how does that mean 33% was christian I am sure when you puts up stats and figures like this than you must have some source to back that up ? or was that a revelation from God for the chosen ones ?
I am very much encouraged by the possibility that you understood what I wanted to say. Could it be?! ?! It was indeed a VERY complicated philosophical sentence. That's definately a first time that you understand what the people who are debating with you say and even reply on the subject of matter. U're making great progress, new! But as for its validity, have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey These are only the greeks, we have not yet touched the kurds and what was left from the Armenians after they were genocided. I believe your friend ziya who is Turkish can tell us more on this subject, but he won't speak not even a single word about Turkey - as is typical with all of the extreme jihadists: they will speaks only about Israel. The narrative at its best.
is the question too hard to understand ? I am not asking you about greeks or Armenians or jihadis YOU HAD SAID what is the source of this ? too ashamed that your made up stats have been caught and busted ?
In the kind of education I received, it is not shameful to be wrong (but honest) and get busted. Nontheless, in your specific case, it would be pretty much shameful, but not that bad. Luckily yet it has never happened. In the kind of education I received, it is shameful to be wrong and yet insist you are right even after being proven beyond any doubt that you are wrong. In this context, let me remind you that it was you who "just posted" George Washington "quotes" from Nazi websites and insisted that they are real because "they are everywhere on the web". Anyway, as for your question: The source is a simple approximation I made myself. The details are as follows: In 1900, there were 12 million people living in the territory of modern day Turkey. http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm These 12 million were composed of a muslim majority, a christian minority, and a negligible number of jews. Out of about 4 million Armenians in the world at that time, of which about 2-3 million were living in modern day turkey. Here you get to see what used to be Armenia, in comparison of present day Armenia, after the Turks "took care of them". http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/turkey-armenia.gif 1.5 million Armenians were massacred, map of the massacres and deportations: so those who were massacred+those who survived make about ... say... 2.5 million? Now, the greek, were 1.7 million in 1914 (see the maps to the right and read the figure captions), so lets say 1.5 million in 1900? See also: The Instanbul Massacre of 1955. So we arrive at 1.5+2.5 = 4 , from 12 , or 33%. Fine? If I got it wrong, please correct me with the real numbers from CREDIBLE sources, if you know what that means. And we haven't even mentioned persecution of the the Kurds who are members of all world religions, which Turkey continues to persecute as we speak. And another very sad event of course it the Mor Gabriel case. I guess that for the Turks, even less than 1% non-muslim is also too much to handle. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638477632658147.html - read it, for a change. The attempt of the Turks to strip the 1700 year old monatry of its property and land has caused a delay in Turkey's joining the EU - a step that I hope that will happen before the Erdogans will take over Turkey. Please excuse me if it was 31.2% or 28% instead of 33%. Today, it is less than 1% - achieved according to the true muslim way of tolerance, the religion of peace, amen. Just like the muslims now demand in Switzerland to erect a 6 meter tall minarets, and if rejected, it is a "declaration of war". same same, no? But anyway, I am really not an expert on the Turkish ethnic purges and genocides. In Turkey today, freedom of speech is not granted on this topic. In a normal situation ziya should have been more educated on this subject, but in his specific case I doubt it. But since he speaks only about Israel and never about Turkey, it is also not so relevant. Or else you could ask him to enlighten us. Hope this answers your question? U're making progress new. After so many posts you are really managing not to lose your focus in a sort of debate. thats a first. good job.
Just one thing about quotes above. It seems to me that in fact it is YOU who really has the idea about our (Jewish) ''being chosen'' and ''superior'' (btw being chosen and being superior is two very different things, isn't it?). This YOURS idea, or, by other words, your inferiority complex is the main source of you, guys, driving-force in malignity and hate. From one side it's pity that, unfortunately, I don't have time enough to take participation in confuting every lie you, the OP and millions of yours brothers produce here as everywhere in the world. But fortunately single ChaosTrivia is getting all of you every time so it's enough. It is very similar as single small Israel getting its enemies in every war. Take care.
Maybe Chaos or bourbon will finally on the 50th page quote the quote and highlight the qualifier. Is it really that hard?
Toopac - Chaos answered what he thought on PAGE 1. You've been asking the same question now for 14 pages. Here, this is his answer from PAGE 1. If you want to pursue this, you may want to write to Luntz. Edit: Oops. Not 14 pages, it's actually been 15 pages!
I didn't ask you to write a thesis ? did I ? It is crystal clear now that what you posted was a lie and has not sources expect your own 'assumptions' which tells us a lot about your credibility and yes, you are no expert in Turkish history which is evident from your baseless propaganda posts I don't need to find sources for anything, it is you who claimed that in 1900 33% of turkey was christian so better find a source which shows that may be you need to rewrite the history a bit and mold it according to your requirements ?
LOL new Hebrew proverb: ×ין שכל, ×ין ד×גות No Brain, No Worries. If I was wrong, which could be the case, then now you how to point out exactly where, and provide the right figures from credible sources instead. See an example on how you refute arguments: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=13032055&postcount=127 . Don't be mad, but this is just how it works in a civilized debate. Presently, we have to take my version for the % of Christians 100 years ago in the territory of modern day Turkey, unless you present an alternative figure and explain why your one is the right one. Until you do that, my post is the truth, by default. It has numerous sources with references and cross references. After reading the references in my post, I think that only a moron could still claim that Turkey, the most secular and progressive muslim country, is a tolerant one.
Here are the important bits from Chaos posts that didn't make sense earlier or later Rebecca. The omitted 'last line', That's the sentence that he bolded right? see below: The above is saying these things as plain as day: 1) Liberals fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids 2) Liberals fail to see why Israel needs to level homes or attack villages 3) Liberals fail to see why a Palestinian state is a threat to Israel’s existence. 4) Saying we are "a small country won't help" with either of the above three instances to gain liberal support. The whole section deals with "handling liberals" and "winning them over", paragraph 3 says liberals won't understand the need to shoot unarmed kids, the need to level homes and stop a Palestinian state, nothing more (except Israel is small). --------- What's funny is Chaos offered 3 positions Rebecca: 1) The one above which is total nonsense. 2) He then offered to highlight what bit qualifies the statement from the chapter (after he wrote the above) - IF - I answer a strawman. 3) He then said the quotation marks may have been missed. If he explained it correctly at point 1 there's no need to make alternative positions such as 2 nor 3. And he still cannot do the simple highlighting because without 'huffing and puffing' in the answer there can be no smoke and mirrors.
I cant figure out how I never followed the original link. Thanks for re-posting it Rebbecca. I donated 50$ as well.
You're welcome. It was nice of Toopac to create this thread to try to get support and awareness for the Israel Project. j/k
it is pretty simple case In 1900 there was no turkey, there was ottoman empire but yet only a 'genius; like you can give the statement as above no, you did not mention that it was a approximation that you made up yourself, you presented it as a FACT and now for face-saving you are saying that it was approximation It has been enough of the lies, I suggest that now you give up on making-up stuff to spread your hate assumptions, assumptions, assumptions .. you had said 33% were Christians ..that was a definite figure .. now you go back on words and say that 'christian minority' where is the source that there were 4 million Armenians at that time ? what 'say' ? had you mentioned that say 33% of population of turkey was Christian in 1900 .. you propagated that as a FACT and now your arguments are 'say' this 'say' that Where is the CHRISTIAN population ? Your claim was about CHRISTIAN population ? not armenains and greeks .. were there no jews in them ? remember you had given us a FACT that 33% population is Christan ? and you had claimed about 1900 .. do you understand that there is a difference between 1914 and 1900 ? AND .. even if we keep up with your lies and assume them to be correct than As you are calculating the fleeing population from turkey, as per your 'calculations' 4mn left Turkey and you used to show us the 33% your 'calculations' mean that every Christan from turkey fled by 1914 but even in 1965 there were 207,000 Christians in Turkey i.e. by the Census . not by 'assumptions' hence your so called theory is busted ..
new, you disappoint me. I stopped read your previous post at: I thought that you managed to understand the following quote of mine which re-appeared 10 times already. Honestly, it is not such a difficult philosophical concept to understand. Isn't it is? Tell me new. are you so stupid for real of you're just joking? sorry for not continuing to read your post, I believe my newborn's intellect is already higher than yours, so I prefer to have a chat with her.
Just $50? I gave £200 to George Galloway's humanitarian aid to Gaza Always looking to promote Jews like these, I have nothing against them.
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.689731/k.A173/Key_TIP_Staff.htm Judging by the names, some of them are probably not jewish (about a third, i.e. Christoph Heil, Meagan Shaina Buren - very non-jewish names) and couple of them are certainly not jewish (Hamodie Abu Nadda). but yea in the interview at the end of this documentary, your girlfriend teaches us that the jews always hide their identity. so you can never know.
Why don't you just highlight the thing chapter? you ignore it often, and then try to talk to me. I don't care if they are Jewish or not it's rather irrelevant. They give out propaganda that benefits Israel by giving people half-truths and flat out lies, it justifies land grabbing and from reading the document they are opposed to a two state solution etc etc etc. I don't care for propaganda that plays on sympathizes IE anti-Semitism. In fact I don't even care for the word "anti-Semitism" as it doesn't mean a thing now-a-days, it's simply a word that means "don't question Israel or any Jew" else be labelled "anti-Semitic" or you "did question Israel or any Jew" therefore your "anti-Semitic". In fact it gives me quite a warm feeling being called anti-Semitic, it just proves exactly what I already know. "my girlfriend" - Childish.
because I'm not a kindergarden and don't like to explain the same thing for the 4th time.Rebecca posted the explanation for you. I didn't talk to you just pointed out your stupidity and prejudice by saying "these jews" whereas many of them aren't. *aHem* I'm starting to think that you really believe your own shit. sad. no they don't. And I thought that your initial case against them was that they are "racist, intolerant, evil and supremacist in nature". I wonder what caused the change in your case against them to just "liars" and "political rivals". Can you write two posts which are coherent and not self-contradicting? I didn't see where in the document they oppose a two-state solution but I didn't actually read their paper. But since you did, maybe you could quote for us a place from which one can understand that they oppose a two-state solution. Show us your wonderful reading comprehension abilities again. I would be surprised if they do oppose it, only because their slogan reads: "For freedom, security, and peace", and when people talk about peace they mean the two-state solution. Its funny to see how this small bunch of guys with absolutely no importance what so ever are your new heroes, though. ? English ? A) no, it does not mean that. B) you use the word rather often, especially for one that "don't even care for the word 'anti-Semitism'". We know that too. i.e. "Always looking to promote Jews like these" , said by you also on people who are not even jewish. come on, you must admit she looks hot