Europe's top human rights court in its largest ever judgment ordered Turkey on Monday to pay 90 million euros ($123 million) to Cyprus for its 1974 invasion and the island's subsequent division. The decision from the European Court of Human Rights said the passage of time did not erase Turkey's responsibility in the case, ruling that Turkey must pay 30 million euros in damages to relatives of those missing in the operations and 60 million euros for "the enclaved Greek-Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula." In your opinion do think this sets a good precedent for other countries to follow? Im not sure how i feel about it simply because if you go through history there are quite alot of countries that in 'theory' are going to owe alot of money to others...
what Turkey can do is get a summary copy of the judgment and then makes copies and hand it out to their citizens who will then proceed to wipe their asses with it each time that they take a shit.
Yeh i didnt think turkey was going to pay up anytime soon either but thanks for your detailed input kevin lol
Eh. Turkey should probably start by paying back the 10's of millions of people that they displaced and the 10's of million of people that they've slaughtered and subjected to genocide over the past 200 years. People like to point out only the caliphates and other Arab muslims and whatnot but the Seljuks and Ottomans were probably the most ruthless savages to ever exist.
Sure. But better do things a little chronologically, perhaps with European crimes that preceded before it. Would love to see Britain and France pay some reparations to Africa and the Middle-East.
The Turks and Arabs were on imperialistic tears before the Europeans were in Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East. One can look at Arab invasions of Spain, North Africa, attacks on Italy as proof, not to mention attacks on what is now Syria and Jordan. There is a movement for Europeans to pay reparations underfoot in the Middle East and North Africa; Italy I think even paid some reparations to Libya. But no such movement for reparations from Arabs and Turks who, unlike Europeans, refuse to admit to any of their past crimes and insist they were perpetual victims.
These are seemingly fair claims. However, then the question comes up that could any invasion and war just simply be used to hold countries accountable? For one thing, none of the "Arab" conquerors you speak of exist today. Not the Umayyads, not the Abassids, not even the Ottomans for the most part. Are you then claiming that people should be indicted purely based on race or nationality? Because when the question of European colonialism comes up, the regimes are still in place, where as in most Arab and Turkic countries, that is not the case. The Spanish regime today is the direct inheritor to the Spanish regime that conquered lands in yesteryear. Same with the British regime. The French Republican regime that colonized North Africa and Middle-East are the same Republican regime in power today. The case against the Turks makes sense in that light, since the modern Turkish Republic are the same regime that divided the Cyprus into two. Even holding the modern Turkish Republic accountable for the Armenian massacre makes sense, since the modern Republic grew out of the Ottoman military which committed the act in the first place. Holding "Arabs" accountable for what the Ummayyad and Abbassids did, means you are engaging in racialist tactics holding ethnic groups accountable as opposed to the political apparatuses which engaged in said activities or inherited the legacy (including benefits) of said activities.
Not even the Ottomans? Erdogan called himself an Ottoman the other day and decreed that he was doing Ottoman work. He also has the support of most of the country. Osman as well as Seljuk butchery is still well and alive in the hearts of many Turks.
Do you read the full post, or snooze after the first paragraph. Read the 3rd paragraph. Doesn't matter who calls who what. The modern Turkish Republic is not the same as the Ottoman regime, which you may accuse of a number of things from invading Eastern Europe to conquering Anatolia to various atrocities. I do however, think the case for the Armenian atrocity has basis, since the modern Turkish Republic grew out of the same military that committed the act in the first place (Ataturk himself being an Ottoman officer), and the connection to the Young Turks who also took part in said activity. In other words: you can make a case that the Turkish Republic divided Cyprus into two, but then say, to blame them of dividing Greece into two (Greece proper, and Greek Anatolia) would be absurd. So if someone passively supports Hitler, should they be sent to the Hague to face Nazi war crimes? Passively supporting somebody is no different than to passively oppose said body. This is guilt by association.
No, the modern Turkish Republic is becoming an increasingly horrible place to live and Erdogan is closing in on dictator territory. If you follow what he has done over the past month basically banning free speech, shouting down and shutting up people who dare question him and delivering Ottoman slaps, then you wouldn't be making such a poor argument. It's absurd because you say so? Why is that? What kind of argument is that. "It is absurd" --- well, i'm sold. You cooked me. Done. Finished. Smoked. You got me. It is very easy to accuse them because it was them who committed the genocide. They killed several millions of people and they continue to treat the indigenous peoples of Anatolia like subhuman scum. Now I know that you have no idea what you're talking about. The MODERN TURKISH REPUBLIC still denies that the Armenian genocide took place and that doesn't even address the lesser known Assyrian and Greek genocides that took place under them in the last century which claimed the lives of other people in the millions of direct deaths. Educate yourself before embarrassing yourself again, please. And how dare you compare this utter denial of savagery to the Europeans. Last time I checked, Merkel wasn't denying Hitler's holocaust and Cameron wasn't denying Britain's slave trade. Disgrace.
We're not even talking about the same thing anymore. Did i say otherwise? Or do you have problems comprehending English? This is exactly what my post alluded to, holding regimes responsible (including Turkey for its Armenian role; do you even read, bro?). You on the other hand are on a totally different planet, throwing strawman fallacies like your life depends on it.
LOL me with the fallacy huh? You dropped a massive straw man with your little Hague diversion. You said that the "Modern Turkish Republic" was not the same as the Ottomans. As though "Modern Turkish Republic" means shit all. What I'm saying is that the Turks should start by repaying all of the genocides and disgraceful, modern subhuman acts that they've been committing to Anatolians. The "Modern Turkish Republic" means absolutely nothing. They deny that the Ottoman Empire did any wrong and thus they are no different to the Ottoman Empire in many respects. Lets call ourselves a democracy (yet we're a semi-secret near dictatorship) and then we can't be held accountable for everything. The "Modern Turkish Republic" should be held accountable for ALL of their atrocities and actions including their actions in Cyprus, Anatolia, the Levant and everywhere else.
The modern Turkish state is the not the same as the Ottomans who conquered Anatolia, or took Christian Balkan kids to be their slave-soldiers, or led incursion into Central Europe. It is the same as the military apparatus who committed the Armenian atrocity, however; since its their military leaders who founded the Turkish Republic. As for them denying they did anything. What do you expect them to do? Isn't that why the concept of "laws" and "trials" exist, because defendants claim innocence/ignorance. Isn't that what this whole thread is about? You make it seem like if they deny anything happened, I'm supposed to be the bad guy. Retard much? It's hard to debate with people who turn everything into a flame war. I don't feed trolls, stopped doing that a while ago.
You started the "flame war" when you made your little smart arse "snooze" comment. I was cordial with you, don't cry now. I expect them to be decent human beings and not genocide denying scum. Are holocaust deniers not treated with disgust? Why are you defending the Turkish state which has denied for a century that they massacred several ethnic and religious groups in one of the worst atrocities of all time. It is a fact that the Turks committed several genocides recognized by every singly professional in the world. It seems that it is the "Modern TUrkish Republic" only, that denies that they massacred millions of people. And you're defending their denial. Go figure.
All Britain does is give out charity to Africa, if we were made to pay reparations for past atrocities it would be a damn sight less than what we've paid already in aid over the last fifty or so years. If it was even suggested there'd be a huge backlash and people would make petitions to stop giving aid to them - and rightfully so.
Lol, at me defending the Turkish state. Obvious troll is obvious. I assign blame to people who deserve blame (not guilt by association). I never once denied Turkey its role in Armenian atrocities, I did however, deny they were the same as the Ottomans, and hence, could not be blamed for Ottoman crimes which had nothing to do with the Turkish Republic (i.e., Balkan slaves, incursions, conquests). The Armenian debacle IS a thing that both can be implicated for. That does not make the two regimes one and the same, despite YOU and Erdogan claiming so. I guess you two do agree on some things, don't you think? I'm actually anti-Aid myself. I'm anti-International Law too. But I expect some consistency from these people. That was my point for the comment tbh.
Eh. They are no different than the Ottomans in many ways if they deny it when they KNOW the truth. They are willing to dehumanize millions of people that they butchered, indiscriminately. It isn't a "debacle". It is a massacre. It is a genocide. It is denied by the "Modern Turkish Republic" which is covering for the "not-Modern Ottoman Empire". I also did not say that they were "exactly" the same and in fact explicitly stated that they were not so again, quit the straw man. I understand your point and I think it is fair in some respects but I think we will continue to disagree on this because we have slightly differing views.
