Again, you are talking as if Turkey’s sole problem is the Kurds and she has had nothing else to worry about. The 1983 Constitution is the most theocratic one to date and all the civil liberties are affected to some degree. It was the result of the mayhem generated by the 1960 Constitution, which was the most liberal one. Without going as far back as to the collapse of Ottoman Empire, the foundation of The Republic and principles it was founded on as well as the effect it had on the populace that hadn’t gone through enlightenment and industrialization reforms, etc, let me state that Atatürk performed the miracle of the 20th century. Us Turks are having a hard time of appreciating this Republic, so I may understand Kurds not being keen on it, but the core of the matter is that, the separatist section in amongst Kurds will never be satisfied. Their concern is not the lack of freedoms and human rights issues, they couldn’t give two shits about the well being of their folk. So, while Kurds have been on the receiving end of some injustices, none of them warrant the terror their leaders embrace. They are vying for the worst case scenario just as the Armenians did 100+ years ago. The most logical solution for them is to condemn and renounce PKK to take advantage of the most suitable conditions of today. Cause the way I see it, unless there are worthy developments in near future, it won’t last long.

I am not interested in what Behrooz has to say, I am interested in what DTP has to say.

Far out man, you and your fucken Ireland !!!
Turkey is so dissimilar to your examples that making such a connection is purely idiotic. If any example of democratic success were applicable to any conflict in the world, we wouldn’t have the mess in Iraq today.

Now, don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t say those things so far, but only criticized DTP’s game plan. If you ask me directly I would happily answer : If DTP continue to make ridiculous demands relating to PKK and Öcalan, then no, I don’t think the State should engage. If the legal reforms entail dropping Ataturk’s principals from the Constitution and the administrative reforms result in forming a Turkish-Kurdish Federation, then I am totally against them. As it stands today, you should eye Northern Iraq if you are looking for winners.

Racism exists around the world. In that instance, I was talking to the racist mutt in Norway.

And considering the 70s in Turkey was rife with communist - anticommunist clashes, I don’t find this surprising. When founded, PKK was a communist organization at its core.

And…? It also doesn’t contain Diyarbakır and there is Armenia above you.

I am interested, what sort of a difference does that make in a Kurdish mind…?
We founded a new republic, called it the name Europeans were using, and you don’t like this because...???

You are failing to make any reasonable points and I am getting tired of going around circles.

Your kurdo buddy here insists there was NO land/geographical area called Turkey though

So doesn't matter by whom or when it was first called Turkey...there was an country/geographical area as a land called Turkey before Atatürk.

I see you're still disinforming the people with the confidence of posting on a greek site as kurd.

You either don't know what "Ethnicity" means or you assume that everyone who's not a kurd, is a Turk.

Or...as I said, you're deliberelty disinforming/confusing people.

I'm really curious..give us couple names of these so called "ethic" Turks who founded PKK.

I am merely making the point that the term 'Turkey' was not a native term in the region - It was a European term for the Ottoman Empire.
I did not say that the term did not exist prior to the establishment of the republic - If it had not existed proir to the establishment of the republic - one would wonder why they need the country 'Turkey' - Nor am I saying that 'Turkey' is not real country - most ethnonyms are created by nongroup members anyway -
'Turk' semes to havve been invented by the Chinese
'Kurd' by the Perisans
'Arab' by the Greeks or Romans


The reason I raise the point is that many Turkish nationalists claim that the term Kurdistan was invented in the 19th century by Europeans - ANd has never been used by anyone in the region - This is why it irks me that you are using the term Turkey and siting Eureopean sources to show that there iss a Turkey - I am simply pointing out that the Anatolian Turks did not generally use the term Turkey to refer to Anatolia - but did use terms like Kurdistan and Arabistan to discuss areas of the Ottoman Empire that were not Turkish speaking.

I fully except the historical reality is that an independent state of Kurdistan has never been a reality in the region - However, the term was in common usage - and was actually invented by the Seljuk Turks to describe the eastern most province of the empire - later it served as the name for the reoragnised province of Diyarbakır from the 1840s until the 1870s - and has been in use since WWI in Iran and Iraq as the name of a region of the country.

In what sense I am launching a campaign of disinformation -
It is a well konw fact that the PKK has co operated with extremisst Turkish leftist parties throughout its history - This include the Marxist Leninist Party of Turkey - it also includes facts split from Dev-Sol.

PKK is as much a product of the terrorist left as it is of Kurdish nationalism - It was founded in Ankara not Diyarbakır. It recruted from Turkish (or should I say non Kurdish and Kurdish students in the 1970s - It was only in the 1980s that PKK' Cadre became more 'South East' orientated.

I will give you a full answer asap but it is lunch time an I am straving - regards

This is an historical curiousity for me as I never knew that. I assume the Sultans referred to themselves as Osmanli (hence the Ottoman Empire) and the Ottoman censuses did place all Muslim subjects into a single category. But what about the average Turk back then, what did he call himself?

Average turks in the cities used to call themselves muslims only. For them Turks were the rude guys living on the mountains.

Thanks dome. I'm actually quite surprised by this as I just took it for granted you had always referred to yourselves as Turks. But what of the language? Was it referred to as "Turkish"?

To any Greek, during Ottoman times how did we refer to them: Turks or Muslims?

Really, don't try and bother.

In a matter of a week you picked on all the trivial things and distorted just about everything, it's not funny anymore.

You claimed, the difficulties Ahiskas faced alienated Kurds from the State.
You ran to our mutts defense with the name issue : "I can say I am an Iranian Kurd, but not a Turkish Kurd, though a Turkiyeli Kurd is ok."
Finally, you just about made PKK a product of Turkish left. Who are these ethnic Turks you speak of...?


Opti,
Terms of ethnic origin were hardly used in the Empire until the end, religion was what separated the populace. Muslim populace were seen as 'kul' meaning the servant of god, and were very loyal to their sultans. Ottoman Turkish was greatly influenced by Farsi, (all the Arabic words entered Turkish because of this) and it was written with Arabic alphabet till 1928. Take Ottoman archives for example, all the documents are written with Arabic alphabet in Ottoman language. When these are translated to Latin alphabet, I can read it but can't understand every second word.

http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayinlar_osm.htm

Enjoy reading the archives brother!!!

Bingo.

Original document : Can't read let alone understand.



Written with Latin Alphabet (only a small section): Can read, but can hardly understand.

So I was basically correct in two of my three guesses. You have either no idea what "ethnic" means or you're deliberetly disinforming/confusing people.

According to you, anyone who's not kurd, is a Turk. You seem to forget the fact that back than, kurd identity was not used in the media, so any claim by you that PKK was founded by Turks (with your addition of "ethic Turks") has a great chance of being false.

It's also a fact that extreme left had more kurds in their ranks than "Turks"

We still didn't see any names of them so we can check their ethnic background.

It's not true wrong for 70's.

Then let's see you proving they were ethnic Turks.