the thing that unites the nation.
In Poland, in fact, we owe mix of Polish nationalism with ultraconservative catholicism to You, Germans, and to Russians. Having both the catholic church and Polish nationality persecuted, You cemented this alliance.

Yes, I knew about the 2nd case.
Condemn what you like. It's not that I were a great fan of such blatant provocations, but it shouldn't be banned.

Then, throwing filth at people shouldn't be banned too.

Oh, and forgot to say it; grandma of Jankowski (that priest from Gdansk) was German, and his grandpa was a volksdeutsch
Which doesn't stop him from ueber-Polish rhetoric, though. Perhaps that's the reason.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
I was making fun of it.
But yes, I am not happy about it, because Slovenians are Slavs, and therefore I feel attached to them.

You might have noticed that I can't really understand this kind of nationalism. I don't like imperialistic nationalism even less, like Panslavism or Pangermanism.
And I still can't see how the germanization of most parts of Carinthia is somehow harmful to Slovenians, except for the violent historical episodes of course. Thus I also can't understand why you feel sorry. You seem to underly the 19th century imperialist thinking: "I'm member of X, X must have as much territory as possible".

there are about the same Muslims and Catholics in the world. A milliard (billion in American?) that is.
And that You act badly towards more than one group doesn't make it good.
Sometimes religion or at least its followers deserve a criticisement, but You definitely overdo it.

Overdo? I sais it's medieval to me, nothing more. So how am I behaving badly. Am I behaving badly when saying that I believe Islam is inherently a sexistic religion providing legimizing arguments for violence? I could back it up with theological arguments, sometimes one simply states the conclusion one has come to, without reiterating all the single elements that led to such.
I did't say anything similar to: "Go f* yourself" or "All catholics are pedophiles". That'd be offenses and bad behavior, but certainly not using the vocabulary "medieval".

You don't go to hell just for divorcing. It's not like that every sin sends You directly to Hell.
Especially in catholicism, where we have the purgatory or whatever's the name for it in English.
Why is it offensive to think that divorce is something bad? It's a broken promise and sometimes a mock of a sacrament, a part of religious ritual, and of the catholic meaning of marriage itself. That's why it is condemned.
And it's not like that You can not divorce at all. You can, just it is damn hard, too hard, true.

I actually didn't want to start a discussion over divorce now. I just meant that religious dogmata very often are extremely offensive, so religions should stop cry foul when someone is criticizing them or, yes, even when someone is simply insulting religion.
Again, example Islam. There are several verses calling Christians, more so Jews and even more so Polytheists to be nothing but liars and bad people and murderers alltogether, yet I am offensive and hateful when pointing to it.

It's not a phenomenon. Armenians have Armenian church, Jews have Judaism, the Dutch used to have calvinist church, many nations have islam, Hindus have hinduism as the thing that unites the nation.

It still is a phenomenon, as not all Catholic nations center their identity so much around it. I agree with your examples of religious identity, sure, except for islam. I can hardly think of any islamic branch that is nationalist.

In Poland, in fact, we owe mix of Polish nationalism with ultraconservative catholicism to You, Germans, and to Russians. Having both the catholic church and Polish nationality persecuted, You cemented this alliance.

First, don't point with the finger.
Second, contrary to you, I'm not nationalist and don't identify so much that you could personalize me as being "Austria".
Third, Habsburgs persecuting the catholic church? Habsburgs perseculting Polish nationality? Nationalism probably partly in the 19th century, but not the nationality as such. I'd rather guess Habsburgs played the "catholic card" in an effort to bind polish subjects to their monarchy.

Then, throwing filth at people shouldn't be banned too.

Exactly. Actually, there are laws stating that "people exposed in the public", as politicians, stars etc., have to accept a far higher level of critique and insult than others. Same should apply for institutions.

Oh, and forgot to say it; grandma of Jankowski (that priest from Gdansk) was German, and his grandpa was a volksdeutsch
Which doesn't stop him from ueber-Polish rhetoric, though. Perhaps that's the reason.

Nice analogy to Carinthians and Sudetendeutsche who had over-proportionally large numbers of Nazi support.

[Heresson]

You might have noticed that I can't really understand this kind of nationalism.

Being prejudiced against Poles at the same time...

And I still can't see how the germanization of most parts of Carinthia is somehow harmful to Slovenians, except for the violent historical episodes of course.

Ceasing to exist is not something good for it no matter how it happens

You seem to underly the 19th century imperialist thinking: "I'm member of X, X must have as much territory as possible".

Only what "we" inhabited originally or to what there's no other successor

Overdo? I sais it's medieval to me, nothing more. So how am I behaving badly.
I did't say anything similar to: "Go f* yourself" or "All catholics are pedophiles". That'd be offenses and bad behavior, but certainly not using the vocabulary "medieval".

by which You ment "backward" and probably several other things - just because it doesn't share your point of view.
Also, You were drastically one-sided in the question which You called "artist censorship"

so religions should stop cry foul when someone is criticizing them or, yes, even when someone is simply insulting religion.

Logical criticisement is welcomed. But yours is not quite it. Not QUITE.

It still is a phenomenon, as not all Catholic nations center their identity so much around it. I agree with your examples of religious identity, sure, except for islam. I can hardly think of any islamic branch that is nationalist.

Early Islam was very Arab-centered and caused other nations backlash called shu'ubiyya, for example.
And today...
In the name of what are Palestinians often leading their fight? In the name of what were Afghans?

First, don't point with the finger.
Second, contrary to you, I'm not nationalist and don't identify so much that you could personalize me as being "Austria".

Third, Habsburgs persecuting the catholic church? Habsburgs perseculting Polish nationality? Nationalism probably partly in the 19th century, but not the nationality as such. I'd rather guess Habsburgs played the "catholic card" in an effort to bind polish subjects to their monarchy.

I've ment Germans (Prussians), not Austrians, obviously.
I've said "You", because in my opinion, Austrians are simply Germans.

Exactly. Actually, there are laws stating that "people exposed in the public", as politicians, stars etc., have to accept a far higher level of critique and insult than others. Same should apply for institutions.

Which is not right, of course.

[Sava]

Croatia = Nazi collaborators
Austria = Nazis

[VetLegion]

Ahnold Swarzenegger - Austrian born next president of fascist USA

It all fits in!

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by axi


Yet turkish planes have flown above islands (land) in many occasions. Isn't there any Greek airspace?

That would constitute violations, I would admit, but the vast majority of 'violations' take place in the international waters of the Aegean.

Special cases need special treaties, like there is a special international treaty about navigation in the Dardanelles. There is no such treaty about the Aegean, so ordinary sea law should apply.

No treaty comes into place without the consent of the concerned parties. Greece so far treats the Aegean as an internal lake and as such sees no reason to concede a special case situation. It should not be surprising if Turkey doesn not accept this point of view.

That's why Turkey has issued a NOTAM requesting all civilian flights going through the eastern Aegean to submit flight plans to their controllers, as if it were their own FIR.

Are you referring to NOTAM 714? It was issued in the wake of the war in Cyprus. In the light of the possibility of imminent war with Greece it declared the Eastern Aegean as not safe for civil flights. It was withdrawn in 1980 in any case.

For unnamed islets, they're supposed to belong to the side who's known territory (islands, coasts) lies closer to the islet. Imia should belong to Greece if they are not in the treaties and are closer to Kalymnos than to the turkish coast, otherwise they should belong to Turkey.

AFAIK Kardak/Imia is 4 miles off the coast of Turkey and 12 miles off Kalimnos.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson

Not at all.
I'll not discuss the Cypriote case, but I assure You Azerbeycan Armenians felt the same persecuted as Cypriote Turks.
Also, while the creation of the republic of northern Cyprus was definitely due to Turkish action, it is not THAT obvious in Armenian-Karabach case.

Like the involvement of Serbia in the war in Bosnia?

Both Azerbeycan and Armenia were part of USSR, and if somebody lost more due to it, it was Armenia. It used to be the most technologically developed part of USSR, and what is it now?

Armenia is largely responsible for this unhappy state of affairs. It invaded its eastern neighbour and doesn't recognise the border with its eastern neighbour. I guess you can't blame Turkey for not being so enthusiastic to boost the ewconomy of such a state. That leaves it with Iran, who can't be an economic magnet right now and with Georgia, the troubles of which is enough for itself to help Armenia recover economically.

Of all European and Europe-aspiring states, only Turkey seems to see Armenia as an agressor in this case.

Armenia is occupying not only Karabagh but a totality of 25 % of Azeri territory. It was an attempt to change the Soviet-determined borders and I admit this has a certain logic. Unfortunately, it can't be allowed to stand as an example for the rest of the ex-USSR geography. As such, that attempt has no semblance of legal basis other than historical arguments, which are inevitably subjective.

In the best European tradition of ignoring a problem until it has some immediate consequence, Europe in fact is oblivious towards the whole Nagorno-Karabagh issue, giving it the only the remotest attention, the feeblest of diplomatic efforts. Free of such approaches, it is easier for Turkey to say out loud what's so apparent about who's the aggressor.

the question remains.
Why should Armenian Karabachians resign of their independance if Turkish Cypriotes do not?

The Turkish Cypriots did indeed resign of their independence by accepting the Annan Plan

[Wernazuma III]

Being prejudiced against Poles at the same time...

First, I don't consider myself being a nationalist because I neither have any positive feelings for Austrian Greatness or German Greatness, I don't cry a tear over the loss of South Tyrol, the Sudetenland or the Gotschee and I don't have any specially positive feelings or feeling of superiority towards Austrians or "related peoples".
Secondly, I'm not prejudiced towards Poles as such. I'm negative towards Polish nationalism and catholicism and feel it's very dominant. Remember that the starting point of the discussion was about reasons of the concerns about Polish EU membership and I said it was not because of Poles being Poles or Poles being perceived as "cart thieves" or similar current prejudices but because of the 2 named issues. That doesn't mean that there were no forces who readily took up the issues to cover their rejection of Poland due to prejudices. I, for once, don't.
I personally didn't even consider those issues important enough to exclude Poland from the community and was favorable of Polish admission as I still are. I was pointing out the reasons of concerns that were given, because you seemed to say that Austrians simply don't like Slavs and because of this didn't want Slovenia, Czechs, Poles, etc. in, which is not true.

Ceasing to exist is not something good for it no matter how it happens

I'm of your opinion in this issue. Every culture ceasing to exist is a loss. Thus it's absolutely good the Slovenian minority still does exist and survived even due to Nazi oppression and it's important that it's protected and supported.

Only what "we" inhabited originally or to what there's no other successor

"originally inhabited" That's the very crux, the cause of so many conflicts and wars. Serbs claim Kosovo because they "originally inhabited" it. Zionism declared Israel to belong to the jews because they "originally inhabited" it.
Should the Krim Goths (are there any left?) now go and claim Poland and parts of Scandinavia? Should Hungarians claim central Asia? Should everyone claim Ethiopia?
I want Ethiopia back!
It's exactly that what I consider the major problem and danger of nationalist thinking.

by which You ment "backward" and probably several other things - just because it doesn't share your point of view.

Sure I meant backwards. And not only because it's not my opinion, also compared to other tendencies within catholicism (Remember that I actually attriobuted the "medieval" not to "Catholicism" as such but to that kind which is dominant in Poland). I think many Catholics here and in other countries (like in Latin America though I don't want that you think I exclusively mean Theology of Liberation), have far more modern and innovative positions. The dominant catholicism in Poland with the strong worship of the virgin and it's rigid dogmatism appears backwards to me.
Again, I don't want to limit this to Poland, as it's not the intention. We have such tendencies and structures here in Austria too (bishop Krenn). Here too, they're in alliance with nationalist elements and it's not an inch better. But while I feel conservative catholicism is a very minority position in Austria, it's far stronger in Poland and reaches far into politics.
That's a legitimate position and doesn't make me intolerant.

Early Islam was very Arab-centered and caused other nations backlash called shu'ubiyya, for example.
And today...
In the name of what are Palestinians often leading their fight? In the name of what were Afghans?

Right, I thought whether I should elaborate about early islam, the concept of the "faithful" or "followers", can't remember how it's really called, and how it turned into favoring Arabs over other ethnicities. But that was in early times, though I have to admit that I don't know if it played any role in the development of modern Arab nationalism around 1900. Probably it did, you're right.
In Afghanistan I can't see how nationalism plays a real role. IIRC, the rhetorics against their enemies is more about Jerusalem than about Kabul.
Palestine is a special case as general modern muslim focus is on Jerusalem, and in Palestine this issue gets a national dimension of course and probably national and muslim arguments and identities mix stronger.
It may also be true partly for Chechnya, but as fundamentalism comes in more strongly, the nationalist component isn't strengthened but weakened as the discussion is internationalized. Not long ago, I've heard that some Chechen stated the fight won't be over before "Russians leave Chechnya AND Jerusalem is freed."
We should better stop with Islam now, it's a side topic

I've ment Germans (Prussians), not Austrians, obviously.
I've said "You", because in my opinion, Austrians are simply Germans.

Thank the nonexisting God that you know and define who I am (pardon, "we are")

Which is not right, of course.

By which you mean "no such laws exist" or "not morally right"?

[Heresson]

or the Gotschee

What's that?

Secondly, I'm not prejudiced towards Poles as such. I'm negative towards Polish nationalism and catholicism and feel it's very dominant.

You are prejudiced, as You have radical and untrue impressions that You somehow believe concern entire, or majority of a nation.
You may just be ignorant, though

I, for once, don't.
I personally didn't even consider those issues important

But You believe it is a problem, just not important one?

"originally inhabited" That's the very crux, the cause of so many conflicts and wars. Serbs claim Kosovo because they "originally inhabited" it. Zionism declared Israel to belong to the jews because they "originally inhabited" it.
Should the Krim Goths (are there any left?)

Don't think so.

now go and claim Poland

They just wondered through Poland, didn't stop for enough long

and parts of Scandinavia?
Should Hungarians claim central Asia? Should everyone claim Ethiopia?

Nope, as their final settlement places were elsewhere, and that's what counts.
I think that when it comes to chosing boarders, both historical and ethnical factor should be taken into consideration, of course not being too radical about it.
Carinthia is German (Austrian) today, so let it stay that way. However, if some part of it remained largely or majorly Slovenian...

Of course, You are right to some extent.
I'll try to explain my position by an example:
after ww2, Poland was given, as a compensation for lands lost in the east, territories that once belonged to it, though majority of them wasn't inhabited by Poles anymore. And it's OK for me. If we were given, instead of Silesia and Western Pommerania, something like Bavaria and Rhineland (even if we boardered them), I would consider it complete idiotism, just like I consider donation of Krolewiec/Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad to Russia a completely unfair sollution. It should've been given to someone who once owned it, had any historical or ethnical rights for it; division between Poland and Lithuania would be most right - as leaving it to Germany was not quite possible.

Sure I meant backwards. And not only because it's not my opinion, also compared to other tendencies within catholicism (Remember that I actually attriobuted the "medieval" not to "Catholicism" as such but to that kind which is dominant in Poland).

Oh, and You are so well-informed about what is dominant in Poland...?

I think many Catholics here and in other countries (like in Latin America though I don't want that you think I exclusively mean Theology of Liberation), have far more modern and innovative positions. The dominant catholicism in Poland with the strong worship of the virgin and it's rigid dogmatism appears backwards to me.

...as we see, You are not.

But while I feel conservative catholicism is a very minority position in Austria, it's far stronger in Poland and reaches far into politics.
That's a legitimate position and doesn't make me intolerant.

What do You mean exactly by "conservative catholicism".
If someone would like to exclude Netherlands from the community for being too liberal, would that be legitimate too, anyway?

I have to admit that I don't know if it played any role in the development of modern Arab nationalism around 1900. Probably it did, you're right.

In fact, it did not that much as it may seem. Arab nationalism is largely a local Christians' invention.
However, a special role of Islam in history of Arabs (which is pretty obvious) is emphasised, and with time,
this is more and more emphasised.

Thank the nonexisting God that you know and define who I am (pardon, "we are")

First of all, as we see, You are an atheist. Why would the church listen to an atheist telling it how to change and what's good for it?
If You deny the faith at all, You should not try to change it.

Secondly, expulsion of Austria from Germany is only second half of XIX century, and as we've seen during Anschluss, the Austrians at least then, or at least large part of them, still felt German.
Take Hitler for example, anyway.
The forbiddement of union between Austria and Germany was unfair in my opinion, btw.
Perhaps today Austrians feel as being a separate nation, but I guess it is due to ww2. They do not want to share the guilt perhaps?
Still, they speak German, for definite most of history Austria was part of German history, bah, it was the center of German history for a long time. There's no reason why I shouldn't consider You German, but that You wish that.
Also, by your own defence of Germans from my bad, bad prejudiced opinions You've proven You are emotionally attached to this nation.

By which you mean "no such laws exist" or "not morally right"?

The second one

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

Like the involvement of Serbia in the war in Bosnia?

Very different situation. Serbs would be happy to take entire Bosnia if they only could, and they were not fighting another, bigger, nation over significant yet still small part of its territory, but fought against a country much weaker than itself and claimed over a half of it.
Also, its engagement in Bosnia is still the same or smaller than Turkish in Cyprus

Armenia is largely responsible for this unhappy state of affairs. It invaded its eastern neighbour and doesn't recognise the border with its eastern neighbour.

Because the boarder was unfair? Because it wanted to protect local Armenians from being persecuted?
The same, Turkey is responsible for Cypriote problem.
Anyway, from what I know, it's rather Karabakh running Armenia now than other way round.

Armenia is occupying not only Karabagh but a totality of 25 % of Azeri territory.

I think Turks control more than that of Cyprus.
Also, Armenians lived not only in Karabakh, and Karabakh has no direct boarder with Armenia, so it was pretty hard to control just it, if You wanted to receive help from Armenia and wanted to unite with it.

It was an attempt to change the Soviet-determined borders and I admit this has a certain logic.

There's nothing wrong in changing the boarders.
Karabach several times, under USSR, asked the authorities to transpher itself into Armenia, but uh "Azerbeycanees" did not agree.
If they want to be independant or belong to Armenia, it's OK for me, just like independance of Tchechenia.

Unfortunately, it can't be allowed to stand as an example for the rest of the ex-USSR geography. As such, that attempt has no semblance of legal basis other than historical arguments, which are inevitably subjective.

ethnical one as well. And I think it can be allowed. Who's said that boarders can't be changed?
They should be, if there are enough reasons.
Haven't we allowed independant Eritrea some years ago?
And, if we are so afraid about that changing the boarders in this part of the world may cause domino effect, just give Karabakh with a few additions a status of practically independant, yet nominally autonomic state. Perhaps this would make local Armenians happy enough to agree to remain officially in Azerbeycan

giving it the only the remotest attention, the feeblest of diplomatic efforts. Free of such approaches, it is easier for Turkey to say out loud what's so apparent about who's the aggressor.

Are You attempting to say that Turkey is objective in this matter?

The Turkish Cypriots did indeed resign of their independence by accepting the Annan Plan

Could You remind me all the conditions of it?
I recall there was a division between Turkish and Greek parts, that's to stay, though the Turks would hand out some of the territory back to Greeks. It's making a new boarder as well.
How was the case of emmigrants from Turkish territory (and the other way round) solved?