Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
|Register||FAQ||Pictures||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Middle East News from the Middle East|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
‘Turkey the worst violator of human rights’
European Court of Human Rights says Turkey is leading human rights violator
The European Court of Human Rights said it issued 2,395 rulings in 2009, an increase of 27 percent from the previous year, with Turkey and Russia as the biggest offenders, according to annual figures released Thursday.
Judges issued 341 rulings against Turkey, more than 200 of them concerning the workings of its national courts and 30 following complaints of inhuman or degrading treatment.
Russia remained in second place with 210 rights violations, including three for torture and 84 for inhuman treatment – mostly from war-torn Chechnya.
Russia is also by far the biggest source of complaints with 28 percent. The foreign ministry in Moscow says many these relate to conditions in jails and abuses committed by government forces in Chechnya.
The Russian parliament has just voted to ratify a key protocol that allows reforms streamlining the Strasbourg court to go ahead.
The protocol had been blocked by Moscow lawmakers in 2006 amid complaints that the court was anti-Russian.
Europe's top rights court is battling to come to grips with an increasing workload that soared by nearly a quarter last year. The number of pending cases at the Strasbourg tribunal rose by 23 percent to 119,300, the court said in its annual report.
The European Court of Human Rights, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, can be appealed to by 818 million people in the 47-country Council of Europe if they feel their national courts have failed.
‘Turkey the worst violator of human rights’
‘Turkey the worst violator of human rights’
On The Guardian, a news drawing attention to the fact that Turkey is the worst violator of the 47 countries party to the European Convention on Human Rights was published. The news also stressed that Turkey violates children’s rights.
The news cited that the 15-year-old girl Berivan who was taken into custody at a demonstration in the south-eastern city of Batman on October, 2009, for shouting slogans and throwing stone at policemen, was sentenced to imprisonment for seven and a half years after she was found guilty for terrorist actions, and it was said: “the case happens at a time when the human rights records of Turkey is closely reviewed after Turkey is declared to be the worst country of the 47 signatory states to the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The news which cited some part of Berivan’s letter published also in the Turkish press mentioned that the imprisonment sentence given was an example of the practice of jailing children for terror-related offences under counter-terrorism legislation introduced in 2006 in Turkey.
Counter-terrorism legislation “introduced” 737 children with courts
The Guardian news giving the information that there are currently 2,622 minors in Turkish prisons according to the recent official figures, drew attention to the fact that 737 children have been charged under the counter-terrorism legislation since its introduction, based on the figures given by Diyarbakır Human Rights Association.
The news reported that out of 267 tried in Diyarbakır in 2009, 78 were given extended jail terms and that a prosecutor demanded sentences of 23 years each for six youths, aged 13 and 14, who were charged with throwing stones and Molotov cocktails during the last November. It was also reported in the news: “human rights campaigners say many of those jailed have been wrongly accused and condemn the convictions as a breach Turkey's obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
The worst violator of the 50 years: Turkey
While it was said that Turkey was identified last week as the worst violator of the European Convention on Human Rights between 1959 and 2009, it was stressed that according to figures released by the European Court of Human Rights, the country accounted for almost 19% of all violations, with 2,295 judgments issued against it.
“Turkey also had the highest proportion of violations in 2009, making up 347 out of 1,625 negative rulings....
European Court of Human Rights finds Turkey guilty of abusing Iranian refugees.
European Court of Human Rights finds Turkey guilty of abusing Iranian refugees.
The twelve refugees had lodged complaints of abuse and inhumane treatment at the hands of Turkish guards in refugee camps, with the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights .
As well as the financial restitution, the court ruled that the expulsion of the six refugees remaining in Turkey to their homeland would be considered a violation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The judges presiding over the case found that the extradition of said refugees would lead to torture in their own countries.
So far the government of Turkey which has recently strengthened its ties with the Iranian regime, has not reacted. In recent weeks several articles in the Washington Post have described the conditions under which Iranian dissidents in Turkey are forced to live....
Read it all> http://planet-iran.com/index.php/news/14412
The Armenian Genocide, the first genocide of the 20th Century, occurred when two million Armenians living in Turkey were eliminated from their historic homeland through forced deportations and massacres between 1915-1918.
The Ancient Armenians
For three thousand years, a thriving Armenian community had existed inside the vast region of the Middle East bordered by the Black, Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. The area, known today as Anatolia, stands at the crossroads of three continents; Europe, Asia and Africa. Great powers rose and fell over the many centuries and the Armenian homeland, when not independent, was at various times ruled by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Mongols.
Despite the repeated invasions and occupations, Armenian pride and cultural identity never wavered. The snow-capped peak of Mount Ararat became the focal point of this proud people and by 600 BC Armenia as a kingdom sprang into being.
The First Christian Nation
Following the advent of Christianity, Armenia became the very first nation to accept it as the state religion. A golden era of peace and prosperity followed which saw the invention of a distinct alphabet, the flourishing of literature, art, commerce, and a unique style of architecture. By the 10th century, Armenians had established a new capital at Ani, affectionately called the ‘city of a thousand and one churches.’
Under Muslim Rule
In the eleventh century, the first Turkish invasion of the Armenian homeland occurred. Thus began several hundred years of rule by Muslim Turks. By the sixteenth century, Armenia had been absorbed into the vast and mighty Ottoman Empire. At its peak, this Turkish empire included much of Southeast Europe, North Africa, and almost all of the Middle East.
But by the 1800s the once powerful Ottoman Empire was in serious decline. For centuries, it had spurned technological and economic progress, while the nations of Europe had embraced innovation and became industrial giants. Turkish armies had once been virtually invincible. Now, they lost battle after battle to modern European armies.
As the empire gradually disintegrated, formerly subject peoples including the Greeks, Serbs and Romanians achieved their long-awaited independence. Only the Armenians and the Arabs of the Middle East remained stuck in the backward and nearly bankrupt empire, now under the autocratic rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid.
An Ottoman Civil Rights Movement
By the 1890s, young Armenians, educated in the universities of Europe began to press for political reforms in the Ottoman Empire, calling for a constitutional government, the right to vote and an end to discriminatory practices such as special taxes levied solely against them because they were Christians. The despotic Turkish Sultan responded to their pleas with brutal persecutions and massacres. Between 1894 and 1896 over 100,000 inhabitants of Armenian villages were slaughtered during widespread pogroms conducted by the Sultan’s special regiments.
But the Sultan’s days were numbered. In July 1908, reform-minded Turkish nationalists known as “Young Turks” forced the Sultan to allow a constitutional government and guarantee basic rights. The Young Turks were ambitious junior officers in the Turkish Army who hoped to halt their country’s steady decline.
Armenians in Turkey were delighted with this sudden turn of events and its prospects for a brighter future. Both Turks and Armenians held jubilant public rallies attended with banners held high calling for freedom, equality and justice.
The Rise of Turkish Nationalism
However, their hopes were dashed when three of the Young Turks seized full control of the government via a coup in 1913. This triumvirate of Young Turks, consisting of Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal, came to wield dictatorial powers and concocted their own ambitious plans for the future of Turkey. They wanted to unite all of the Turkic peoples in the entire region while expanding the borders of Turkey eastward across the Caucasus all the way into Central Asia. This would create a new Turkish empire, a “great and eternal land” called Turan with one language and one religion.
But this new empire would have to come at the expense of the Armenian people, whose traditional historic homeland lay right in the path of the Young Turks’ plans to expand eastward. And on that land was a large population of Christian Armenians totaling some two million persons, making up about 10 percent of the Empire’s overall population.
Along with the Young Turk’s newfound “Turanism” there was a dramatic rise in Islamic fundamentalist agitation throughout Turkey. Christian Armenians were once again branded as infidels (non-believers in Islam). Young Islamic extremists, sometimes leading to violence, staged anti-Armenian demonstrations. During one such outbreak in 1909, two hundred villages were plundered and over 30,000 persons massacred in the Cilicia district on the Mediterranean coast. Throughout Turkey, sporadic local attacks against Armenians continued unchecked over the next several years.
Fueling hatred toward Armenians within the Empire were the significant cultural differences between Armenians and Turks. Though a majority of the Armenian population in Turkey lived in poverty and despair, a small minority had excelled as best they could within their second class status, with many serving as professionals, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, artists, architects and skilled craftsmen.
Armenians had also, by and large, been well educated compared to their Turkish counterparts, who were largely illiterate peasant farmers and small shopkeepers. The leaders of the Ottoman Empire had traditionally placed little value on education and not a single institute of higher learning could be found within their old empire. The various autocratic and despotic rulers throughout the empire’s history had valued loyalty and blind obedience above all.
The Young Turks decided to glorify the virtues of simple Turkish peasantry at the expense of the Armenians in order to capture peasant loyalty. They exploited the religious, cultural, economic and political differences between Turks and Armenians so that the average Turk came to regard Armenians as strangers among them.
The Outbreak of War
When World War I broke out in 1914, leaders of the Young Turk regime sided with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). The outbreak of war would provide the perfect opportunity to solve the “Armenian question” once and for all for the Young Turks. The world’s attention became fixed upon the battlegrounds of France and Belgium where the young men of Europe were soon falling dead by the hundreds of thousands. The Eastern Front eventually included the border between Turkey and Russia. With war at hand, unusual measures involving the civilian population would not seem too out of the ordinary.
As a prelude to the coming action, Turks disarmed the entire Armenian population under the pretext that the people were naturally sympathetic toward Christian Russia. Every last rifle and pistol was forcibly seized, with severe penalties for anyone who failed to turn in a weapon. Quite a few Armenian men actually purchased a weapon from local Turks or Kurds (nomadic Muslim tribesmen) at very high prices so they would have something to turn in.
The Genocide Begins
At this time, about forty thousand Armenian men were serving in the Turkish Army. In the fall and winter of 1914, all of their weapons were confiscated and they were put into slave labor battalions building roads or were used as human pack animals. Under the brutal work conditions they suffered a very high death rate. Those who survived would soon be shot outright. For the time had come to move against the Armenians.
The decision to annihilate the entire population came directly from the ruling triumvirate of ultra-nationalist Young Turks. The actual extermination orders were transmitted in coded telegrams to all provincial governors throughout Turkey. Armed roundups began on the evening of April 24, 1915, as 300 Armenian political leaders, educators, writers, clergy and dignitaries in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were taken from their homes, briefly jailed and tortured, then hanged or shot.
Next, there were mass arrests of Armenian men throughout the country by Turkish soldiers, police agents and bands of Turkish volunteers. The men were tied together with ropes in small groups then taken to the outskirts of their town and shot dead or bayoneted by death squads. Local Turks and Kurds armed with knives and sticks often joined in on the killing.
Then it was the turn of Armenian women, children, and the elderly. On very short notice, they were ordered to pack a few belongings and be ready to leave home, under the pretext that they were being relocated to a non-military zone for their own safety. They were actually being taken on death marches heading south toward the Syrian Desert.
Muslim Turks who assumed instant ownership of everything quickly occupied most of the homes and villages left behind by the rousted Armenians. In many cases, local Turks who took them from their families spared young Armenian children from deportation. The children were coerced into denouncing Christianity and becoming Muslims, and were then given new Turkish names. For Armenian boys the forced conversion meant they each had to endure painful circumcision as required by Islamic custom.
Turkish gendarmes escorted individual caravans consisting of thousands of deported Armenians. These guards allowed roving government units of hardened criminals known as the “Special Organization” to attack the defenseless people, killing anyone they pleased. They also encouraged Kurdish bandits to raid the caravans and steal anything they wanted. In addition, an extraordinary amount of sexual abuse and rape of girls and young women occurred at the hands of the Special Organization and Kurdish bandits. Most of the attractive young females were kidnapped for a life of involuntary servitude.
The death marches during the Armenian Genocide, involving over a million Armenians, covered hundreds of miles and lasted months. Indirect routes through mountains and wilderness areas were deliberately chosen in order to prolong the ordeal and to keep the caravans away from Turkish villages.
Food supplies being carried by the people quickly ran out and they were usually denied further food or water. Anyone stopping to rest or lagging behind the caravan was mercilessly beaten until they rejoined the march. If they couldn’t continue they were shot. A common practice was to force all of the people in the caravan to remove every stitch of clothing and have them resume the march in the nude under the scorching sun until they dropped dead by the roadside from exhaustion and dehydration.
An estimated 75 percent of the Armenians on these marches perished, especially children and the elderly. Those who survived the ordeal were herded into the desert without a drop of water. Being thrown off cliffs, burned alive, or drowned in rivers.
During the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish countryside became littered with decomposing corpses. At one point, Mehmed Talaat responded to the problem by sending a coded message to all provincial leaders: “I have been advised that in certain areas unburied corpses are still to be seen. I ask you to issue the strictest instructions so that the corpses and their debris in your vilayet are buried.”
But his instructions were generally ignored. Those involved in the mass murder showed little interest in stopping to dig graves. The roadside corpses and emaciated deportees were a shocking sight to foreigners working in Turkey. Eyewitnesses included German government liaisons, American missionaries, and U.S. diplomats stationed in the country.
During the Armenian Genocide, the Christian missionaries serving in the Empire were often threatened with death and were unable to help the people. Diplomats from the still neutral United States communicated their blunt assessments of the ongoing government actions. U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, reported to Washington: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race…”
The Allied Powers (Great Britain, France, Russia) responded to news of the massacres by issuing a warning to Turkey: “…the Allied governments announce publicly…that they will hold all the members of the Ottoman Government, as well as such of their agents as are implicated, personally responsible for such matters.”
The warning had no effect. Newspapers in the West including the New York Times published reports of the continuing deportations with the headlines: Armenians Are Sent to Perish in the Desert – Turks Accused of Plan to Exterminate Whole Population (August 18, 1915) – Million Armenians Killed or in Exile – American Committee on Relief Says Victims of Turks Are Steadily Increasing – Policy of Extermination (December 15, 1915).
Temporary relief for some Armenians came as Russian troops attacked along the Eastern Front and made their way into central Turkey. But the troops withdrew in 1917 upon the Russian Revolution. Armenian survivors withdrew along with them and settled in among fellow Armenians already living in provinces of the former Russian Empire. There were in total about 500,000 Armenians gathered in this region.
In May 1918, Turkish armies attacked the area to achieve the goal of expanding Turkey eastward into the Caucasus and also to resume the annihilation of the Armenians. As many as 100,000 Armenians may have fallen victim to the advancing Turkish troops.
However, the Armenians managed to acquire weapons and they fought back, finally repelling the Turkish invasion at the battle of Sardarabad, thus saving the remaining population from total extermination with no help from the outside world. Following that victory, Armenian leaders declared the establishment of the independent Republic of Armenia in a small portion of their historic homeland in the Caucasus.
World War I ended in November 1918 with a defeat for Germany and the Central Powers including Turkey. Shortly before the war had ended, the Young Turk triumvirate; Talaat, Enver and Djemal, abruptly resigned their government posts and fled to Germany where they had been offered asylum.
In the months that followed, repeated requests by Turkey’s new moderate government and the Allies were made asking Germany to send the Young Turks back home to stand trial. However all such requests were turned down. As a result, Armenian activists took matters into their own hands, located the Young Turks and assassinated them along with two other instigators of the mass murder.
Meanwhile, representatives from the fledgling Republic of Armenia attended the Paris Peace Conference in the hope that the victorious Allies would give them back their historic lands seized by Turkey. The European Allies responded to their request by asked the United States to assume guardianship of the new Republic. However, President Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to make Armenia an official U.S. protectorate was rejected by the U.S. Congress in May 1920.
But Wilson did not give up on Armenia. As a result of his efforts, the Treaty of Sevres was signed on August 10, 1920 by the Allied Powers, the Republic of Armenia, and the new moderate leaders of Turkey. The treaty recognized an independent Armenian state in an area comprising much of the former historic homeland.
However, Turkish nationalism once again reared its head. The moderate Turkish leaders who signed the treaty were ousted in favor of a new nationalist leader, Mustafa Kemal, who simply refused to accept the treaty and even re-occupied the very lands in question then expelled any surviving Armenians, including thousands of orphans.
No Allied power came to the aid of the Armenian Republic and it collapsed. Only a tiny portion of the easternmost area of historic Armenia survived by being becoming part of the Soviet Union.
After the successful obliteration of the people of historic Armenia during the Armenian Genocide, the Turks demolished any remnants of Armenian cultural heritage including priceless masterpieces of ancient architecture, old libraries and archives. The Turks even leveled entire cities such as the once thriving Kharpert, Van and the ancient capital at Ani, to remove all traces of the three thousand year old civilization.
Referring to the Armenian Genocide, the young German politician Adolf Hitler duly noted the half-hearted reaction of the world’s great powers to the plight of the Armenians. After achieving total power in Germany, Hitler decided to conquer Poland in 1939 and told his generals: “Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my ‘Death’s Head Units’ with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?”
Last edited by Paparock; 05-31-2010 at 06:39 PM..
Turkey's gays, transsexuals decry increasing homophobia
Turkey's gays, transsexuals decry increasing homophobia
ISTANBUL — When Turkey's family affairs minister recently described homosexuality as a curable disease, she was roundly criticized for discrimination and flouting human rights.
But for activists her remarks only underscore what they say is increasing prejudice, discrimination and violence -- even from police -- against homosexuals and transgender people in this Muslim-majority country stuck between its conservative roots and flourishing modernism.
A total of 45 gays and transgender people were killed over three years in "hate murders", said Demet Demir, a transsexual and leading activist from Istanbul-LGBTT, a civic body promoting homosexual rights.
"In February alone, five people were killed. In Antalya (southern Turkey), a transsexual friend was brutally murdered; her throat was slit.
"In Istanbul, another was stabbed to death. Three young men... killed her for money, but she only had 70 liras (46 dollars, 34 euros) and a gold chain," Demir said, adding that three gay men had also been killed in Anatolia.
The violence comes against a backdrop of clashing values in this secular democracy that is vying to join the European Union.
Unlike other Muslim countries, same-sex relationships have never been criminalised in Turkey. Prostitution and sex change operations are legal.
Several gay and transgender bars have flourished in major cities such as Istanbul, while a transsexual singer and homosexuals figure among the country's top celebrities.
There are also several associations fighting for gay and transgender rights that organize regular conferences, parades and demonstrations.
But at the same time, traditional Islamic values hold sway over large sections of this macho society, which frowns upon displays of femininity.
Discrimination is rife: transgender people are forced to work in the sex sector as nobody will employ them while homosexuals feel they have to hide their sexual identity so as not to risk losing their jobs.
Last year, for example, a football referee came out on television, only to see his refereeing licence revoked.
The Turkish army classifies homosexuality as a "disease" while police are notoriously harsh against transsexuals.
"Just yesterday, police raided the flat where we meet our clients, breaking down the door," Ece, a 43-year-old transsexual, said.
"They arrested everyone and beat one of the girls with a truncheon. She had to have three stitches to her head," she added.
Although the Islamist-rooted government has enacted a series of rights reforms to boost the country's EU bid since it came to power in 2002, it has turned a blind eye to homosexual rights.
In March, Family Affairs and Women's Minister Selma Aliye Kavaf declared in a newspaper interview that she believed homosexuality was a "biological disorder, a disease."
"I think it should be treated," she said, attracting a storm of anger and enhancing fears that Islam is taking a more prominent place under the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).
According to Demir, the violence against homosexuals and her kind has its roots in a "rise in nationalism, Islamic values, poverty, and unemployment in the past seven or eight years".
"In such a climate, homosexuals and transsexuals are easy targets. Assailants think that nobody will ask questions and that they won't risk heavy penalties if they kill a transsexual," she said.
Ece, who has been working in the sex sector for 22 years, said she felt compelled to take precautions to minimize risks to her life: making sure she is not alone when meeting clients and never seeking work along motorways.
"In the flats where the girls work, there are always housekeepers and cleaning ladies... We are never really alone with the client," she explained.
"If there is ever any aggression against one of us, we all intervene. If there is a fight, we all join it."
In a letter to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in February, several non-governmental organizations called for the government to ensure security for gay and transgender people.
They pointed out that eight transsexuals had been killed between November 2008 and February this year.
Ece said the authorities share responsibility in those crimes....
Read it all> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...haQwkZqoC8ApXg
The Persecution of Turkish Women
The Persecution of Turkish Women
A new report published by the Kurdish Human Rights Project , shows how Kurdish women in Turkey have increasingly become the target of State suppression of the Kurdish community and face a continuing and growing risk of sexual violence by state actors.
The magnitude of the problem of sexual violence against Kurdish women is widely unappreciated as even most recent statistics concerning incidents of sexual violence are only indicative of number of women affected. Many of the victims of sexual torture dare not speak of their experiences, because of the dishonour associated with rape and sexual violation in traditional communities.
KHRP's report is based on the findings of a November 2003 delegation to Mardin in Southeast Turkey to observe the trials of state officials for the rape and sexual torture of Kurdish women.
The first trial observed concerns the case of Sukran Esen, a Kurdish woman who was sexually tortured during three detentions which took place during 1993 and 1994. During these detentions Ms Esen was stripped, subjected to falaka, electric shocks, placed in a car tyre and rolled around, blindfolded and repeatedly raped by several men. All of those indicted for the crime worked at paramilitary police stations; 64 were senior officers. 
The second trial concerned the sexual torture and rape of another Kurdish woman on 5 March 2002 by five members of the Anti-Terror branch of the Mardin police. The victim HHamidiye Aslan, a Kurdish mother was detained for 48 hours in the police station where she was blindfolded, subjected to pressurised cold water, verbally abused and anally raped with sticks.
In addition, the KHRP delegation also conducted interviews with various State officials, NGOs and women victims of torture. During one such interview with by the Assistant Case Prosecutor in Mardin, the Delegation was told that Kurdish women had "ample opportunity" to use the existing domestic remedies in Turkey. "Every problem, however small, can be brought to a court in Turkey. She should not be afraid as the alleged perpetrator is a State official."
In its report, 'Turkey's shame: sexual violence without redress - the plight of Kurdish women,' KHRP condemns the continuation of state violence against Kurdish women and the lack of redress available to them. The report makes recommendations to the Turkish government and the international community about protecting women from sexual violence and ensuring that state actors may not act with impunity....
Read it all> http://www.khrp.org/khrp-news/news-a...ish-women.html
Turkey puts rape victims in the dock
Fatima Polattas says she was 19 when Turkish police raped her while she was in custody. She filed charges and her four alleged tormenters are now on trial.
But so is Polattas. She faces up to six years in prison for insulting Turkey's security forces and the moral integrity of her country by speaking publicly about her ordeal.
Polattas is one of 11 women and one man who went on trial in Istanbul last week for describing sexual torture at a conference on sexual abuse and rape organised in Istanbul last year by the Women Workers' Union.
Most of the defendants were among 21 people detained by police as they left the conference. They face jail terms of up to 30 years. The court adjourned until 21 June, ordering police to find videos of the conference.
Ironically, Polattas was not at the conference. She is already in jail, serving 18 years for allegedly belonging to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the outlawed Kurdish rebel group that waged a 16-year war in south-east Turkey for greater autonomy for the country's estimated 12 million Kurds. She denies being a member.
The PKK declared an end to the war, in which 30,000 people died, in 1999, after Turkish security forces captured its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, and he was sentenced to death for treason.
Polattas's father is the one male defendant on trial, accused of slander for reading a message from his daughter to the conference.
Arrested in 1999, Polattas says she and her friend, Ceren Salmanoglu, then aged 16, confessed to being PKK members only after they were beaten, sprayed with freezing water and raped with a truncheon during eight days of interrogation. Salmanoglu was sentenced to 21 years. Polattas and the other defendants at the conference were the first women to speak out about police rape. Women rarely talk of their ordeal, afraid they will worsen their situation by violating laws that restrict freedom of expression when it comes to the honour and reputation of Turkey's security forces.
Polattas's trial highlights Turkey's difficult struggle to clean up its human rights record as it prepares for European Union membership. Two days before the trial started, Ankara published a report promisingreforms to end torture, including training police in human rights. The document, which has yet to be approved by the European Commission, also commits Turkey to review laws that restrict freedom of expression.
'Turkey is a country that two days ago promised human rights for all. Don't I have that right?' Sultan Secik, one of Polattas's co-defendants, asked the court. The eight police officers Secik accuses of raping her are currently on trial.
International human rights groups have condemned the trial of the rape victims. In a statement, Amnesty International said it had 'called on the Turkish authorities to drop the charges against these women's rights activists who are guilty only of peacefully expressing their views'.
Turkey admits that torture occurs, but says it is not systematic. It has promised to crack down on offenders: prison sentences for using torture have been increased and there are regulations outlawing the use of force during interrogation. But, while members of the security forces are being prosecuted, they are often acquitted in court. The five officers accused of raping Nazli Top, another of Polattas's co-defendants, were cleared.
'I was kicked and given electric shocks. For days they gave me electric shocks to my fingertips, toes and genitals. They raped me a thousand times. I am not the one who should be standing here. It is the policemen that rape that should be here,' she told the court last week.
Top says she was beaten and raped with a truncheon while in custody in 1992 when she was three months pregnant. She says she had been detained for 10 days because police said she resembled a left-wing suspect.
The pressure on women who speak out was highlighted recently when eight policemen in the south-east city of Diyarbakir went on trial for rape and torture....
Discrimination Against Women in Turkey
Discrimination Against Women in Turkey:
A Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature
READ IT ALL HERE> http://eab.ege.edu.tr/pdf/2_1/C2-S1-M9.pdf
Bloo*y hell paparock, thats alot of reading. Care to give us a quick power point!?
If not then im sure it will be a interesting read.
Dr. Pipes' views on Islamic Terrorism and Turkey
Dr. Pipes' views on Islamic Terrorism and Turkey
Dr. Pipes presented an excellent analysis of the threat of violence against the modern world. He did not agree with the Administration's identification as terrorism. He clearly and accurately identified the enemy as an ideological militant Islam.
"In general, I think the US government and many other institutions have made a profound mistake in declaring this to be a war on terrorism. In part, it is nonsensical if you think about it. You cannot have a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a form of violence. It is not the enemy. It would be like having war on trenches or war on battle ships, or war on surprise attacks perhaps in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Terrorism or battleships is the means or a fact of war. It is not the enemy. But the US government has a reason in doing this. It is being euphemistic, it is being cautious. It avoids making new enemies; it is avoiding the problem of having bias internally against Muslims. Although there are virtues in this careful description of the enemy as violence; it is not a good idea."
"If the government is unwilling to state what its goal is or who its enemy is in a war you cannot effectively deal with it. I mean who are we looking for, who are our allies, what are the methods to be pursued? Why are American troops not, for example, in Sri Lanka or Peru, where the major terrorist movements are? Why are they in Uzbekistan, Philippines and Yemen? I think we need to state that the strategic enemy of the US and of many countries, Muslim and non-Muslim, is the militant Islam. When we put it this way we are saying accurately what the problem is. It is not terrorism; it is an ideology, a very compelling body of ideas that causes individuals to devote their lives, sometimes to give up their lives for this dream of how society can be ordered. My view is that our war is not a war on terror, but it is a war on militant Islam, or more specifically a war on Jihad. I think militant Islam is an Islamic version of the radical utopian movements that took roots and became strong in the West about a century ago in the 1920s. This was the movement of totalitarian enthusiasm when in such diverse places as Italy, Germany, Japan, Soviet Union, China and Viet Nam one found a wide spread belief that the solution to one's problems lay in all encompassing body of ideas that would rule every aspect of one's life. The totalitarian movements were fascism and communism in particular. These movements aspire to take control of governments. They regulate everything within the country that they deem important. They are brutal towards those who disagree with them, and they aspire to grow and eventually become globally powerful. Militant Islam, or Islamism, political Islam, fundamentalist Islam is another such movement, and it also has its origins in the 1920s. It is likely seen as an Islamic version of these totalitarian movements. It was not strong enough to take over a government until fifty years later in Iran in 1979."
"At the heart of it lies the law of Islam, Sheriat. The idea that if you live by the law of the Sheriat in its exactness and if you apply it to all aspects of life you will then become rich and strong. My guess is that 10-15 % of Muslim populations around the world support militant Islam. The recent Turkish example would seem to confirm that. Though small in number they are very active, very devoted. The bad news is that 10-15% of a billion people is 100-150 million people. The good news is that it is still a relatively small minority. It is a global force, in addition to it, it has taken over several governments like mentioned. It is a central opposition force in such countries like Nigeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan. Perhaps most dismaying has been how only in the last five years or so it has become a very significant force in such huge and distant countries from the Middle East as Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Between them they have more than 1/3 of Muslim world population and have become radicalized in recent years."
"It is, of course, also present in the West. For West is attractive for the Islamists. They live around people affluent, law abiding, have respect for religion, who do not really understand militant Islam. So what one has seen throughout the West is the militant Islamic institutions that dominate. Who does the media turn to? Who does the White House invite?
It is the representatives of militant Islam. The same takes place in Canada, Western Europe and to a certain extent in Latin America. They dominate the discussion of Islam. They also engage in fund rising and to some extent in controlling terrorist movements in the Middle East. I believe the internal threat of militant Islam is as great to us as Americans as the external threat. Hostile relations with the West have been there from the beginning. They only became important in 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. At that point militant Islam in effect declared war on us. They see themselves as surrounded by the West, as defending themselves from the West, and they have been attacking us, in particular Americans. I count before Sept. 11, 8oo fatalities in the course of militant Islamic attacks on Americans."
"There is an ignorance of the ideological dimension that terrorism is the problem, not militant Islam. Militant Islam is deep, big, powerful, attractive. Officially we do not deal with that. We deal with Islamists. Yet beyond the violence lies ideas, to make people respond. Unless we deal with these ideas we cannot win. Also the policies have only somewhat changed. For example, while there are new regulations for immigration and that law enforcement can go into mosques, at the same time there is great hesitance for enforcingthem. If one looks at something like airline security it is not a serious undertaking. Because it does not look for terrorists, does not look for militant Islamist. It looks for things, for guns, knives. This is not serious. I think if you ask the President what the goal of the war is, he will tell you and I will quote you " we will continue until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." I do not think that is a war goal. The war goal must be to defeat militant Islam. Here I draw an analogy to WWII and to Cold War. In 1945 we destroyed the Nazi rule, in 1991 Soviet rule imploded, it did not need to be destroyed. It destroyed itself. In the aftermath of 1945 and 1991 the fascist and the communist ideologies became weak and marginal. We must make as our goal something similar in the case of militant Islam. We must defeat it. Whether with military means as in 1945, or political and economic means as in 1991 or some mix of both, I do not know. But the goal must be the defeat of militant Islam. So that it no longer is the powerful force that it is today. So that it is marginalized like fascism and communism. The third totalitarian movement has to be defeated like the prior two."
He suggests that moderate Islam would be the right counter force to militant Islam.
"Moderate Islam is the solution. Militant Islam is the problem. It is important for the US to develop policies to encourage a different kind of Islam, a moderate and modern Islam, just as in Germany. We did not destroy Germany, we destroyed the nazi system. We found a good German attitude, and created a modern and moderate Germany. And similarly today we are helping Russia. So the goal in this case must be the development of a modern Islam."
He is of the opinion that brushing aside Islamism in favor of modernism is not the solution. Turkish organizations in the US, like the Ataturk Society of America, must engage the Islamists.
"If I understand your perspective correctly it is to replace Islam with something more rational. I do not think that is going to work. I am sympathetic to it personally, but I do not think there lies the solution.
Let me turn for a second to Ataturk's legacy. To start with I am a great admirer. I think the transformation of Turkey between 1923 and 1938 was extraordinary. There is only one other case of that in the world, which is Meiji Japan in 1860s and 70s. Remarkably successful experiment I think. I admire modern Turkey as a successful country in many regards. So that is my general appreciation, but let me be critical, because that is what is useful. I think that three aspects of Ataturkism are inadequate. First, it is exclusively Turkic and Turkish in orientation. The eyes are on Europe, unconcerned with any Muslim peoples other than those who speak Turkish. We saw that interestingly enough about a decade ago, when the Turkic republics of the Soviet Union became independent. There was a significant Turkish interest in those Turkic republics, unlike any other areas. There was a notable lack of interest say in Syria and Iraq, except for commercial interests. The message is the Turkish message, not a wider Muslim message. I think that is a shame. It is a problem because Ataturk's message can be refined, can be made accessible to Muslims who do not speak Turkish. There is something of value there. It is the only state sponsored secular message in the Muslim world. For me it is frustrating to see that no one knows about it except for people who speak Turkish. Syrians and Iraqis, not to speak of more distant Muslims, are unaware. They were aware of it in the 1920s and 30s. They were scared of it. But it did not go beyond Turkey; they lost interest. It is now an exclusively Turkish phenomenon. So this is point one: No interest in the rest of the Muslim world. I understand why the interest is in Europe in modernizing Turkey. But I think now 80 years later it turns out to be a problem."
"Second, Ataturk's legacy is intellectually moribund, it is intellectually dead. There is repetition of statements from the 1920s and 30s without anything happening. And I contrast that with militant Islamic developments, where books being published, exciting new ideas being offered, major debates taking place. There is nothing taking place so far as I know on the secular side, on the Ataturk side. Just a repetition of old statements. Nothing that is keeping up with the time; nothing that is applying to rather different circumstances of today. In Turkey alone there are very different circumstances with AKP in power, than it was in 1920.
My third criticism is the most fundamental. It is that Ataturkist approach is not interested in religion. Replace religion with rationality, but it is not going to work. So as I said I am personally sympathetic to it, but it is not going to work. The fact is that not only in the Muslim world, but specifically in the Muslim world one finds a very deep interest and orientation towards faith and religion. So my view is that that needs to be grappled with, that needs to be discussed. That is in a sense the same as my second point. You need to deal with the issues of the time. Simply to say that this is a bad idea, it is necessary to become a modern person and to move away from it is not going to work. It is leaving a lot of people with no ideas. I am arguing that Islam needs to be modernized what is now a religion in crisis. We Americans need to get engaged and support moderate and modern voices. If the US government were to adopt the Ataturkist approach and say that is generally a bad idea and you should become more secular I do not think we will have much impact. I think what we need to do is to encourage, sponsor, prompt, prod voices of moderate Islam and they are the future. Moderate Islam is the solution, not no Islam. That is not going to happen."
"So to turn to my three points, I think it is important to look beyond Turkey. It is you who have a very creative, powerful set of ideas, which are restricted to Turkey, to Turkish speakers. You should make an effort to offer them, to translate them, to take out those ideas, which are more universal and offer them to non-Turks. Second, it is important to engage with the issues of the day. It is not enough to repeat what Ataturk said in very different circumstances in the 1920s and 30s. Third, it is important, and as a subset of number two, to address the issue of Islam. Simply pushing it aside is not enough in Turkey itself, not to speak of the rest of the world. In Turkey there is a serious support from a substantial part of the electorate for something resembling the militant Islam. I think if the Turkish officer corps were not so clear in its rejection of militant Islam the expression of it would be much more overt. In other words, I think Erdogan is an Islamist who is being careful. But we know what is in his heart. That is a phenomenon that the Ataturkists have not dealt with. I am not aware, correct me if I am wrong, that there is a serious argument with the ideas of Erdogan, Erbakan and the others. They have not been engaged. Itherefore see a surge of Islamist strength and diminishment of Ataturkist strength. I think you have a vital role to play. You are the carriers of an important set of ideas that has had great success in Turkey, that is potentially available to other Muslims, that is potentially part of the lively debate in Turkey and beyond. But I think it requires staying up to date, engaging in the issues of the moment in a way that I just do not see happening. So I hope you understand this friendly criticism. I am a supporter and I am somewhat frustrated by the absence of engagement with militant Islam."
"Let me close by giving you an example. The government, the press in the US need Muslim leaders, spokesmen, whether be commenting on bin Laden or going to have dinner in the White House for Ramazan or helping to direct a Sheriat fund on Wall Street or engaging with churches on interfaith dialogue. There is a need for Muslim leaders as spokesmen. Well guess who is providing them. I think you are aware that it is the Islamists. They dominate. It is extremely frustrating to see that there is no moderate Muslim voice. That is the sort of thing needed. I am engaged in a battle over access to the White House, which Muslims get in, which do not. I need to be able to say here are names, here are leaders of organizations that have a substantial membership that have importance. I do not have it. You can help me. But it means taking Islam seriously. It is not enough just to push it aside. In 1920s it looked like Islam was on the way out. Right ? It looked like religion in general was in decline, specially Islam. Well it is not. It is very much growing. So keeping this idea from the 1920s that you can ignore Islam leaves you without a voice."
"All the Turkish organizations are essentially irrelevant to this. Fine organizations, but irrelevant because they are not dealing with these issues. So I plead with you to pay attention to these issues. Ataturkist legacy needs to be modernized by which I mean it needs to engage with Islam."
He does not see the current Turkish politics as the solution....
Muslim Turkish Girl Buried Alive For Talking To Boys
Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an “honour” killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.
The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman.
Terrorist Organization Profile: Turkish Islamic Jihad
Terrorist Organization Profile:
Turkish Islamic Jihad
Founding Philosophy:Like with Turkish Hezbollah, Turkish Islamic Jihad is believed to be financed by Iran yet not directly related to the Islamic Jihad group carrying out attacks in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The group has never publicly declared a specific ideology, but their name implies a fundamentalist Islamic orientation. In their only public statement, the group claimed to oppose the efforts of both the United States and Egypt at the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, whom they accused of attempting to "divide up the Middle East."
Current Goals:Although they have not claimed an attack sine 1996, the Turkish Islamic Jihad was mentioned in the Iranian press as late as 2000 as one of a number of groups continuing to "carry out clandestine political and military activities." The group is presumed to be inactive; however the Islamist movement continues to present a threat to Turkey.
Last edited by Paparock; 05-31-2010 at 09:31 PM..
Turkey Virginity Tests
Turkey Virginity Tests
Last edited by Paparock; 05-31-2010 at 09:44 PM..
Islam’s European slave trade by Muslim Turks (eg Ottoman) and Tartars:
Islam’s European slave trade by Muslim Turks (eg Ottoman) and Tartars: Part G in Islam’s genocidal slavery.
This article concentrates on the slave trade of people from Eastern Europe, Balkans, and Asia Minor/Byzantium: Remember, Mohammad (allah) demanded jihad/war until all the religion is allah’s—it cannot go away and nor can the associated slavery and dhimmitude. (see comments from 20th century Muslims and others on the ongoing desire for jihad Bostom p 94-104). Both Ottoman Turkey and Shiite Iran openly practised slavery in the 20th century. The last Ottoman sultan had a British captive in his harem, 20th century (Khan p325). Slavery continues throughout the Islamic world today and is brought by Muslims into the west.
Europe, Asia Minor, the Balkans etc were initially attacked by Arab Muslims, then Muslim Turks and Tartars attacked central and eastern Europe (11th-15th century), Muslim Tartars attacked Poland and Muscovite Russia (15th-17th century); and Asia Minor was attacked by Seljuk and Ottoman Turks (11th-15thC ) while Persia, Armenia, and Georgia were attacked by many Muslim groups including Shiite Safavids.
From the 11th century, particularly as Arab power was waning, the Turks moved out into the middle-east eg Syria, Palestine and spread through Asia Minor (much of today’s Turkey) to North Africa and into the Balkans/Eastern Europe.
Islamic slavery, destruction, conquest and dhimmitude
Bat Ye’r notes:
“The two waves of Muslim expansion, the Arab from the seventh century and the Turkish from 4 centuries later-are remarkably similar....the great Arab and Turkish conquerors used the same military tactics and the same policies of consolidating Islamic power. This continuity resulted from the fact that the conquests took place within the framework of the common ideology of jihad and the administrative and judicial apparatus of the sharia- a uniformity that defies time, since it adapts itself to diverse lands and peoples, being integrated into the internal coherence of a political theology. In the course of their military operation, the Turks applied to the conquered populations the rules of jihad, which had been structured 4 centuries earlier by the Arabs and enshrined in Islamic sacred law. (Bostom p 60)”
Malik Shah (1072-1092) During his reign the Seljuk Empire comprised Khorezm, Transoxiana, Khorasan, Persia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Irak, Syria and Anatolia.
In Anatolia (Asia Minor/Turkey), the Islamic frontier, during the 11th and 12 th centuries, ‘warriors of Islam’(ghazi) came to fight infidels and obtain booty in the Seljuk and Ottoman Turk jihad campaigns. These groups, including nomadic tribes were champions of Islam, dedicated to fighting the infidels around them.
“the ideal of gaza, holy war. Was an important factor in the foundation and development of the Ottoman state.,....continuous expansion of Dar al-Islam....until they conquered the whole world.” (contemporary Turkish scholar of Ottoman history, Halil Inalcik ...Bostom p 61)
“From the very beginning....the Turks tried to consolidate their position by the forcible imposition of Islam. If (the Ottoman historian) Sukrullah is to be believed, those who refused to accept the Moslem faith were slaughtered and their families enslaved. “Where there were bells, Suleiman broke them up and cast them into fires. Where there were churches he destroyed them or converted them into mosques....” (quoted in Bostom p 63-64)
Dervishes worked to spread religious fervour, took part in military acts and were given land and privileges from rulers.
The conquest of Asia Minor occurred over 4 centuries. It took the Turks about 2 centuries to conquer the Balkans (today’s Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, European part of Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina) with incalculable ruin of material goods,
massacre, enslavement, exile, destruction of farming, destruction of trade, depopulation, reduced productivity, and destruction of the normal exchange of knowledge around the Mediterranean and through Christian and Jewish societies, plus colonisation by Muslims---as also occurred in the conquest of Asia Minor. The states of Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia...had reached a high level of economic and cultural development before the Muslim attacks. The conquest of the Balkan peoples was disastrous and for centuries trammelled their normal economic and social development (Angelov p 463) Yet it’s described as a blessing for the population (they had the chance to become Muslim) and we are fed lies of ‘peace’ and economic unity. The Turks didn’t have a ‘higher culture’ or better civic organisation—they were semibarbarian tribes bent of pillage and war, enriching themselves with ‘booty.’(estates, slaves, money, jewels) and rendered fanatical by the dogmas of Islam (Angelov p 463, 464, 465)
The conquest of the Balkan Peninsular by the Turks meant not only the massive destruction of productivity, the depopulation of the occupied regions, mass enslavement, and forced colonization, but also the founding of a new feudal system. This feudal system was the continuation, in a subsequent phase of development, of the Osmanli military feudalism that had been created in Asia Minor during the first half of the fourteenth century. In essence, this system did not modify the feudal ties that existed in the Balkan states at the time when they were conquered by the Turks, but compared with them, the system was at an inferior, barbarous level, having as its foundation brutal coercion and terror, since the Muslims had the privilege of resorting with impunity to violence against the Christian population and of subjecting it to unlimited exploitation. (Angelov p 506)
Turkish invasion of Christian lands was a disaster for Balkan peoples
Even a brief look at the date list, part H in the slavery series, shows the violence and oppression by the Muslims!
Byzantine historian Georgius Pachymeres, a contemporary of the events in the 1262-82 invasion north of the meander, (Paphlagonia, Caria in Asia Minor) described the ruination of towns and monasteries, the fleeing population and the conversion of land into a ‘Scythian desert. ’ He notes indiscriminate massacres, large scale enslavement, the merciless crushing of any resistance and the death of the entire male population where people refused to surrender. (Angelov p465, 466)
Other contemporary writers note the same acts of sadism and destruction throughout the conquest by the Turks and indeed on conquered populations until the 20th century.
From the beginning of their conquests (ie Asia Minor), the emir’s family and clan/military leaders became the owners of vast tracts of land, slaves, towns and villages. The system of military fiefs (timaris) was developed. Some soldiers received land but had to remain in the military. Most however went to the rulers and military leaders.- one fifth went to the state/sultan just as Mohammad took a fifth for himself from the plunder and enslavement carried out by his crew. (The Koran demanded that Mohammad got a fifth even if he wasn’t actually in the raid –how convenient!!)
The incessant military campaigns fulfilled the desires of all to spread Islam and gain their just rewards of slaves and land. In depopulated areas, ‘slaves’ replaced local inhabitants in all areas of work/labour, and served in households and harems. Selling slaves enabled the seller to purchase precious objects from elsewhere.
Georgios Pachymeris 1242-c. 1310 one of the most important of the later Byzantine writers
Slaves were a source of ‘wealth’ for soldiers encouraging further conquest. The 14th century Ottoman state had only a rudimentary economy with underdeveloped commerce and trades and money was rare. (Angelov p 485-487). Enslavement served to weaken nations as populations were depleted and moved. Mass enslavements are documented.
The remaining populations were severely exploited peasants who laboured for others and were subjected to excessive taxes and fines. Similarly artisans were needed so, despite the routine massacres and deportations, the military was used to stop people fleeing and force them to remain.(Angelov p 470-471). The feudal class of Turks learnt they needed to keep the peasants to benefit from their surplus value and become wealthy. Muslim Turks ruled but were a minority population particularly in the Balkans where most of the population remained Christian. Allowing people to remain Christian was not ‘kindness’or ‘tolerance’, it was a practical and economic necessity as the non-Muslim population could be charged higher taxes ( the humiliating jizya or poll tax is more than the zakat –Durie p 169-178), extra fines and charges etc plus, any sign of rebellion could be met with death for the community or enslavement or forced mass movement or taking more children. Hence ordinary people lived in fear and were reduced to a servile, destitute state without the means to resist under the repressive dhimmi laws while wealth went to their Muslim overlords and their agents. (see articles on dhimmitude laws this site)
Battle of Kosovo 1389 - The battle of Kosovo was an important victory for the Ottomans. While losses were substantial, with both armies being virtually destroyed. on both sides and both sides lost their leaders, the Ottomans were able to easily field another army of equal or greater size, whereas Serbia could not.
Only during the brief period (1402-1413) of problems in the Turkish state did the Ottomans slow their enslavement but following 1413, taking slaves returned with a vengeance. (Angelov p 490). Eg 7,000 from Thessalonika in 1430 (Bulgaru p 567) In 1438, 60,000 Serbs were enslaved and taken to Anatolia (Sookhdeo p 268). Sources suggest that in the few years between 1436-1442, some 400,000 people were seized in the Balkans. Many of the captives died in forced marches towards Anatolia (Turkey) (Sookhdeo p 268). Contemporary chronicles note that the Ottomans reduced masses of the inhabitants of Greece, Romania, and the Balkans to slavery eg from Moree (1460)-70,000 and Transylvania (1438) - 60,000-70,000 and 300,000-600,000 from Hungary and 10,000 from Mytilene/Mitilini on Lesbos island (1462) (Bulgaru p 567) and so it continued (see timeline part H)!
The vicious destruction of Constantinople in 1453 shows the religious zeal of the Muslims, their hatred of Christians, massacres, destruction and pillage and of course, the enslavement of 50,000-60,000 people! (see part H for details
Slave trading centres existed in many areas eg the Turkish state (Adrianople/Edirne) and Balkan Peninsula, Crete, Cyprus, Catalogna, Syria and Italy eg Ancona. Slaves were shackled, marched and any lagging behind were killed (Bulgaru p 568)
Jobs for slaves:
Lovely boys and girls plus gold and silver objects were shared around as gifts between the sultan and high-ranking civil and military dignitaries (Angelov p 489) Handsome and strong boy slaves were also sent to the barracks to become ‘janissaries.’
Describing the palace of Ottoman ruler Bayezid (1389-1402) in Brousse, historian Dorcas notes:
“there one could find carefully selected boys and girls, with beautiful faces, sweet young boys and girls who shone more brightly than the sun. To what nations did they belong? They were Byzantines, Serbs, Walachians, Albanians, Hungarians, Saxons, Bulgarians, and Latins. Each of them sang songs in his own language, although reluctantly. He himself (the sultan) unceasingly gave himself over to pleasure, to the point of exhaustion, by indulging in debauchery with these boys and girls” (Angelov p 489, Bulgaru p567)
Remember, Mohammad took
The capture and sacking of Constantinople by Turkish troops under Mohammed II, 29th May 1453. The Turkish victory marked the end of the Byzantine Empire.
the pretty girls for himself and to share out to friends (see parts A, B in this series)
The writings of the procurator of the court of the sultans (1433-1458) describes the ‘favourite youths,’ Christians and others numbering 400, kept in special conditions and guarded and trained to become the special loyal dignitaries, intimate with the sultan. And of course the harems of young girls..(Angelov p 494). Hence a tiny number of enslaved boys had the chance to become rich by attacking and plundering their own people or others or acting as administrators, providing they remained in the sultan’s intimate circle.
Most slaves laboured-farm work, building, rebuilding, digging, or they entertained or cleaned or served or provided a sexual service –they did everything while their Muslim rulers totally exploited them.
An enormous number of slaves flowed from the Crimea, the Balkans, and the steppes of West/central Asia into Islamic markets (Khan p 321, Bostom p 93). White males were often castrated, females bred Muslims.
Endless violence: A letter from Pope Eugene IV dated 1442 notes the Tu
The Aurub Bazaar, or Slave Market, Constantinople
rkish conquest of Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria, Albania, Bulgaria, Slavonia and the taking of slaves who were bound in chains, and killed along the way if they could nolonger walk (Angelov p 491)
In response to Ottoman attacks on Byzantium, Emperor Manuel II (1391-1425) noted his conversation with a Persian Muslim scholar (dialogue 7, 26 dialogues with a Persian), stating:
Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached ...god is not pleased by blood- and not acting reasonably is contrary to god’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not of the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats...to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any means of threatening a person with death... .(Sookhdeo p 256)
Remember the Muslim violence when Pope Benedict XVI quoted this in a lecture on the relationship between reason and faith, 12/9/2006, Germany. I defy anyone to show me a ‘prophet’ more perverted, sadistic, violent, misogynist, racist or intolerant than Mohammad who slaughtered any who defied him or wanted to leave.
In true Islamic fashion, beheadings were also popular with the Muslim Turks:
In 1396, the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I defeated a force of largely French Christian knights at Nicopolis (Bulgaria) and ordered that the 3000 who surrendered be decapitated:
“The next morning they were paraded before him, naked and in groups of 3 or 4. The mass beheadings began early in the morning and continued through the day”.(Sookhdeo p 158)
Massacre of the Christian prisoners taken an the Battle of Nicopol, in the presence of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I. Jean Froissart, Chronicles fol. 255v, Flandres, Bruges 15th Century
In 1499 Sultan Bayezid II after his conquer of Methone (Greece) ordered :
‘the execution of all those who were 10 years or older; and so it happened. They gathered their heads and bodies, put them together, and built a big tower outside the city, which can still be seen nowadays” (Chronicle cited in Bostom p 619)
No, he wasn’t just copying his earlier namesake, both were following the Koran! The Koran sanctions the beheading/throat slitting of infidels eg suras 47.4 (smite their necks) and 8.12 (smite over their necks)
And who can forget that great tale of Mohammad beheading all the males with pubic hair (700-900) (nd one woman) from the last Jewish tribe in Medina after they surrendered to him for the crime of remaining neutral in a battle; plus the usual enslavement of women and children, taking of concubines and property (Ishaq p 464-466).
Armenians were beheaded in the 1894-96 massacres (Bostom p 671).
Religiously sanctified beheading and throat slitting is big in Islam even today! Beheading occurs in the Islamic world now eg Saudi Arabia – where some 121 were beheaded in 2000, 75 in 2001, 50 in 2003 etc (Sookhdeo p 158); hostages have been beheaded and beheadings have also occurred in the west thanks to our Muslim immigrants.
Large-scale deportations and population transfers (surgun) accompanied the jihad campaigns of the Arabs, Seljuk and Ottoman Turks, and Safavides (Iran) (Bostom p 626). The practice removed recalcitrant groups, populated depopulated areas caused by Muslim attacks, and brought Muslims into areas to give support eg Turkmen from eastern Anatolia were moved and used as jihad warriors against Hungary and Austria and they were moved into Cyprus, Greece, and Serbia to help control Christian populations. Muslims were moved into Albania.
Armenia Christians, Orthodox Christians and Jews were forcibly settled in depopulated Constantinople-centre of Christian learning (taken 1453 –see date list for details) so the city could actually function and be fed. This is claimed as a sign of ‘Islamic tolerance’ and particularly kindness to Jews but don’t ask why Constantinople was depopulated in the first place and don’t enquire too deeply about the actual lives of dhimmitude led by the non-Muslims. We are told they were allowed to live with their own laws under the guidance of their patriarch.....there is no mention of the monumentally repressive dhimmitude laws (see articles on dhimmitude) that totally controlled them or the constant threat of death should they annoy a Muslim or the ban on open expression of their religion. As for the 'patriarchs', they were in effect agents of the Islamic rulers who kept the non-Muslim population under control, stopped rebellion or complaint and extracted the heavy taxes for their Muslim rulers. Hence people were detached from their family, country and history and subjected to total Islamic control and exploitation.
Unending Dhimmitude for the conquered people: (see articles on dhimmitude this site including laws)
Initially in some areas, vassals were used but eventually direct Ottoman rule generally occurred. There were constant battles and uprisings (see date list part H). Conquered people lived under the repression of Islam’s dhimmitude law and this continued into the
The long lines deporting Armenians to the arid deserts of Der el Zor resulted in rapes, infant drownings, slashing of bodies, live in burials, torture, starvation and finally death.
19th (or later) century. Many activities, occupations and trades were forbidden to Christians (Bostom p 66). In Sarajevo in 1794, the Serbian Orthodox church warned people not to sing anywhere as the village was Turk! (Bostom p 68) Efforts by European powers to moderate the abuse of Christians and other non-Muslims, was met with stern resistance (eg 19th century). In Islam, non-Muslims cannot be equals with Muslims.
The Greek revolution of 1821 was the culmination of the resistance to Muslim Ottoman domination which was:
“characterised by economic spoliation, intellectual decay and cultural retrogression........restrictions of all kinds, unlawful taxation, forced labour, persecutions, violence, imprisonment, death, abductions of girls and boys and their confinement to Turkish harems, and various deeds of wantonness and lust.......they defied every sense of human decency...(Vacalopoulos in Bostom p 69-70)
Efforts by European powers to abrogate the Ottoman dhimmi system weren’t implemented in any meaningful way between 1839 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WW1. It was noted that Muslim Turkey still regarded others as inferior and the fanaticism of the early days continued. The 1860’s reports by British consuls (pals with Turkey!!) in the Ottoman Empire, reveal the continuing persecution of Christians, massive discrimination and judicial ‘imbalance.’ The Tanzimat reforms (1839-1876) were false eg the repressive, inequitable ‘poll tax’ was simply replaced by a new tax at a higher rate for non-Muslims! (Encyclopaedia Britannica V 13, p 786 which also notes that ‘reforms’ were ‘signed’ at times when Turkey needed European support- see part H). Turkish dhimmi laws may have been revoked on paper at the end of the 19th century, but the religiously supported attitudes and practices remained.
The reforms failed because of Islam:
“the intense Muslim feeling which could sometimes burst into an open fanaticism....the innate attitude of superiority..Islam was a way of life......it prescribed man’s relations to man....and was the basis for society, for law and for government. Christians were therefore inevitably considered second-class citizens in the light of religious revelation....summed up in ...KAFIR, which means unbeliever or infidel with emotional and quite uncomplimentary overtones....Familiar association with heathens and infidels is forbidden to the people of Islam......equality was not attained in the Tanzimat period (1839-1876) nor after the YoungTurk revolution of 1908.” (Roderick Davidson in Bostom p 73-74)
Delacroix's painting of the massacre at Chios (1822) shows sick, dying Greek civilians about to be slaughtered by the Turks
Any attempt to emancipate the dhimmi people or claim equality resulted in extreme violence with massacres across the Ottoman empire –Turkey, Balkans, middle-East, into Africa eg Bulgarian massacres 1876; Armenian massacres 1894-1896, 1909 and outright genocide during WWI where possibly 1.5 million perished. The Balkan wars of Independence (1912-13) and the defeat in WWI halted Ottoman aggression and dhimmitude for the conquered people (but it begins again today in Turkey!).
As far as Muslims are concerned, any non-Muslim who failed to act submissively had no protection for his life, his family, his property etc which all became fair game for Muslims. 19th century Ottoman Grand vizier Mustafa Resid opposed the reforms claiming the complete emancipation of the non-Muslim subjects, appropriately destined to be subjugated and ruled, was entirely contradictory to the 600 year tradition of the Ottoman Empire. He predicted a great massacre if equality was granted to non-Muslims! (quoted in Durie p 159).
In Bosnia (and the Balkans in general) in the 19th century extreme discrimination against Christians remained –the honour, property or lives of Christians weren’t safe and the law didn’t protect Christians (Sookhdeo p 268)
In 1804, the Ottoman Janissaries massacred Serbian leaders, the ‘Massacre of the Serbia Knights,’ triggering an uprising against Turkish rule.(Durie p 158)
In 1850 - the sultan’s army put down resistance. Serbs and Croats continued under repressive dhimma regulations which were part of state legislation and an integral part of local political and economic conditions (Durie p 185)
1876: Ottomans’ massacre the Bulgarians: Modern Bulgarian historians estimate 30,000 murdered, with 3,000 orphaned children, thousands of Bulgarians imprisoned or exiled and 60-80 villages destroyed and another 200 hundred plundered and 300,000 livestock (cattle, sheep, goats) and countless personal goods taken as ‘booty’ from a defenceless population long exploited during centuries of oppressive Ottoman rule. A 1986 analysis found that the Ottomans seemed aware of the possible uprising and sent a variety of Muslim fighters not only against the rebels but against ordinary, unarmed civilians. Reports (1876) note that girls and women were stripped, gang-raped and usually killed, people were burnt alive, children ‘spitted’ on bayonets, pregnant women ripped open and their unborn baby killed...... (Bostom p 664-666)(see detail with eyewitness reports in date list part H.)
An Ottoman fatwa of 1915 –believed to be written by sheikh Shawish—entitled Aljihad (Holy war)-spells out in detail:
“the obligation to kill infidels, warns against befriending the foes of Islam, and demands Muslims arise to the holy war nomatter what it costs...war in secret –persecute and exterminate all unbelievers from the face of the earth; war by word of mouth –write and speak if more strident methods aren’t available; physical war...fighters and money to fight..and those who assist or die in battle are promised special rewards in heaven....He notes the prophet’s (Mohammad) demands for assassinations and says every Muslim can use deadly weapons and cites instances today...and where unbelievers outnumber Muslims, fight the war DECEITFULLY as Mohammad did and suggests this for the Caucasus, Turkistan, India, Java...secret raids on others...outright war. Muslims are told to arm and prepare and unite...and use politics ...and again, fight the unbelievers..”
More than 5,000 of the 7,000 inhabitants of the town of Batak, including women and children, were raped, slaughtered, beheaded or burned alive by Ottoman irregulars who left piles of dead bodies around the town square and church in 1876, giving start of the April Uprising. American journalist and war correspondent working for the New York Herald and the London Daily News, Januarius McGahan, who first described the Turkish atrocities in Bulgaria, gives eye-witness account of the aftermath some two months following the events. His complete work can be read here. Amazingly, Turkish history, as taught in schools today, fails to mention a word on the 500 years of genocide and systematic rape and torture of the Bulgarian people and my Turkish peers are quite ignorant of the facts and the history their forefathers wrote in innocent blood.
He claims his war isn’t against all unbelievers ie those who don’t fight (just rollover into dhimmitude or convert) or rule Muslims--but since Islam claims the world...(Bostom p 221-225)
For the Armenians the genocide of 1915 was the culmination of endless massacres and attempts at destruction as Muslim Turks took over their land and worked to completely obliterate them. Massacres, marches, enslavement, rape, torture, pillage and burning preceded this horrendous death march that Turks (and weak western leaders) refuse to acknowledge even today.
Armenia was initially an area in West Asia, bordered by the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea, ‘Iran’, but now it is part of the SW SovietUnion, East Turkey, and NW Iran.
In the 7th century Arab incursions into Armenia started about 640 with Dvin sacked, 35,000 enslaved. And raids continued (see part F for some accounts). In the 11th century the Turks took over- Vaspourakan was ravaged, and Ardzen , a wealthy city of 800 churches was plundered and torched with 150,000 enslaved. The Seljuk Turks then the Ottoman/Osmanli Turks carried out endless attacks.
Tragically also Shia Muslims from ‘Persia’ slaughtered, enslaved, pillaged, burnt and forced Armenians into long deadly marches even into the 17th century.
In 1894 -1896 Muslims attacked Armenian villages and massacred inhabitants (the Hamidian massacres). Massacres first occurred in Sasun, Istanbul, Trebiznd, Erurum, Urfa. The Armenians, already paying tribute to the Kurds, refused to pay further tribute to the Turkish authorities in Sasun. Turkish troops, Kurds and the Muslim population slaughtered the Sasun Armenians, raped the females, dashed children to death and burnt down villages. The Turkish commander Zeki Pasha was rewarded by the sultan (Bostom p 667).
Britain, France and Russia were upset and demanded reforms...the sultan pretended to accept watered-down reforms with many paper promises – he needed help to stave off Russian interference re the Orthodox Christian ‘dhimmi’ populations of Greeks, Serbs, and Armenians and hoped for western support.
A series of organised massacres (beginning and ending with a bugle call) occurred throughout eastern Turkey in the Armenian areas with 50,000-100,000 killed and shops etc destroyed.(Bostom p 667- 669). Preaching from mosques encouraged the attackers and promised them the rewards of Armenian property as allah decreed.
In Urfa, koranic verses were recited before people had their throats slit and women and children were burnt alive (8 thousand died) (Bostom p 669-670).
Massacres also occurred at Ayintab, Birecik, and Severek in Aleppo Province: (Aleppo city today is in Syria just S of Turkish border). The report of the British consul notes re Ayintab
“the butchers and tanners, with sleeves tucked up to the shoulders, armed with clubs and cleaves, cut down the Christians , with cries of ‘allahu akbar.’.....then when mid-day came they knelt down and said their prayers, and then jumped up and resumed their dreadful work......they fired the houses with petroleum.”..(Bostom p 670)
Soldiers and Muslims participated in the massacres at Birecik and Severek where the sexton and pastor were beheaded. (Bostom p 671)
In 1909, Armenians were massacred in Alana (S. Turkey) killing 15,000-30,000. Assyrians and Greeks were also attacked. Please read the article "Slaughter of Christians in Asia Minor from the NYTimes 22/8/09 reproduced on this site 25/12/09 for the report of a witness to the aftermath -the sadism described by those who suffered it is trully distressing as is the utter destruction of villages.
1915-17: Armenian genocide: During WWI the ‘young Turks’ aimed to deport all Armenians from Anatolia to Mesopotamia—massacres, rape, kidnapping and looting accompanied the forced expulsion or DEATH MARCH along with starvation, illness, and even suicide. Eyewitness accounts verify the genocide.
Jemal Pasha was then to serve as minister of the Navy, the governor of Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, and led the military campaigns along the Suez Canal against the British and their allies. He was known to the Arabs by Jemal al-Saffah, Jemal the Butcher, for the number of nationalist Arab leaders executed by him (hanging) in both Beirut and Damascus. The two martyrs’ squares of Beirut and Damascus were named after his victims. After WWI, he briefly fought the British in Afghanistan. He was later gunned down by the Armenians in retaliation for the Armenian massacre perpetuated by the triumvirate of the young turks consisting of Jemal Pasha, Enver Pasha and Talaat Pasha.
The plight of the Armenians under centuries of vicious Islamic persecution is so utterly tragic. The fact that any Armenian Christians survive is a miracle.
The Balkan wars occurred in 1912-13 with the Ottomans losing Crete and Balkan states....
Due to the alliance of western Europeans with the Ottomans against Russian and Austrian designs, we have been subjected to propaganda that Jews and Christians were fine under Islamic rule eg writings by Bernard Lewis—which whitewashed the real, deeply horrifying truth (Durie p 207) so clearly revealed in writings from contemporaries to the events.
Failure to mention the historic truth of Islam’s bloody and repressive jihad and subjugation of others plays out in politics today. Bosnia president Alija Izetbegovic who claims Islamic tolerance, states in his Islamic declaration of 1970, that there cannot be peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions...and that the Islamic movement must take power...destroy the existing non-Islamic power and build a new Islamic one!! (Ye’or Islam and Dhimmitude p 202) Yet the lie of Islamic tolerance lives on!
“to anyone with some knowledge of the centuries long history of Serbian resistance to Ottoman domination, it was obvious that the return of any form of Islamic power in Bosnia-Herzegovnia would be rejected by Orthodox Christian Serbs. The five centuries of ‘harmonious and peaceful co-existence’ under Islamic rule, cited by Bosnian president Alija Izetbegovic, belong to the theological dogma of the perfection of the sharia and the dhimma.
For the Orthodox Serbs, however, this same period is considered one of massacre, pillage, slavery, deportation, and exile of the Christian population. In their eyes it was a regime which found its justification in the usurpation of their land and denial of their rights; hence it represented the EXACT OPPOSITE of a peaceful, multicultural coexistence based on a system of social and political justice.............during WWII Axis forces invaded Yugoslavia and sponsored the creation of a Nazi Croat state (Ustashi) with which many Bosnian Muslims cooperated.....they formed military corps including the 13th (Hanjar) Waffen SS Division, some of which were trained in FRANCE. Early in the war, these Muslim slavs actively participated in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Serbs, Jews and gypsies. Even their German allies were shocked by the bestial atrocities committed then in Yugoslavia’
(Ye’or Islam and dhimmitude p 201)
The Muslims tried to pass blame to the Catholic Croats. Kosovo and Bosnia –Herzegovina are the Orthodox Serbian homeland. To Ye’or the war between Bosnian Muslims and Orthodox Serbs results from repressed history....with the Canadian UN commander noting the hatred between the two groups. Tragically the Bosnian ‘Muslims’ have forgotten their own history.
Bosnia was a battlefield or staging ground for attacks elsewhere eg Hungary. Bosnian Christians were forbidden from a wide array of commercial activities and trades –the only legal market/trading day was Sunday –and this was still the case into the late 19th century! As Christians were excessively taxed (jizya or poll tax is many times the zakat, plus other taxes) and forced into hard labour they fled to the mountains...In Herzegovina, in the 19th century, the vizier taxed the dead for 6 years after their demise and pregnant women claimed to be carrying boys were also made to pay! Muslims moved in and Bosnia became ‘Muslim’ while the restrictions imposed on dhimmis remained into the 19th century including clearly designated and marked clothing, towels (in bath houses), no singing even outside, and a myriad of acts of humiliation for the non-Muslims eg Catholics and members of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (Bostom p 66-68)
The oppression of Christians was monstrous...in an effort to live, some ‘converted’ to Islam and coercive mass conversion persisted for centuries –certainly through the 16th. When Muslims celebrated some victory, Christians (Albanians, Greeks, Slavs) were forced to covert (Bostom p 68)
Ottoman slave soldiers - Janissaries ca. 1583
– Others resisted and fought at great cost. These fighters are heroes that gave Europe its freedom from the first peasants and town dwellers who fought to the last armies eg ‘Gates of Vienna’ where Polish king Jan Sobieski (ruled 1674-96) not only held out and fought the Muslims, weakening them so they were turned back from the Gates of Vienna (still with 80,000 slaves) but built a major European coalition that worked to destroy the Ottoman empire into the next century.
Kosovo and Albania (the original Albanians fought hard) along with Bosnia rolled over to Islam or were colonised by Muslims becoming ‘Muslim’ states that together form an ongoing threat in Europe and provide a gateway for Muslim entry along the Adriatic Coast. Kosovo in particular provides a recent example of an Islamic land grab (aided by the dopey and self destructive Europeans and America). The Kosovo liberation army was al-Queda trained, the claimed ‘genocide’ against Albanians in Kosovo was disproved in the Hague, though there was ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Jews, Roma and other non-Albanians from Kosovo--which is close to becoming an ethnically and religiously pure state of Saudi-financed mosques !
Kosovo is connected to the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London. According to Defence & Foreign Affairs Daily and German intelligence, the explosives used in both bombings came from Kosovo. The Greek Kathimerini news service reported that the missile fired on the U.S. embassy in Athens (2007) ‘appears to have come from Kosovo.’ Don’t forget WWII: Once the Germans took over Albania and Kosovo, Albanians volunteered to form the SS Skanderbeg Division (along with Bosnians), which committed atrocities against Serbs and Jews in Kosovo and helped round up Jews who died in concentration camps. In more recent history, Albanians pushed the Jews and non-Albanians OUT after NATO occupied Kosovo in 1999. Today, Albania and Kosovo are virtually Jew free (Gorin, 2007) and Christian Serbs in Kosovo?
Hence the forced ‘conversion’ and Muslim colonisation of what is today’s Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo has already had recent devastating consequences for others and they pose a deadly danger in Europe today.
From the beginning, the violence of the Muslims was obvious and the conquered people fought back. (see the date line part H). It should be noted that initially the Albanians fought hard against their Islamic attackers into the late 15th century. Does Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo still have people who prefer freedom to Islamic servitude?
To the end of the 19th century, where the Turks had control, Christians could be accused of anything...and killed. There was no liberty of conscience. Religious persecution was NEVER absent. Justice applied a double standard and depended on Muslim judges and crowds. The claimed policy of religious tolerance by the Ottomans is NOT supported by the facts (Constantelos in Bostom p 68-69)
King of Poland Jan III Sobieski
Isn’t it time the history of those crushed by Islam was truly told from the view of Islam’s victims. The Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, Hungarians, and Poles fought long and hard at great cost for freedom from Islamic rule. Some just rolled over and became Muslim or suffered too much Islamic colonisation. Why do Turks and others follow a ‘white’ Arab supremacist religion that enslaved them?
Further ‘Turkish’ Muslim writings in the 20th century show the open hostility of Islam to others eg:
“A Christian...lost to all sense of human dignity. ....the meanest expression of human degradation; to speak to him would by a humiliation for our intelligence and an insult....the presence of such miscreants among us is the bane of our existence...their doctrine is a direct insult.....contact with them is a defilement of our bodies; any relation with them a torture to our souls....and goes on to explain how they will take our weapons etc given through our own agency... (Progressive young Turk in Parisian Muslim review 1912 cited in Bostom p 74)
Nothing has changed! Even today there are attempts by powerful groups to obliterate all Christians (Ego, 2009). Islam cannot change as Muslims must follow its evil text. Muslim Turkey today returns to fanatical Islam and works to obliterate all others. The INSANITY of allowing Turkey into the EU should be obvious to any who value freedom and know their history!!
Muslim Crimean Tartars: (1463-1694) while sources are incomplete, researcher Alan fisher ‘s conservative tabulation of the slave raids against the Christian populations of southern Poland and Muscovite Russia indicate that at least 3 MILLION people-men, women, children were enslaved during the ‘harvesting of the steppe.’ Numbers could be huge eg from Moscow (1521), 800,000 were taken and from Valynia (1676), 400,000 were taken.
He notes the fast, long march in chains to the Crimea to avoid cassocks who freed the slaves. Those who couldn’t keep up were killed –often given to Tartar youths to stone, throw into the sea or kill in any way they liked. The mortality rate was high. (Bostom p 91-92)
Crimean tartars also enslaved and sold Ukranians, Armenians, Circassians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Slavs and Turks.
Charge of Polish heavy cavalry - Husaria. Husaria played an important role at the battle of Vienna 1683
‘Oh how much better to lie on one’s brier, than to be a captive on the way to tartary.” (Bostom p 92)
(Tartary is used to refer to an indefinite region in E.Europe/Asia)
Fisher’s list from the sources available so far gives dates, places and slave numbers from 1463 to 1694. Sometimes the numbers are small-under 100 but most often they are in the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands (Bostom p 679-681). To read them is utterly distressing, to know there are Muslim apologists hiding or excusing them is even worse!
It’s thanks to the Polish king, Jan Sobieski (ruled 1674-96) who fought the Muslims and formed a European coalition, that Muslim progress into Europe was halted for the second and final time at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.
Shiite Safavids:they were also involved in slave raids eg Shah Tahmasp (died 1576) and Shah Abbas (1588-1626) into Christian Georgia, and Armenian areas of the Caucasus -Georgian, Armenian, Circassian s were enslaved in large numbers and converted to shia Islam –or you were slaughtered! In 1553, Georgia was attacked with 30,000 women and children enslaved . Other successful campaigns occurred in 1540,1546, 1551. (Khan p 323).
In 1604, Shah Abbas I demanded that people and possessions be deported from Armenia so the Ottomans would have nothing when they came. Nothing was left and those that refused to go were killed. Homes and buildings, grain stores etc were burnt and areas pillaged. The Persians drove the people ahead...beating them, cutting off ears, noses, and heads and putting them on posts! They were tortured to make them hurry and driven into the river with many swept away. Children were taken, abused and thrown on the road as they were marched to Persia. Then they went and brutally captured those Christians that had hidden. From a high cave where some hid, Christians were thrown to their death while others chose to jump rather than be slaughtered or raped and enslaved. A huge area of beautiful Armenia was depopulated. Further expeditions took animals, and enslaved more. People were made to carry goods when even the animals had died. (Bostom p 622-626)
By the 18th century fewer slaves came from the Caucasus while more came from Africa via the Persian gulf. 18th century courts still had thousands of slaves including white and black eunuchs. Slave raids continued in the 20th century eg the steppes, parts of Persia and Africa.(Bostom p 88-89).
Slavery is a humiliation that arises from infidelity. (Bostom p 89)
Jews;aren’t we constantly told that the Jews fared well under the Arabs in Spain and the Ottoman’s yet manuscripts and new research (presumably not from our universities funded by Arab oil money) present a different picture. Several Jewish communities disappeared..eg Salonica and were founded anew by Spanish Jewish immigrants. A letter written by a Jew before 1470 shows their fate was no different to that of the Christians. –they were killed, enslaved, forcibly converted and children were taken and subjected to the devshirme. Other letters reveal the same including exile, forced movement –particularly to Constantinople/Istanbul-and fleeing. There was strong anti-Ottoman feeling among some Byzantine Jewish circles. In Constantinople Mehmed II (1451-1481) gave protection for Jews (from popular hatred!) to ‘repopulate’ destroyed Constantinople (1453) but the policy wasn’t continued and in reality Jews like others lived under the repressive dhimmi laws. Bayezid II did accept Spanish Jewery and because of these two instances, writers “overlook both the destruction that Byzantine Jewry suffered during the Ottoman conquests and the later outbursts of oppression under both Bayezid II and Selim I.” (Bostom p 65). No doubt a few Jews helped the Nazis—so were the Nazis good for the Jews?
Turks taking Christian children into slavery
In reality, where Muslim Turkish rule existed, dhimmitude with all its horrendous repressive laws prevailed (see articles on dhimmitude..this site). Dhimmis were inferior and kept inferior in every conceivable away in accordance with sharia.
A Brief history of the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks and Tartars:
As it expanded east, the Islamic empire collided with the Turkic tribes of Central Asia constantly moving towards the Middle East. Many were enslaved , others ‘converted’ eg Turks, Tartars, Turkomen, even Mongols and Afghans were subjugated. Turkish slaves and mercenary troops administered and guarded Arab Islamic controlled provinces (9th century on). Their Arab conquerors liked Turk ‘bravery’ and acquired them in droves as slaves. Turkish slave mercenaries numbered 70,000 and their tyranny, lawlessness and power grew. In the 9th and 10th centuries, “Turkish soldiers made and murdered caliphs at their pleasure” yet they were still slaves who paid tribute to the sultan although they set up independent sultanates eg Egypt (Lal p 533).
They became important frontline soldiers of Islam’s expansion into the Byzantine Empire, leading to the rise of the Seljuk sultanate (Mid 11th century). The Seljuks attacked Byzantine Anatolia particularly in the 11th century under Alp Arslan (1064-1072) and ‘colonised’ the area. Armenia was conquered and the Seljuks took control of much of Asia Minor. The Byzantines controlled Constantinople and the Asia Minor coastlands. Turkic slave soldiers (Mamelukes) from Egypt were important in fighting the crusades. Ghengis Khan , ruler of the Mongols invaded Muslim areas in Central Asia, and Iran, reaching Baghdad in 1258. An Egyptian ‘mameluke’ army stopped the Mongols in Syria.(Sookhdeo p227-228) Following Ghengis Khan’s death, his sons controlled vast groups and areas. Some quickly, others more slowly converted to Islam---why not when you love to kill, rape, enslave and plunder, Islam is the perfect religion because now you can claim you do it all for god and your soldiers can be tricked into thinking that god gives them booty (people and property) and that if they die they will have a huge brothel in paradise...yes that would sell well to the barbaric hordes! Hence areas in Central Asia, Russia and Iran became ‘Islamic.’
The Seljuks split into independent principalities in Asia Minor. Osman (1288-1326) (Othman or Ottoman to us) ruled one of these principalities and declared independence of Seljuk rule around 1300. They were dedicated jihardists constantly fighting the infidel-(Sookhdeo p 231) --and happily taking the booty allah promised while putting into practice the wonderful example of Mohammad (slavery, slaughter, forced conversion, subjugation, extortion..).
Ottoman power increased until they totally subjugated Asia minor (including Seljuk controlled areas and challenges from other Muslim Turk groups in Asia Minor) and spread out in their jihad through the Balkans and Europe, east and central Asia, the middle-east and north Africa.
The religious fanatic Timurlane (ruled 1370-1405) was a Muslim Turkic-Mongol who attacked Anatolia, Syria, Central Asia, and north India but died before attacking China. His Timurid Empire lasted to 1506. He battled the Ottoman leader Bayezid (their bid for power overlapped in certain areas) and won in 1402—but left Anatolia to the Ottomans and didn’t interfere in the Ottoman’s European empire. (more on Timur/Tamerlane in article on Indian slavery).
By the 17th century there were 3 large Muslim empires-the sunni Ottoman empire in Asia Minor, the Middle East, north Africa and Europe; the Shi’a Safavid Empire in Iran and parts of central Asia and the Caucasus, the sunni Mughal Empire in northern India. (Sookhdeo p 228)
The detail of the Ottoman barbarity across Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Byzantine world can be read in the date list part H in this series on slavery. Constantinople was violently taken in 1453 (see list). Their unending brutality to the Armenians beggars belief. They also conquered Syria, Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and most of North Africa (not Morocco). They tried to take Central Europe, TWICE reaching the Gates of Vienna-1529, 1683!! (Sookhdeo p 232)
Ottomans remained in power for centuries. They used slave troops-first the kapikullari, then the Janissaries (Yenicheri) made up of slaves taken in war or children taken under the Devshirme system to maintain their control for many centuries. Children are taken because they can easily be converted into Islam—‘an act of mercy’ for according to Muslims we are all members of the perverted, sadistic, racist, intolerant, totalitarian ideology of Islam. Allowing the conquered people to bring children up outside Islam is a ‘concession’ while jihad provides an ‘opportunity’ through enslavement and conversion to Islam for children (and adults) to be made Muslim! Under sharia, such ‘converts’ of course, cannot be in the care/custody of non-Muslims (see Durie p 162-163).
As Muslim power failed, they were compelled to enter into treaties with Europe. Eg 17th, 19th century. (Sookhdeo p 231-233)
Janissaries: a new army Yeni Tcheri (new troops):
This was a dire calamity, a constant bleeding for Christians conquered by the Osmanlis/Ottomans.
Janissaries from different historical periods of Ottoman history
Enslaved children and the blood-tax of children went to the janissaries. The general ‘system’ was instituted in the reign of Orhan (1330) with recruitment becoming regular under Murad II (1421-1451) who ‘reorganised’ the ‘New troops’ or Janissaries. Large numbers were taken in the 15th and 16th century but continued into later centuries. (Papoulia p 561). From the mid 14th century to the early 18th century, some 500,000 to 1 million boys (primarily Balkan Christian) (Bostom p 70) were enslaved or taken from their families in the Devshirme system, forcibly converted to Islam, raised in special barracks and trained to kill their own countrymen and others, to control the population and carryout further conquests for allah.
Janissaries were completely alienated from their origins and possibly felt guilty and ‘conflicted’ about being born Christian while still alienated from their foreign Muslim controlling environment. Such internal conflict and Islamic training explain the violence and sadism displayed by Janissaries. They had been dehumanised and separated from normal human relations, family and country and were totally dependent on the good will of the ruler, their master. The psychological destruction required to ‘convert’ these boys defies imagination. There is scant information available but some suggestion that some tried to hold on to their beliefs and ideas of home and rejected Islam (Papoulia p 558). For parents, “heart rending sorrow” as their children were worse than dead! (1585 Chronicle in Papoulia p 559)
Military slavery was highly developed in Islam where aliens were formed into an imperial bodyguard given privileges while directly dependent on the ruler (Papoulia p 557). It may have been safer for the ruler to give certain of these ‘slaves’ apparent power denied to ‘competing’ Muslims. Janissaries are a ‘ruling class’ of mindless, dependent guard dogs –held together by an artificial ‘brotherhood’ as all else is denied or has been obliterated.
Janissaries show the evil, sadistic impact of Islamic religious training on young minds (did Islamic sadism influence Vlad Dracula?) and we see it today throughout Islam eg Palestinian hate training for children, our little genocide threatening Muslim girl with her genocide sign in Melbourne streets 2009 (see Genocide tot this site).
It is beyond disgusting that we have people who try to sell the Janissaries as a wonderful form of social advancement on the grounds that some of these boys, with their minds twisted by Islam and their family and heritage ripped from them, became powerful in administration or in murder, amassing great booty eg Mahmoud Pasha—Serbian mother, Greek father –captured as a child and taken to the sultan’s court. He was an ‘intimate’ of the sultan Mahomet II and carried out devastating attacks on his own people and others.
Reality: These Christians refused to convert, hence they didn’t seek the advantages of being Muslim.
Families hated this sadistic Muslim system—Christians gave up land rather than their children.
As a privilege (not a punishment), Christians whose special skills were needed could be exempted from handing over their children (ie losing your children was punishment for not converting);
Families fled leaving areas depopulated;
Families married children off early to stop them being taken....sometimes they even mutilated their child so they wouldn’t be taken!
Families who refused to surrender their children were hung/executed;
Children tried to escape...though returned when they heard their family was being tortured to death.
Some parents abducted their children. Others bribed officials. Some bought children or exchanged them (sometimes with poor Muslims).
In extreme cases the very poor thought their child might do better as they couldn’t support them (these were exceptions). (Papoulia p 560)
This system may have rendered some ‘immobile’ but for others it stirred such hatred of the Muslim Turks that it stirred uprisings despite the massive disadvantages of ordinary people. (Papoulia p555)
*In 1565 Christians in Epirus (country in ancient Greece) and Albania rebelled, killing recruitment officers and were forcibly put down by a large Janissary army.
*In 1705 people in Naousa (Greece) again killed the ‘collectors’ and fled to the mountains...those caught were killed. (Bostom 70-72, Papoulia p559).
Others hid in the mountains forming the liberation armies of the Christian population in later centuries determined to remove Muslim Turkish repression.
Jihad and slavery are intimately linked---the devshirme was just a specialised form of slavery, a consequence of conquest by force and penalisation for the resistance of the population. They were just casualties of war and there was a permanent state of war. Greek text describes the children as ‘seized’, captured’ or grabbed.’(Papoulia p 560).
Is Vlad III Dracula (1431-1476) a result of exposure to Islamic violence?
Vladd III is noted for 2 things—his hatred and resistance to the Ottomans and his cruel punishments.
Vlad was born to Vlad Dracul king of Wallachia (Rumania). He is noted for 2 things—his hatred and resistance to the Ottomans and his cruel punishments. I believe both are related.
His father had several attempts at ‘ reigning.’ Vlad III was given a good education in German, Latin, Slavic geography, mathematics, science, classical arts and philosophy etc from Rumanian and Greek scholars.
Tragically his father lost the throne and required Ottoman assistance (though he promised to fight the Ottomans) to regain it in 1442. He agreed to pay a tribute and his younger sons Vlad (about 11-12) and Radu were sent to the Ottoman court as hostages. While pretty Radu caught the eye of the sultan’s son Mehmed II and headed to court, Vlad was imprisoned and whipped. He hated the others and his father for betraying his ‘dragon’ oath to fight the Turks.
Despite this, following the death of his father and older brother, the Ottomans invaded and put Vlad on the throne (1447-1448). Vlad was toppled initially fleeing to Moldavia then to ‘enemy’ Hungary where he advised the ruler as he had a vast knowledge and understanding of the Ottomans.
Following the conquest of Constantinople 1453, the Ottomans spread towards Hungary and Serbia. Vlad fought for Wallachia retaking control. The country was in a poor state and he didn’t trust the nobility, replacing them with others.
Vlad refused to pay tribute to the Ottomans—and fought them eg 1461-62 in the area between Serbia and the Black Sea.
Sultan Mehmed II raised a huge army and headed to Wallachia but was greeted by stakes with 20,000 Muslim prisoners impaled –though slowed the Turks still entered Targoviste (capital). Vlad organised small attacks, and the Ottomans left.
Vlad was undone by his pretty brother Radu, supported by the Ottomans, who appealed to the ousted nobility and the leader of Hungary, toppling Vlad in 1462, making Radu ruler.
As the Ottoman army led by Radu surrounded the castle, Vlad’s first wife threw herself from the tower into a tributary rather than be taken by the Turks.
After release from captivity in Hungary, Vlad again took the throne—1476- but died in battle against the Ottomans near Bucharest in 1476. Supposedly he was decapitated and his head sent to Constantinople for display on a stake.
Vlad ‘s punishments for those he regarded as enemies or criminals and for Muslim Turks was certainly sadistic....but where did he learn them? Was it from his own cruel imprisonment under the Ottomans and his exposure to the extreme sadism they practised ? (Plenty of Vlad stories are available on the internet)
Why are we horrified by Vlad who acted for a short time in a limited area and say nothing about the far greater evil of Islam (Turkish, Arabic, Berber, Shia, Moghal or Tartar) that still spreads around the world and has operated for centuries?
The repressed history of the persecution of others in Asia Minor and the Balkans, particularly by the jihadi Ottomans must be told for its ramifications continue today.
As in Western Europe, the Muslims brought destruction on many fronts. The writings of both Muslim and non-Muslims at the time show the claimed ‘blessing’ brought to the population who now lived in ‘peace and tranquillity’ under Islamic rule is a LIE. Such writers show the massive destruction of material goods, the ruination of entire cities and cultivated areas, massacres, deportations, enslavement, sadism ...a general and lasting decline in productivity, social/cultural destruction, retrogression and the hindrance of the normal evolution and transfer of knowledge of the society and the imposition of dhimmitude. The Turks were semibarbarian and backward and developed a brutal feudal system of economic exploitation.
European advances in political and military organisation, science, technology, etc were unknown to the Ottomans (Encyclopaedia Britannica p 783). Muslims lived off the back of others via exploitative taxes. Greeks and Armenians controlled 80% of Ottoman finance, industry and commerce in 1914. If it hadn’t been for Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk), post WW1 who removed Islam from public life and worked to modernize the nation, Turkey would have remained extremely backward—even in 1945, it’s literacy rate had RISEN to 29% as a result of educational reforms!!! (Encyclopaedia Britannica v 13 p 792). While there are some Turks who are nominally Muslim and who support secularism and religious freedom the reality is that Turkey is returning to fanatical Islam which has only hatred, repression and slavery for others. Will it once again attempt to conquer Europe? If the EU admits Turkey they will dangerously flood Europe with Muslims, offer a path for further Muslim entry and bleed others dry by soaking up all resources---after all, non-Muslims are there to work and provide for the Muslim overlords! Will Islamic Turkey aim to control the whole Islamic world (or the whole world?)—in the 19th century the Arab Wahhabis mocked the Ottoman’s (Encyclopaedia Britannica v13 p 785).
*Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; ...
Turks were the slaves of Arab Islam; Why do they adhere to Islam?
Time to ensure everyone knows the terrifying truth of Islam’s brutal past so it isn’t repeated in the future.
Last edited by Paparock; 05-31-2010 at 10:23 PM..
Turks irked: Islamic supremacist Turkish PM says "Israel's behavior should definitely
Turks irked: Islamic supremacist Turkish PM says "Israel's behavior should definitely, definitely be punished...Today is the beginning of a new age. Things will never be the same again."
As Turkey embraces, and attempts to lead, the latest jihad against Israel, Turkey's Islamic supremacist Prime Minister fulminates about Israel's acts of defense against the Hamas-linked Jihad Flotilla. "Turkey's PM says Israel should be punished," by Pinar Aydinli and Tulay Karadeniz for Reuters, June 1:
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan called Tuesday for Israel to be punished for storming a Turkish aid ship and said "nothing would ever be the same" in relations between the two allies.
Video Shows Turkish Hypocrisy on Violence
Video Shows Turkish Hypocrisy on Violence
Click to view video> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137848
Turkey gives Peace a bad name
Turkey: "Insanity" defense of man accused in bishop's murder questioned
"Insanity" defense of man accused in bishop's murder questioned
Iskanderun (AsiaNews) - The driver of Mgr. Luigi Padovese, killed yesterday in front of his house in Iskanderun has been formally charged with murder by a Turkish court. The police confirm that the man, who for over four years was a close collaborator of the slain bishop suffers from mental disorders. But some doubts remain surrounding his illness and there have been widespread calls on the authorities to deepen their investigations into the motives for the assassination.
Murat Altun, 26, was arrested yesterday, hours after the killing of the bishop. According to some witnesses the murderer was stilly carrying the knife with which he had butchered Mgr. Padovese. After hours of questioning, the police confirmed the insanity of Murat. AsiaNews sources had said yesterday that Murat was "depressed, violent, full of threats."
But faithful and the Turkish world are still finding it hard to accept the thesis of mental illness, which only became evident a few months ago. Several attacks in recent years were committed by young people deemed "unstable" at the time but who later proved to have connections with ultra-nationalist and anti-Christian groups.
To many observers it seems that governments, politicians, Turkish civil authorities are avoiding all serious analysis of these events. The risk is that these violent episodes will be merely brushed off with the excuse that they are the isolated acts of madmen, the casual gesture of an young Islamic fanatic.
Among the "isolated acts" of unbalanced people are: the wounding of Fr Adriano Franchini, Italian Capuchin, Smyrna on December 16, 2007; Fr. Roberto Ferrari, threatened with a kebab knife in the church in Mersin on 11 March 2006, Fr. Pierre Brunissen stabbed in the side, 2 July 2006 outside his church in Samsun. These three attacks were carried out without fatal consequences.
This was not the case for Don Andrea Santoro, shot and killed Feb. 5, 2006 while praying in church in Trabzon; the same fate for the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink assassinated January 19, 2007 just outside his home in a crowded street in Istanbul. And the even more tragic death April 18, 2007 of three Protestant Christians, including one German, tortured, stabbed and killed while working in the Zirve publishing house in Malatya, which publishes Bibles and Christian books.
Among Christians and some Turkish NGOs is the request that investigations do not stop at the arrest of a deranged turn, but dig deeper....
Catholic bishop stabbed to death in Turkey
Catholic bishop stabbed to death in TurkeyNaveed Haq, or this case in Yemen, and even Nidal Hasan), the attacker has been found to have "psychological problems." Fixating on mental illness as a possible cause for the attack allows the media to ignore any and all others -- especially anything involving Islam. Nonetheless, this attack is another in an increasing trend in Turkey for violence against non-Muslims.
"Roman Catholic bishop stabbed to death in Turkey," by Susan Fraser for the Associated Press, June 3:
ANKARA, Turkey - A Roman Catholic bishop was stabbed to death in southern Turkey on Thursday, a day before he was scheduled to leave for Cyprus to meet with the pope, officials and reports said.
Luigi Padovese, the pope's apostolic vicar in Anatolia, was attacked outside his home in the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun. Dogan news agency video footage of the scene showed the bishop lying dead in front of a building.
Mehmet Celalettin Lekesiz, the governor for the province of Hatay, said police immediately caught the suspected killer.
He said the man, identified only as Murat A., was Padovese's driver for the last four and a half years and was mentally unstable.
"The initial investigation shows that the incident is not politically motivated," Lekesiz said. "We have learned that the suspect had psychological problems and was receiving treatment."
Padovese, who is the equivalent of the bishop for the Anatolia region, was scheduled to leave for Cyprus on Friday to meet with the pope, who is visiting the island, and fellow bishops from around the region for preparations before the church's synod of bishops on the Middle East. The Synod is scheduled for October.
No one answered phones at his church in Iskenderun.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told The Associated Press in Rome that the Vatican felt "immense pain, consternation, bewilderment and stupor" over the death and noted that it showed the "difficult conditions" that the Catholic community in the region lives in.
He said the pope's upcoming visit to Cyprus and the upcoming synod of bishops on the Middle East showed "how the universal church is in solidarity with this community."
The killing is the latest in a string of attacks in recent years on Christians in Turkey, where Christians make up less than 1 percent of the 70 million population.
In 2007, a Roman Catholic priest in the western city of Izmir, Adriano Franchini, was stabbed and slightly wounded in the stomach by a 19-year-old man after Sunday Mass. The man was arrested.
The same year, a group of men entered a Bible-publishing house in the central Anatolian city of Malatya and killed three Christians, including a German national. The five alleged killers are now standing trial for murder.
The killings -- in which the victims were tied up and had their throats slit -- drew international condemnation and added to Western concerns about whether Turkey can protect its religious minorities.
In 2006, amid widespread anger in Islamic countries over the publication in European newspapers of caricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, a 16-year-old boy shot dead a Catholic priest, Father Andrea Santoro, as he prayed in his church in the Black Sea city of Trabzon. The boy was convicted of murder and sentenced to 18 years in prison.
In a 2006 telephone interview with The Associated Press, following another knife attack that injured another priest, Padovese expressed concern over the safety of Catholics priests in Turkey.
"The climate has changed," he said. "It is the Catholic priests that are being targeted."
Turkish Protesters: "We’re all Soldiers of Hamas"
Turkish Protesters: "We’re all Soldiers of Hamas"
Thousands of Turks attend funeral at Istanbul mosque, condemn Israel over Gaza flotilla raid. 'Israel is the angel of death,' crowd chants, waving Turkish, Palestinian flags and pledging allegiance to Hamas
AFP Published: 06.03.10, 17:39 / Israel News
Tens of thousands gathered in Istanbul Thursday for prayers for activists killed in Israel's raid on aid ships bound for Gaza, condemning the Jewish state and shouting support for Hamas.
"Damn Israel! Israel is the angel of death!" chanted the crowd which overflowed the sprawling courtyard of the Fatih Mosque, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags.
The NTV news channel put the number of the mourners at between 15,000 and 20,000.
"We are all soldiers of Hamas," the crowd shouted.
Nine people - eight Turks and a US national of Turkish origin - were killed in Monday's pre-dawn raid by Israeli forces on the Turkish ferry, Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the aid flotilla aiming to break the Gaza blockade.
"May your martyrdom be blessed," read a huge banner in the colors of the Palestinian flag, hung on the wall surrounding the mosque courtyard.
The coffins of eight of the activists were laid on marble stands, covered with both Turkish and Palestinian flags, as several imams guided the mourners in the prayers.
One of the dead was to be buried in Istanbul later Thursday while the rest would be flown to their hometowns. There will be a separate ceremony Friday for the last dead activist at another Istanbul mosque.