Israel is deeply humiliated by Erdogan at Davos

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

Iranpaak, I'm not going to play along and pretend you don't see the blatant contradiction in your posts.

LOOL, "blatant contradiction" ??? I was giving you more credit that I should have, looks like you are very desperate. One post is statement of what I believe, and the second post you are attempting to portray as contradictin is a question (notice it start with IS or are at the begining if and ends with ? to give you a clue), not what I believe, in response to deerouz's post which is reproduced here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by deerouz
So far your response to the arguments made by IZ and eveyone else has been just repeating the same thng: "It doesnt matter". Could you explain why this fact -that the Turkish Republic approves and follows th same position on Armenian massacre as the Ottomans- does not matter?

Dear deerouz, is the question being debated as follows; the Turks do not have moral ground to criticize another country until they admit their fathers or their ancestors misdeed?
And if the answer is yes, are older crimes subject to some kind of statute of limitation? And if the answer to second question is yes, why ; and when should people stop bringing such crimes up?

You posted examples of my seemingly contradictory posts, and I explained that the first comments were not meant in reference to countries who refuse to acknowledge their past misdeeds.

"Seemingly"? You could not be clearer in this statement which now trying hard to qualify:

By this deranged logic, virtually every one from every country in the world should shut their mouths because their ancestors have done wrong at some point in history

Second, if a country had ackonwledged their misdeed in the past, then I had no argument with that, as I had no argument with Japan or Austerlia. Now you are trying very hard to qualify your previous statements in this thread, http://forums.iransportspress.com/sh...ocities&page=8
It simply does not work. All your statements are there for anyone to see, you never qualified your statement that if a country admit its past misdeed they have a moral position to criticize others.

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by deerouz

Ref jan,

If we go with facial characteristics, Turkey's population appear to be split in two types: the European/Greek types, and the type that most resemble central Asians (tight eyes and small nose etc).

Tight eyes in Turkey are also common in Eastern Europe and Russia. They are because of migratory patterns of before 10000-15000 years ago. In fact, many Russians with R1a1 haplogroup, the one group believed to be responsible to spread of Indo-Aryan languages, have narrow eyes. Like these boys:


Turkish language in Turkey, the same as Azeri and Persian in Iran, are imposed through elite cultural domination. Even in Central Asia, the main language of Scythian Massagets etc. were Indo-European before Turkish tribes imposed Turkic languages on them. So a Khazar Turk, with R1a1 gene who used to speak an Indo-European language, became Turkic Jew and propagator of Turkish culture and language. In fact, many descendants of R1a1 group, whose ancestors were definite Indo-Aryan speakers due to the archaeological findings of their DNA, artefact's etc, are not Indo-European speakers, e.g. Altai Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukrain. So you see language of today has nothing to do with language and culture of real ancestry. That is even more true for Turkey. There is little evidence of great gene movements from Central Asia to Turkey. In fact, Balkans have more Central Asian genes than Turks.

Bottom line, majority of Turks and Persians did not come from anywhere but from Africa and rest of the Middle East. Greeks are mainly descendants of first migratory patterns from Turkey and areas around Palestine and Egypt, who were themselves from parts of Middle East and Afica.

[PashaBahman]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

Keep projecting.

As others have pointed out, this was a perfectly civilized discussion until you jumped in and accused me and others of "making no sense", and characterized our statements as "absurd" and "drivel". All this while your own argument didn't have a leg to stand on.

All your comments in this thread have reeked of rudeness and petulance, and you have been given the exact amount of respect those posts deserved. End of story.

I was referring to your comments, not you personally. You however were saying things directed towards me.

Regardless, if you found them to be insulting towards you, then you have my apologies.

Originally Posted by deerouz

Actually, you started it my friend.

See above

[Bi-honar]

Wow, I can't believe I didn't participate in this thread and missed all the fun.

My 2 cents: I think Andishe brought up a good point originally, about hypocracy. Not sure why Pasha responsed to IZ, but regardless, he also brought up a valid point - with an example. IZ's response was equally good about the current government glorifying that era.

IMHO it all went wrong with Pasha's counter argument to IZ - it was not at all polite (in my opinion) or in tune with the tone of the thread until that point. IZ's responses from this point on, rightly or wrongly picked up and continued on that same bad tone. But let's skip that for now...

Aside from IZ's original point that the Turks glorify the Ottoman empire, he used another great example about the Germans. I am yet to see a valid response to that line of thinking. This line of thinking was followed by another excellent question by Behrooz. If they did not commit it, why do they keep denying it?

Now, Deerouz brought up a great point, that today states are held to higher moral standards than before. I tend to agree with this line of thinking and to answer Rahim's question, yes all state's should apologize for past crimes committed by their people or administrations. It sure as hell, does not hurt anyone, but is a great gesture of good faith.

Safar jaan in turn brough up another good point. Is there or should there be a statute of limitation on this issue? My response to that would be, why does there need to be. It's best to apologize about any wrongdoing. If it happened 2,000 years ago, it just shows your level of civility, culture and class to still show sympathy. Let's not forget that the problems in many regions of the world, particularly in the ME go hundreds if not thousands of years back. And if people at least started acknowledging their past wrongdoings, not only will they be more careful about their current actions, but will receive a much more favorable and peaceful response from others.

Now, back to the original argument... Does the fact that Erdogan (willingly or through fear for his safety) does not acknowledge the Armenian genocide make him a hypocrite?! Perhaps. Does hypocracy make him any different than most world leaders today? Does it?!

Should the Turks acknowledge or even apologize about the Armenian genocide? Absolutely. I think at the very least it will improve their chances with the EU. Notwithstanding this, are they not entittled to speak against current attrocities or genocides taking place right now? I don't believe any one man, unless he committs an atrocity himselfm loses entittlement to speak against it. Does Peres have a right to speak againt loss of Israeli civilian lives - not unless he speaks against the loss of Palestinian civilians IMHO. I think that's really what's at the core of this debate.

If the standard is for states to apologize for their past mistakes, let's hold everyone to that. If they're forbidden from attacks against civilians, let's hold everyone to that. Let's create a world with a single standard that's going to be followed. I think that's what all of us want. Isn't it?

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by Bi-honar

Safar jaan in turn brough up another good point. Is there or should there be a statute of limitation on this issue? My response to that would be, why does there need to be. It's best to apologize about any wrongdoing. If it happened 2,000 years ago, it just shows your level of civility, culture and class to still show sympathy. Let's not forget that the problems in many regions of the world, particularly in the ME go hundreds if not thousands of years back. And if people at least started acknowledging their past wrongdoings, not only will they be more careful about their current actions, but will receive a much more favorable and peaceful response from others.

I agree with you Behru JAn, my response and the word "statute of limitation" was in response to deerouz's post#76 (item in bold) which I copy below:

Good point. I think in general there is no formal rule for it except that in modern times, people and states are hold to a higher moral standards. The cases about Nader Shah and Agha Mohammad Khan are indeed morally unacceptable, but today people more focus on 1) more recent cases 2) cases where involves massacre or forced relocation of large groups of people. Cases such as Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Bosnia, Rwanda, and of course, Palestinians

IMHO, if a country mess up, they ought ot fess up.

[IranZamin]

First things first:

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

you never qualified your statement that if a country admit its past misdeed they have a moral position to criticize others.

I did, by pointing out in that same thread that the country being discussed was now a liberal society that condemns racism at both the governmental and popular levels, and no longer practices or accepts the kind of crimes you kept referring to. In fact, that was the whole basis of the debate: You refused to acknowledge that this difference matters, and that started the discussion.

But my condemnation of Turkey is not merely about the past, it is about their present attitude toward their past. The Turkish society lacks moral ground on human rights not because of the sins of their fathers, but because of their present attitude toward those sins, not to mention the present injustices committed by them against their Kurdish citizens.

If the English were just as unrepentant about colonialism and equally unjust to their minorities, I would have condemned them just as strongly. Unlike some, I don't base my sense of right and wrong on the skin tone of the people involved.

Now on to more fun issues:

Second, if a country had ackonwledged their misdeed in the past, then I had no argument with that, as I had no argument with Japan or Austerlia.

Really? England has admitted its wrongs and Turkey refuses to acknowledge its crimes. So why were you upset about that English guy?... where is your outrage against Turkey and Mr.Erdogan?

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

One post is statement of what I believe, and the second post you are attempting to portray as contradictin is a question (notice it start with IS or are at the begining if and ends with ? to give you a clue)

So you say don't think there should be a statute of limitations. OK. So why did you directly ask in a later post why people keep bringing up the Armenian genocide?

Also, to clarify the big picture here, please explain why you are supportive of Erdogan's condemnation of Israel, even though he is the prime minister of a country with a horrible track record on human rights, but you went crazy when an English private citizen criticized Saudi Arabia's treatment of its women?

Forget about a single sentence here and there. Your whole position on this issue is dripping with contradictions.

[The_Referee]

Behru Jaan,

Great summary and great points.

However, if Iran Zamin had not tried to defend Israel so earlier with his theory of "it is bad if only Jews do it" and going so silent afterwards when the pictures of innocent murdered children could not be denied anymore, I, or anyone here, would have followed his logic and responded the same brilliant way you did in your post.

However, the intentions of Iran Zamin, as I understand from his posts - I do not claim a psychic powers as he does and only judge him through his posts, were very much at trying to divert the discussion from the real discussion at hand - that is in a forum such as Davos a PM had enough of a Nobel peace winner's BS and reacts the way he did. For him - again from his posts - people are either with IRI or against IRI and that divides the world for him between good and evil. So Israel is good because she is IRI's enemy. Then anyone criticizing Israel is IRI's ally in his eyes and becomes a target of IZ's verbal attacks.

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

But my condemnation of Turkey is not merely about the past, it is about their present attitude toward their past. The Turkish society lacks moral ground on human rights not because of the sins of their fathers, but because of their present attitude toward those sins, not to mention the present injustices committed by them against their Kurdish citizens.
...

How about condemnation of Israel for they actually doing right now?
It is even in the same clip that Simon Peres, Noble peace prize winner, so loudly supports murder of innocent children? Why were you insensitive about that but so sensitive about Turkish PM because he is insensitive to some crimes of his country in the past? See the double standard!

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

If the English were just as unrepentant about colonialism and equally unjust to their minorities, I would have condemned them just as strongly.

The British government has never repented about his colonial past (see BBC link below). You never argued this point. Your were saying

By this deranged logic, virtually every one from every country in the world should shut their mouths because their ancestors have done wrong at some point in history

meaning no acknowledgement or apology was necessary. Now you are changing your tune and qualifying your statement to cover up the double standard of your position.

England has admitted its wrongs and Turkey refuses to acknowledge its crimes. So why were you upset about that English guy?... where is your outrage against Turkey and Mr.Erdogan?

Wrong, England has never admitted its colonial misdeeds, this is per BBC in 2005 (unless there has been one which I do not know): "the days of Britain having to apologise for its coloianl past are over Gordon Brown has said." Read subject to statute of limitation!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4176805.stm
So your comparison is invalid.

So you say don't think there should be a statute of limitations. OK. So why did you directly ask in a later post why people keep bringing up the Armenian genocide?

Read my response to Bi honar.

Also, to clarify the big picture here, please explain why you are supportive of Erdogan's condemnation of Israel..

Again making false statement. Where did I supported Erdogan? In response to deerouz I said Erdogan walk-out IMO was not a calculated political move and was spur of the moment due to the moderator's action in not giving him time to speak. After all Turkey is (and perhaps still is) Isreal closest ally in the region.
You seem to be utterily desperate by as you are making "facts" and by leveling allegations. I cannot believe this, my statements are not a day old and you are trying to twist them to prove your point.

[IranZamin]

Originally Posted by The_Referee

For him - again from his posts - people are either with IRI or against IRI and that divides the world for him between good and evil. So Israel is good because she is IRI's enemy. Then anyone criticizing Israel is IRI's ally in his eyes and becomes a target of IZ's verbal attacks.

What a bunch of simplistic, childish nonsense!

And to think I'm being preached to about "black and white mentality" from the guy whose world is neatly divided between the Evil Blond Devil and the Noble Brown Man.

Look. I'm going to be as polite about this as I can. I have stated numerous times what I think of your reasoning and your "opinions", and have made it perfectly clear that I don't care to converse with you. Stop following me around in different threads and quit trying to bait me with your band-tombooni "psychoanalysis" of my posts. I have no intention of having any interactions with you.

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

What a bunch of simplistic, childish nonsense!

And to think I'm being preached to about "black and white mentality" from the guy whose world is neatly divided between the Evil Blond Devil and the Noble Brown Man.

Look. I'm going to be as polite about this as I can. I have stated numerous times what I think of your reasoning and your "opinions", and have made it perfectly clear that I don't care to converse with you. Stop following me around in different threads and quit trying to bait me with your band-tombooni "psychoanalysis" of my posts. I have no intention of having any interactions with you.

Even from this post, your attitude is so obvious. Not that you have not insulted me or others in ISP in the past. (You are pretending to be polite here but so much for your politeness). You certainly have an ego and like a rooster closing your eyes when GHOOGHOOLI GHOOGHOOing.

I was not talking to you. I was responding to your post for the sake of others. That much is my right. So please - do stop responding. I am sure you will not be able to ignore my posts.
Let see if you could ignore me and do not respond to my post. I surely won't stop responding to your posts for the sake of discussion and others. That much is my right and your insults won't stop me.

You claimed that you ignored me or going to ignore me so many times but read and replied to my next posts, even when they were not directly to you. I am sure you will read my posts again. You can not ignore them. You simply won't. It is ingrained in your egoistic attitude. My posts strike more than one cord about your wrongful attitudes and that is why they are so right about you and that why you insult me.

[IranZamin]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

The British government has never repented about his colonial past (see BBC link below).

Save your BBC link. One would have to be completely delusional to suggest that England still condones racism or colonialism. If that's what you believe then this discussion is a waste of time.

You never argued this point. Your were saying meaning no acknowledgement or apology was necessary.

What I said, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise, was that no apology is necessary for the British today because they acknowledge their past, don't support the policies of their forefathers, and they live by beliefs and multi-cultural standards completely different from their ancestors. As for the Turks, apology too sareshoon bokhoreh, they're not even willing to admit they ever did anything wrong. But then again, they're darker than the rest of Europe, so it's ok.

You seem to be utterily desperate by my facts and leveling allegations. I cannot believe this, my statements are not a day old and you are trying to twist them to prove your point.

LOL. Yeah, you're right. I have to be "utterily" desperate to understand that your tone toward Erdogan has been the complete opposite of your attitude toward that English guy. No contradiction at all. My bad.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

Save your BBC link. One would have to be completely delusional to suggest that England still condones racism or colonialism. If that's what you believe then this discussion is a waste of time.

Yeah sure, I save my BBC link and will take your unsubstantiated totally false claim. Great logic!

LOL. Yeah, you're right. I have to be "utterily" desperate to understand that your tone toward Erdogan has been the complete opposite of your attitude toward that English guy. No contradiction at all. My bad.

Glad my misspelling caused you to LOL, you sure needed. Again could not back up your false statement that I supported Erdogan, now your referring to my attitude. Great come back. When short on facts and reason resort to bogus statemetn such as my attitude. Only coming from you with your attitude, is a bit strange.
Go ahead and come up with more falsehood. And run another spell check on my post for another LOL while you are at it.

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

Save your BBC link. One would have to be completely delusional to suggest that England still condones racism or colonialism. If that's what you believe then this discussion is a waste of time.

Lets do some psychoanalysis on this post.

- The writer does not have an evidence that Britain has acknowledged or apologized formally for the racism or colonialism.
- The writer thinks England does not condone racism and colonialism today.

- Therefore, the writer concludes that a BBC link is useless and we have to accept it that Britain must have apologized and we do not know.
- Finally he concludes the discussion is waste of time - meaning that he does not think ideas opposite to his are not worthy of listening and he has already made up his mind.

Well, I am not expecting a response from him as this is not written for him.
But the rest, please read the paragraph yourself and decide if I am right or wrong. I will gladly respond to you.

[IranZamin]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

Yeah sure, I save my BBC link and will take your unsubstantiated totally false claim.

My "unsubstantiated totally false claim" about English culture has been backed up by ISP members who have lived in English society for years. I'll wait for them to chime in if they want to.

As for the rest, we've both said our piece. We'll let others judge who is operating on double standards here.