Turkey shuts down Kurdish TV

[Roland]

Natan:

"... except that the Syrian Alawis are not really shi'ites - they sometimes call themselves that but are not accepted as such by most Shi'ites."

Same for those in Anatolia. While they count 12 Imams, the Iranian shiites don't see them as shiites.

"...but their rites are said to involve the consumption of wine and they apparently attribute divine qualities to Ali and celeberate many Christian holidays."

Sounds more like orthodox stereotype/propaganda, moving them towards christianity. One version says the name Nusairians was derived from Nazarethians - no idea whether that is the case...

"Maybe I have them confused with the Druze on this last point, but IIRC, the Alawis in Syria ritually swear to the truth of doctrines which they do not know."

AFAIK anatolian Alavis is much more community based, where the sheikh or elder (deda or dede?) plays a big role.

Got me curious about the relation between syria and anatolia there.... but on a quick search I didn't find anything. Will try again.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ramo




That's an absurd assertion! If you do not consider extortion (painfully high taxes) "violence," consider India (particularly, the pre-Mogul period), for instance.

Point taken about India; I was referring to the Islamic and Ottoman empires. But I'm afraid I don't se painfully high taxes as the equivalent of actual pain, torture, or death. I guess that's why I'm not a libertarian.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The rest of your post is a pseudo-leftist demonization of Christianity, that is obsolete. The last witch was burnt in 1827.

Would you care to argue with facts, or dispute mine instead of using meaningless terminology to attack me or the ideas I've laid out? I don't give a damn whether my opinions are fashionable to you or not. Can you refute them, or are you just pissed off and impotent? And what does the date of the last witch burning have to do with anything?

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
And, of course, Christianity was not just about witch burning. Without Christianity, there would have been no Enlightenment, either. (The morality of both schools is nearly the same. Staunch atheists like Rousseau and Hume have a morality that is hardly any different from Christian thought, and they would not likely have been possible without the fundament of a Christian civilization.)

Human civilization is a complex system, and I find the surety with which you state that there would have been no enlightenment had there been no Christianity an excellent insight into your rigid mindset. One could just as correctly say that without christianity there would have been no need for an enlightenment. Personally I don't really care what happened to other people in the distant past in the passionate sense of the word. I do care when people have an unrealistic idealized version of the past and use that as a springboard for a dangerous ideology in the present. How many holy wars do we want raging at once?

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
'Leftist' ridiculing of Christians is soooo yesterday.

The master-debater at work. I see that your opinion of me has changed. I've graduated from a pseudo-leftist to a leftist. I eagerly await your argument, but I really only expect trolls from you. You talk a lot but never end up really saying anything.

[Roland]

"The morality of both schools is nearly the same."

Whadda surprise, given that both come from greek philosophy and roman law.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Hasn´t much to do with anything, but the Greeks deserve a defense here.

Firefly indicating he wants protestants to leave Turkey wilingly or not relates to the Greek practise.

They didn´t ostracise criminals. Ostracism was not a punishment, and being ostracised was not dishonourable. The Greeks ostracised people who were considered politically dangerous. No proof was required, just a majority of votes. They had to go into Exile for ten years, but were not otherwise subject to a loss of property or rights. A preventive measure like that would be a good thing to have. For example, we Austrians would be able to ostracise Haider.

They did ostracise criminals. Wheter this was politically motivated, for ex getting rid of city-state tyrants, or anything else is irrelevant.

And Haider is not a political criminal? How about yourself?

My bad about KLA and PKK. But anyway claims of a "genocide" against the Kurds are absurd. Genocide is an attempt to wipe out a group. Seeing as how Kurds make up 20% of the population in Turkey and violence has halted...

Your bad indeed.

No wipepout attempt I guess since there are still 20% Kurds alive

Saddam Husseins former chief of staff Nizar al-Khazraji exterminated 180.000 Kurds 13 years ago. With numbers like that you could say that the violence has halted Maybe the Iraqis don't want another bombing campaign..

The well-oriented Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, published in London, states that Nizar al-Khazraji is USA's favorite in taking over after Saddam Hussein. The paper quotes Iraqi excile-sources in Damascus which say that the USA, in the choice between 62 ex-officers, has chosen al-Khazraji as the best qualified to lead the struggle against Hussein.

Can you believe that the USA wants this guy to lead a revolt against Saddam? If it's true.

al-Khazraji is living in a secret location in the town of Sorø, Denmark, where he's under investigation for warcrimes.

"Good point. Firefly don't care as long as he, the catholic-, and greek-orthodox church are allowed to carry on with dead religion. As long as that happens he needs not face up to new religious thought. Yeah, it can be a sweat."

Not that I agree with religious persecution, but with this attitude towards other religious beliefs it is easy to see why they don't like you.

Please argue the non-existance of nominal religion.

Who don't like me?

But weren't the christians of the same time even worse - crusades and naturally no muslims could stay muslims under christian territory.

Crusades were a lot about going on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and reconquering Jerusalem and other 'holy' places. Not really evangelical campaigns.

BTW, there were children campaigns where children roamed thru Europe gathering other kids. These events were tragic as many suffered and died. Don't think they inflicted much pain on your average muselman.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This'll be my last post on this thread, though I'll continue to read Sikander's excellent debate. Lars-E, no small part of the problem here is that you can't read! Specifically:

Firefly indicating he wants protestants to leave Turkey wilingly or not relates to the Greek practise.

Review these two pages. You'll find me saying that I fully believe in freedom of religion; you'll find me saying that I recently attended a Protestant worship service in Turkey myself; you'll find me saying that the fate of fundies is a low priority for me in a world full of injustices; you'll find me saying that fundies irritate me personally. But nowhere, nowhere will you find me saying that I want Protestants evicted from Turkey. Please note: the inaility either to grasp simple distinctions or to accurately characterize what has been said are not, I fear, good qualities to bring an intellectual discussion. Though they probably work quite well when tub-thumpin' for Jesus.

[Lars-E]

This'll be my last post on this thread, though I'll continue to read Sikander's excellent debate.

Sikander's only points are history stuff that is not related to the thread. He brings up stuff ppl never said and then elaborates on it.

Review these two pages. You'll find me saying that I fully believe in freedom of religion; you'll find me saying that I recently attended a Protestant worship service in Turkey myself; you'll find me saying that the fate of fundies is a low priority for me in a world full of injustices...

You say a lot. And then you say stuff that contradict the lot:

you'll find me saying that fundies irritate me personally...

And we also find you saying you don't bit!h about it We find you saying you go to a protestant service. We find you bit!ing about protestants...Asking why they don't leave the country++. The list just goes on and on with contradictions

...accurately characterize what has been said are not...

Say you who put words in my mouth about comparing christianity to islam when I haven't even mentioned it

Please note: the inaility either to grasp simple distinctions

Why do you mix protestants with fundies? You're not being distinctive yet you point fingers at others for the same thing.

But nowhere, nowhere will you find me saying that I want Protestants evicted from Turkey.

You asked why the whiners don't leave.

Though they probably work quite well when tub-thumpin' for Jesus.

Speaks for itself as all the other stuff you posted. Have not even mentioned the name jesus in here

you'll find me saying that I recently attended a Protestant worship service in Turkey myself; you'll find me saying that the fate of fundies is a low priority for me in a world full of injustices...

I reapeat my words again: You say a lot. And then you say stuff that contradict the lot:

The only religions that seem to run into trouble here are the ones that run around trying to convert people; among Christians, that's the Protestants.

As for the God-botherers, they knew what they were getting into when they came; heck, it's why they came. Besides, the Turks are extraordinarily gracious hosts; but showing up to a 98% Muslim country and saying, effectively, "we think you're all going to Hell unless you change your beliefs to match ours, and we're hear to spread that message" is pretty much the height of arrogance and the soul of being a very bad guest. If someone said that in my house, I'd certainly show them the door.

I am anstonished that the congregation didn't throw you out if you're as outspoken and hateful of christianity in Turkey, as you're in here.

Why didn't you tell them just to go to hell and getta outta muslim Turkey!!! Or were these native protestants, and thus totally and completely different from all other protestants on the face of earth.

What the heck are you doing at a protestant service when you only bit!h, complain, and curse them? Do you adjust you attitude on Sunday morning?

Is Luther a fundy to you? He certainly was a protestant

Are you gonna tell us you're a protestant? Or a fundy? You keep mixing the terms as they were the same. So much for your distinctions...and fingerpointing at others for it

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
I've graduated from a pseudo-leftist to a leftist.

No, you haven´t. That´s why I said 'leftist'. It´s the political category I happen to despise the most. I do respect conservative hard-liners, but I really can´t stand spineless pseudo-social-democrats such as Tony Blair.

Those are the guys who tend to bash religious people (because they are too sincere for their taste, I guess!), but always fail to talk about the real problems (US trying to make the world into a prison colony a la Guantanamo).

As you have found out with your characteristic brilliance, I rarely bother to take the 'arguments' of pseudo-leftist pseudo-intellectuals seriously.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Firefly indicating he wants protestants to leave Turkey wilingly or not relates to the Greek practise.

They did ostracise criminals. Wheter this was politically motivated, for ex getting rid of city-state tyrants, or anything else is irrelevant.

And Haider is not a political criminal? How about yourself?

Hey, Lars, in case it didn´t get to you I was mostly agreeing with your position.

I only pointed out a factual error about ostracism, so no reason to start WWIII on me, right?

Back to topic: The Greeks didn´t ostracise groups, only single individuals, usually for a good reason.

Ostracism was a method to get rid of someone who is not a law-breaker, but politically dangerous, without harming the person much. An admirable institution that shows how humane many of their customs were.

Haider didn´t break any law. Political problem, perhaps, but 'political criminal' is a wording you should think twice about. You wouldn´t like Muslims to use that wording on Christians; I suggest we try to do without the category of 'political criminals'. And when, exactly, did I earn you putting me into that category?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Hey, Lars, in case it didn´t get to you I was mostly agreeing with your position.

Good for you

I only pointed out a factual error about ostracism, so no reason to start WWIII on me, right?

Factual schmactual. Those who had to go into exile were sometimes given the death penalty and then given the opportunity to suggest a milder form of punishment. And they were ACCUSED. Rightfully or not. Popular votes indicate that they were guilty, at least in the eyes of the public.

Crimes that could give you the death penalty had to be serious crimes.

If you think the death penalty is humane...

Back to topic: The Greeks didn´t ostracise groups, only single individuals, usually for a good reason.

Agreed.

Ostracism was a method to get rid of someone who is not a law-breaker, but politically dangerous, without harming the person much.

Socrate was accused of godlessness which was a serious crime. He was condemned to death, but in legal processes like this he was allowed to suggest a milder form of punishment, like exile. If he'd suggested this he probably would have gotten it because the popular vote against him only had a slight majority in his disfavor.

Socrate chose death.

Haider didn´t break any law. Political problem, perhaps, but 'political criminal' is a wording you should think twice about.

I suggest we try to do without the category of 'political criminals'.

Well, Kurt Waldheim and Jörg Haider come close in my book. They are brownish and fortunately have not been given the power to do anything criminal. But if they had the power... BTW, how old is Waldheim now?

As far as committing crimes Waldheim was on the wrong side in WW2 and did some horrible things. He's has not been punished for this. Is this due to the fact that he was president in austria? Untouchable paria?

Waldheim definitely has a 'criminal' past. Jörg has not been given the chance yet.

You wouldn´t like Muslims to use that wording on Christians...

When did religion play a part in this?

And when, exactly, did I earn you putting me into that category?

Asking and stating are two different things.

Anyways you're defending Slobo who has committed crimes against humanity. In your book he's the Messiah in his second coming.

I'm wondering about your nick... Comrade as in communist? And tribune as in 'peopletribune' in the Senate in old time Rome? Thus meaning something like elected communist? Feel free to shed some light on this.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Factual schmactual. Those who had to go into exile were sometimes given the death penalty and then given the opportunity to suggest a milder form of punishment. And they were ACCUSED. Rightfully or not. Popular votes indicate that they were guilty, at least in the eyes of the public.

Crimes that could give you the death penalty had to be serious crimes.

If you think the death penalty is humane...

Socrate was accused of godlessness which was a serious crime. He was condemned to death, but in legal processes like this he was allowed to suggest a milder form of punishment, like exile. If he'd suggested this he probably would have gotten it because the popular vote against him only had a slight majority in his disfavor.

Socrate chose death.

You mix it all up. The trial of Socrates was a criminal trial before a jury of 500. Had absolutely nothing to do with Ostracism. You were ostracised by plebiscite only.

The difference between a trial and an Ostracism is what I am patiently trying to explain.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Well, Kurt Waldheim and Jörg Haider come close in my book. They are brownish and fortunately have not been given the power to do anything criminal. But if they had the power... BTW, how old is Waldheim now?

As far as committing crimes Waldheim was on the wrong side in WW2 and did some horrible things. He's has not been punished for this. Is this due to the fact that he was president in austria? Untouchable paria?

Waldheim definitely has a 'criminal' past. Jörg has not been given the chance yet.

You have a knack for mixing things up. Haider and Waldheim are a very different pair of shoes.

1 Haider is brownish, Waldheim rather not.

2 Waldheim has been accused of war crimes, Haider of course not.

3 Waldheim wasn´t punished for a very convincing reason: No one came up with a proof. Austrian courts are not UN tribunals: They will only punish you if there is evidence.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
You mix it all up. The trial of Socrates was a criminal trial before a jury of 500. Had absolutely nothing to do with Ostracism. You were ostracised by plebiscite only.

The difference between a trial and an Ostracism is what I am patiently trying to explain.

Socrates stood trial. He got the death penalty. He could have suggested a milder punishment like exile. If you do not want to call that ostracism fine . The very idea of ostracism was that you had to leave the country. Go into exile.

[Comrade Tribune]

Hi, Lars! Take a valium and calm down. I have nothing against you, and will, in time, answer your posts, if you give me a chance.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
You have a knack for mixing things up. Haider and Waldheim are a very different pair of shoes.

I take your point: Every person is different from others.

1 Haider is brownish, Waldheim rather not.

So Waldheim was not brownish and a nazi according to you.

2 Waldheim has been accused of war crimes, Haider of course not.

Of course, and your point is exactly?

3 Waldheim wasn´t punished for a very convincing reason: No one came up with a proof. Austrian courts are not UN tribunals: They will only punish you if there is evidence.

So he didnt do it cos noone proved it. Just like you claim for Slobo. If there (allegedly) is no proof it cannot have happened.

Talk about mixing up and confusing.