Perspectives --be heard-- or click the graphic for other topics. -Rules-F.A.Q.--121 Chat-E.U. & Turkey show... - BRITAIN/EUROPE chat! -european chat - WORLD - Forums
Turkey is manipulated by E.U...only and never be the member !
Greeks + Armenians are trying to obtain many things with this tactic and at the end E.U. will ask for something which Turks would never accept ( such as Kurdistan at south east of Turkey ). So... E.U. will say " Sorry...we can't take you in this case ". But Greeks and Armenians will keep what they got.
After all E.U. games, if Turkey end up a terrorist producer country, world will be shaked differently. That's even not imaginable....Turks are from yellow race after all !
roskilde rules wrote: i think it is good that turkey maybe will join the EU. it will help them so much both economic and social
I have mixed feelings about this.
Against:
I am concerned that we are considering getting into bed with a country with such a dubious record on human rights. (Although with Blair trying to push through legislatuion which will allow us to lock up people for 90 days without trial, we have little to be proud of)
For:
Anything that begins to bridge the yawning chasm between Islamic countries and the west must be encouraged.
On balance I am inclined to hold my nose and support the move.
I thought that EU meant EUROPEAN UNION - meaning all countries which go to make up the Union are essentially....EUROPEAN.
When I look at my atlas I see that only a very small part of Turkey is actually in Europe - the bit which includes Istanbul. All the rest of this large country seems, to me, to be in Asia. There is absolutely nothing about Turkey which resembles a European country.....nothing about its culture is in any way European.
If Turkey is admited then maybe Israel will apply to join. If that turns out to be the case then why not open the doors for any old country to apply for membership of the the jolly Great European Bean Feast? Why not Cambodia or Burkino Fasso? Why not Outer Mongolia? Or maybe Paraguay can request admission to our ever expanding pan global community. What about isolated little Iceland? At least that country can be considered legitimately European.
Armenian genocide not really .Armenian Nation translocation for security.Of course maybe some humans death Turkish or Armenian but this is historial realty .So can not be EU criters...
Armenian genocide not really .Armenian Nation translocation for security.Of course maybe some humans death Turkish or Armenian but this is historial realty .So can not be EU criters...
the Armenian Genocide did happen most countries in the world accept the evidence that id did happen. Only most muslim countries do not acknowledge the Genocide, (which isn't a jab at muslims.) it was the first genocide of the 20th century. Even the Germans accepted what they have done so why can't Turkey?
I dont think EU can afford to accept Turkey for now, for economical reasons: it is a large country, with many inhabitants.. it is not like Estonia or Malta. Accepting a big, poor country like Turkey would mean for EU spending so much money in economical aid, and western Europe would be flooded by Turkish immigrants. In Italy we are experiencing problems after Romania has joined EU, because Romanians are now EU citizens and thus free to come and work here, and Romania is quite a smaller country than Turkey. If Turkey would join, it could be the chaos and maybe some populist Italian politicians could call for Italy to leave EU.
Last edited on Thu May 8th, 2008 09:08 am by €urope2004
Armenian genocide not really .Armenian Nation translocation for security.Of course maybe some humans death Turkish or Armenian but this is historial realty .So can not be EU criters...
the Armenian Genocide did happen most countries in the world accept the evidence that id did happen. Only most muslim countries do not acknowledge the Genocide, (which isn't a jab at muslims.) it was the first genocide of the 20th century. Even the Germans accepted what they have done so why can't Turkey?
Meantime İts be lots of genocide in world.Why they not speak.if this is genocide.Please do some think.
Why Armenia do genocide azerian in now.Why not speak this...
Turkey not religion in politics world...Turkey see international ... Turkey some with İsrael , some with other country .Muslims or other...
U see chinese genocide in world in next
The Pope in Turkey:
The trip of a thousand years
By JOAQUIN NAVARRO-VALLS
We won't see the Popemobile when Benedict XVI travels to Turkey in a few days. It was first used when John Paul II made his first trip to Mexico in 1979.
Contrary to what some think that the Popemobile is intended for the Pope's protection, it is really to make the Pope more visible to the faithful.
Only after the assassination atetmpt on the Pope in 1981 were changes introduced to the closed Popemobile, which now has bulletproof glass which allows the Pope to be seen by the people but also provides some degree of security.
But there will be no crowds for the Pope in Turkey. The few Christians who live in Istanbul - and the fewer still who live in Ankara - will not be out on the streets but will be inside their local churches to wait for him.
The authorities most involved with the Pope's visit will be more interested in showing themselves off in their newfound robes of progressives belonging to a fusion of nationalists withthe fundamentalist wing of Islam. This is an alarming reality that explains why, for domestic reasons, Turkey's top leaders have chosen to 'snub' the Pope.
The Turkish state is fairly recent. It was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923, as a rigorously secular state. The present Constitution - despite two coups and several years of economic crisis - has maintained that non-religious character.
The singularity of Istanbul, ancient Constantinnople, is in being the crossroads for three great monotheistic religions: Catholicism, Orthodox christianity and Islam.
Benedict XVI will be the third Pope in modern times to visit Turkey. The first was Paul VI in 1967, whose historic meeting with the Patriarch Athenagoras was a significant stage in Christian ecumenism. The second was John Paul II's visit in 1979.
In both cases, neither Pope made any reference to the Muslim majority in Turkey. Paul VI, citing Nostra Aetate, addressed a few formal words of greeting in French to the Muslim religious leader of Istanbul. John Paul II, meeting with Turkish authorities, did not even once say the word Islam.
This was fundamentally out of respect for the laicity of the Turkish state and the form of the Republic that was inaugurated by Ataturk, as well as a respect for freedom of religion.
Now, the situation has changed a lot. On the one hand, there is the great question of human rights which has impeded the admission process of Turkey into the Europpean Union, and on the other, the issue of Islam.
The Islamic question arose from the explosion of Islamic integralism in Turkey after September 11, 2001, and has made Benedict XVI's visit particularly sensitive. Many are even questioning the wisdom of a trip that has very little to do with the politics of the moment.
If the integralist reaction in Turkey after the Pope's Regensburg lecture speaks for itself, relations with the Orthodox Christians appear to be very promising.
As we know, the two great Christian churches - East and West - were parallel but united in the first millennium, and separated during the second.
The Great Schism formally took place in 1054 when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius excommunicated each other. But this institutional divorce only formalized a cultural and linguistic separation batween the two churches that began even at the time of the Church Fathers.
Some historians have said that the primary reason for the schism was the primacy claimed by the Bishop of Rome over the four Patriarchs of the Oriental Church, but one must consider the political motives that were actually in play, above all, the relationship between religion and politics.
Whereas in the West, the clear distinction between Church and State - or, as the title of a work by the French canonist Ugo de Fleury called it, between "Royalty and Priesthood" - had been established from the time of Pope Gelasius I, this distinction was never even thought about in the East.
In the fourth century, Constantinople became the capital of the world. The Emperor of the Orient was at the same time King and High Priest, without a clear distinction between religion and politics.
In the same way, Islam has not always distinguished between these two planes, and the secular integrity claimed by the Turkish state creates confusion among their Muslim citizens.
But Benedict's visit to Turkey is not about Islam.
It must be recognized that a significant development today is the good relations that have been established between the Orthodox Patriarchate and the Catholic Church. On this visit, their two heads will be taking part in each other's rites.
The Pope will attend Orthodox rites at the Phanar, and the patriarch will attend Mas at the cathedral of Istanbul. The Pope and the Patriarch talk to each other, write each other, send invitations to each other which are accepted and reciprocated.
No one could have predicted such events 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. If Paul VI's visit at the time seemed unique, a feat without precedent in ecumenism, today there is an established and familiar reciprocity between the two Churches.
On the other hand, the situation of ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey today could not be worse. It often results in a state of emergency for Catholics as well as for the Orthodox.
This is a situation that is analogous to conditions in the first millennium, when the Pope and the Patriarch, despite their differences, considered themselves united in the defense of religious freedom.
That is why we cannot ignore the important expectations that the Orthodox Christians have about the Pope's presence in Turkey with respect to defending human rights.
Not long ago, the Patriarch said that everyone expects the Pope to make an explicit declaration in 'defense of minorities" - a euphemism for the right to religious freedom, especially the right to authentic expression of their respective rites of worship.
For the moment, the attitude of the Pope is different from that of any other religious head, Christian or not. He brings with him a testimony of abnegation and seriousness to show the exclusively religious sense of the mission he is undertaking.
He is not acting out of any political motive, nor to gain anything politically out of it, if only because under the circumstances he would never even think of making such a trip at such a time.
He is going to the East to carry a message of solidarity and peace, to give personal testimony of the effort and the responsibility that such a commitment requires, very much as John Paul II personally went to the Holy Land to bring to Israel a message of forgiveness.
But this time the letter Benedict XVI brings will not be left at a Wailing Wall. He will deliver it personally with the warmth - as well as the risk to himself - of his physical presence.
These expectations are not marginal, because in Turkey, religious minorities suffer from juridical recognition which would protect their respective identities and promote mutual rapport among each other, and because their right to freedom of religion under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an irrenounceable element of international legitimization [i.e.,that Turkey must prove it respects before it can be admitted to the EU].
But the Pope is really travelling down a road that began in the past, a journey that has lasted a century and whose pace has picked up in the past several years.
To carry a message of close identification always implies - beyond the risk of being 'used' - a generous openness that is not exclusively political, that cannot be limited to a calculation of common interests that may be served.
In this case, it is not about unifying or defending the West against the expansion of integralist violence, nor to castle the Church behind a moat. For the Pope and the Patriach, it means listening to each other, showing each one his authentic self, how he thinks, his values, his ideas, his convictions.
Truly, what impels the Pope towards the meeting in Istanbul is very much what Thomas Mann called 'unpolitical considerations.' Today, more than ever, it is important that both sides in the ecumenical dialog take a daring step forward, whatever it may cost them personally.
It is evident that we are facing a great historic appointment, and this important meeting of mutual recognition of a common identity will only be realized with full concurrence on both sides, and if all concerned have the courage to overcome the most dangerous and insidious fear of all, which is a terror of confronting the right time when it comes.
Armenian genocide not really .Armenian Nation translocation for security.Of course maybe some humans death Turkish or Armenian but this is historial realty .So can not be EU criters...
the Armenian Genocide did happen most countries in the world accept the evidence that id did happen. Only most muslim countries do not acknowledge the Genocide, (which isn't a jab at muslims.) it was the first genocide of the 20th century. Even the Germans accepted what they have done so why can't Turkey?
I'd like to see the EU disbanded, but if we can't have that, at least keep Turkey out. Turkey has no business in the EU and as Qadaffi called it, is an Islamic trojan horse.
And how is the EU any of your business? I can only guess that the current scenario of a strong Euro and a week US Dollar grates on the American psyche. Or maybe the idea of a United States of Europe ever growing in size, unity, strength and economic power poses somekind of threat to the United States of America, which does not quite have the same growth in potential?
And how is the EU any of your business? I can only guess that the current scenario of a strong Euro and a week US Dollar grates on the American psyche. Or maybe the idea of a United States of Europe ever growing in size, unity, strength and economic power poses somekind of threat to the United States of America, which does not quite have the same growth in potential? America has plenty of growth potential. Our population is increasing, we have superior natural resources, as well as much more room to absorb populaiton increases.
And how is the EU any of your business? I can only guess that the current scenario of a strong Euro and a week US Dollar grates on the American psyche. Or maybe the idea of a United States of Europe ever growing in size, unity, strength and economic power poses somekind of threat to the United States of America, which does not quite have the same growth in potential? America has plenty of growth potential. Our population is increasing, we have superior natural resources, as well as much more room to absorb populaiton increases.
Most countries with 'superior' natural resources are third world countries. Having an abundance of natural resources is more oft a curse than a blessing.
Free speech & free membership. Profanity prohibited.
Spammers beware: ads cost US 5000 per post or PM plus our legal fees to collect it.
Dedicated volunteer moderators make this site possible! They're not representatives of this company (except admin).
Account disabled? If you break site rules we may ban you. Email mods if in error. For legal email click terms.
![[europe]](/forums/themes/default/europe.gif)
![[star]](/forums/themes/default/usarmy.gif)
Nice To meet u 
![[confused]](/forums/themes/default/confused-smiley-001.gif)
