Tweet
Surensoy, E.: "Turks were forced to live under Ottoman regime, which every single Turk hated, for 6 centuries. And on top of that, Ottoman never ever claimed to be a Turkish political entity of any sort or pursued well beings of Turks and their aspirations.
------------------
From: Surensoy, E.
Subject: Re: You say this..., He says that,...
They say: There is only one CYPRUS because...
Date: 04 Sep 1998
Newsgroups: alt.culture.turkish.cyprus, alt.news.macedonia,
soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.greek, soc.culture.turkish
They (Greeks, Bulgarians, and others) may have or may have not “liked living under a Moslem (Ottoman) regime for 5 centuries”. The Ottoman regime enlisted its servants and officers solely form the very same people you are talking about, Greeks, Bulgarians, and other Eastern European Christian peoples, and converted them to a fake Islam. But the truth of the matter, you and almost all former Ottoman subjects including former Ottomans who happen to live in Turkiye seemingly as Turks, desperately want to ignore, is that Turks were forced to live under Ottoman regime, which every single Turk hated, for 6 centuries. And on top of that, Ottoman never ever claimed to be a Turkish political entity of any sort or pursued well beings of Turks and their aspirations.
Let’s not forget another fact which is that Ottoman regime was not democratically elected and supported by Turks alone who constituted only less that 25 percent of total Ottoman subjugated population.You ignore these facts just because you are a Christian and because of the historical Christian Crusade vs Moslem Jihad hostilities which still linger around and shape your and Jihad loving idiots’ minds and souls. The descendents of Ottomans who managed to or happened to remain in Turkiye after Turks won their independence and built their Republic of Turkiye want desperately to ignore the above facts, establish a link between Republic of Turkiye and the oppressive Ottoman Empire (even though very false) just because they want to re-establish a Neo-Ottoman oppression in Turkiye.The Republic of Turkiye was born on October 29, 1923; until then there was no Turkiye as we know it today (a democratic republic based on basic human rights and freedoms) and Turks were forced to live without any of their basic human rights and freedoms under the oppressive rule of Ottoman Empire which was not supported nor democratically elected by Turks (neither was it supported nor elected democratically by any other ethnic group). Ottoman Empire was an ultra fundamentalist Islamic-military imperialist dictatorship which never in its entire 600 years of history claimed itself as a Turkish state nor did it pursue the aspirations or welfare of Turkish Nation; the Turks who did so were punished by death by the Ottoman Law. Under Ottoman rule, Turks were only landless peasants with virtually no other options in life working for next to nothing all their lives. Anthony Bridge, in his book “Suleiman the Magnificent”, writes about the Turks as conscripts in Ottoman military during the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1529 the following:“.... After the near-disaster of this sortie by the Austrians, the two sides settled down again to a war of mining and counter-mining, the defenders not wishing to risk another adventure outside the walls and the Ottomans not daring to launch another immediate assault upon them until they had been breached by a mine. At about three o’clock on the afternoon of 9 October (1529), however, two mines were detonated, one either side of the Carinthian Gate, and for the next three days the city was under constant attack. At first Ottomans sent in waves of half-trained troops most of them conscripted peasants, to wear down the defenders before launching Janissaries and other trained soldiers on them. The fact that most of these wretched people were either killed on the spot or wounded did nor worry their commanders; there were many other peasants where they had come from, and they were regarded as expendable, especially since even in death their bodies performed the useful function of filling the ditches and moats over which the Janissaries would later have to move up to the attack. As for the peasants, if they refused to oblige their commanders by advancing like sheep to the slaughter, they were promptly shot for disobedience. Thus under a furious artillery bombardment of the wall on either side of the two great breaches in it, while trumpets were blown and drums beaten, wave upon wave of terrified conscripts rushed screaming at their objective, only to be mown down in hundreds by the Austrians and Germans armed with arquebuses.” Note that the peasant conscripts mentioned above were part of the timar obligations of the Ottoman provincial rulers (governors, mayors, beys, agas, etc., who were obligated to bring them to the Ottoman military service in time of war in predetermined numbers depending on the size and monetary value of the timars assigned to them by the Ottoman Sultan. They were all very poorly trained and equipped; none of them was a Christian; Christians were forced to pay poll tax to be exempt from military service. So, these conscripts were Moslem Turks, Kurds, Arabs, and other Ottoman Moslem subjects. Anthony Bridge in his book mentioned above describes the Turks of Anatolia under Ottoman rule as:“As to the everyday lives of the ordinary Turkish working men and women, materially they did not differ very much from those of the common people in Europe: their existence was precarious, they worked hard, and they were poor. The rights of the urban poor were to some extent protected by trade guilds, which all working men joined, and whose existence was guaranteed by law; even so, some members of the guilds were very poor indeed. In thegreat city of Brusa (Bursa), where records were kept during the second half of the fifteenth century of the wealth of those who died, twenty- six percent owned fewer that twenty ducats at the time of their deaths, while only sixteen per cent owned 200 ducats or more.
… A large number of poor Turks still led a nomadic life, following their flocks and herds to their traditional pastures in the huge empty spaces of Anatolia, co-existing with little settled communities of Christian peasants, trading with them, and as the years went by intermarrying with them more and more frequently. Their lives were hard, but they were no harder than they had been in their fathers’ days or those of their grandfathers.
... In fact, all the evidence, such as it is, goes to show that by nature the Turkish people were easy-going, friendly human beings...”
Baron Wenceslas Wradislaw, an ambassador to Ottoman Constantinople, observed and documented “Never did I hear it said of any pasha, or observe either in Constantinople or in the whole land of Ottoman, that any pasha was a national born Turk; on the contrary, kidnapped, or captured, or turned Ottoman.” “The strength of the empire rested neither on the Muslim majority nor obviously on the millets, but on the hierarchy of the Kapi Kullari, commonly known as the “Slave” or the “Ruling Institution”. All members of this group were legally slaves of the sultan; all were born Christians and converted to Islam primarily, though not exclusively, through the devshirme; and all were trained by the state for their official functions. The slave status carried no social stigma, but divested the kullars of any personality outside of the service of their masters. Forbidden to contract legal marriages, to have acknowledged children, or to own private property, paid, advanced, demoted, or executed at the sultan’s will, they were totally dependent on him, and their honors and possessions reverted to him at their death. The most famous component of the Kapi Kullars was the crack regiments of the Janissaries, who formed the backbone of the Ottoman army, but all officials, from the palace cooks and gardeners to provincial governors and the Grand Vizier himself, were drawn form the Slave Institution. By this remarkable, if precariously balanced, tour de force, the Ottoman empire obtained a superlative group of administrators, entirely devoted to their duties (since they were isolated from the interests of the rest of the population), undistracted by personal allegiances and preoccupations, and dependent for their careers and their very lives on the demonstration of their efficiency and loyalty. Simultaneously, their nonhereditary status precluded the formation of a powerful ruling elite which might threaten the authority of the sultan.” (The Columbia History of the World) “By such a process of assimilation did Mudad I sow the seeds of a multiracial, multireligious, multilingual society which was to function effectively under the rule of his successors for centuries to come. It created over a wide area a Pax Ottomanica, which in due course would merit comparison with Pax Romana of an earlier age. In its own essence the composite realm of the Ottoman Empire was indeed to become, through its eclectic policies, a true successor to the Empire of Rome. For it took over the Roman tradition of giving citizenship to foreigners, naturalizing them in its own fashion, and encouraging them to use their opportunities both to their own and to the Empire’s advantage. It enabled the Sultan’s Christian-born subjects, in common with the Moslem-born, to rise as first-class citizens to the highest offices of the state. It was a like practice, in Professor Toynbee’s view, “had enabled the Romans first to build up an Empire and then to revive it again and again.” In virtue of this he goes to so far as to claim that Ottomans “were able to build up an Empire which was truly the fifth revival of the Roman Empire in the Near East and Middle East”—and which was to survive as such into the first quarter of the twentieth century.” (The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross, page 59).Note that the above “Moslem-born Ottoman subjects” who were allowed to rise “to the highest offices of the state” were the offspring of the Christian-born subjects of earlier generations. No Turks were allowed to hold any office or authority in the Ottoman system.
The Columbia History of the World: “Religious opposition blocked the printing of works in Turkish until the 18th Century, even though the Jewish, Armenian and Greek millets had maintained presses for centuries. The enormous technological and intellectual advances thrust the Western Europe into the modern era were contemptuously ignored by the Ottomans”.That means Jews, Greeks, Armenians and other non-Moslem millets had printing press along with it their freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of communication, etc., but not Turks. It was perfectly acceptable to Ottoman for the Jews, Armenians, and Greeks and other Christians to exercises their freedoms but not for the Turks. Just because, Ottoman was Jew, Armenian, and Greek rather than Turk.
So, Ottoman Empire was controlled and ruled by the Ottomans who were former Christian Armenians, Greeks, and other Eastern European peoples abducted by force from their families at young ages (devshirmes), trained in a special school, and converted to a pseudo Islam to be employed as the rulers, officials and the sole beneficiaries of Ottoman system of oppression. With on the top the bastard who called himself Ottoman Sultan who was the son of an enslaved concubine of many hundreds like her who were former Eastern European Christians converted to the same pseudo Islam also, some of the Ottoman Armenians were:
Gabriel Noradunkyan Ottoman Foreign Minister
Ohannes Sakiz Pasha Ottoman Ambassador
Artin Dadyan Pasha Ottoman Ambassador
Harutyan Dadyan Pasha Ottoman Ambassador
Manuk Azaryan Ottoman Ambassador
Agop Kazazyan Pasha Ottoman Finance Minister
Mikael Portaklayan Pasha Ottoman Finance Minister
Ohannes Sakiz Pasha Ottoman Finance Minister
Field Marshal Garabet Artin Davud Ottoman PTT Minister
Field Marshal Garabet Artin Davud Ottoman Housing and Urban Development Minister
Andon Tingir Yaver Pasha Justice of Ottoman High Court
Abraham Yeramyan Pasha Justice of Ottoman High Court
Mihran Duz Justice of Ottoman High Court
Bedros Kuyumcuyan Justice of Ottoman High Court
and many others, too many to mention here; even the Ottoman official language used in foreign relations in its final couple of centuries was Armenian Language.
Abdul Hamid II is a good example; he was one of the most brutal Ottoman bastards who terrorized his subjugated peoples, especially the Turks, most brutally for 33 years from 1876 until 1909; he was known as the Red Sultan for the blood of his innocent victims in his hands and Bedros, or Peter in Armenian, because of his Armenian features and his Armenian mother who was one of the may hundreds of concubines of his father’s women slave courtiers called harem. The decendents of former Ottomans who live in Turkiye and have been relentlessly anti-Turkish and anti-Turkish Republic since the early moments of the Turkish Republic refer to him as “the Great Ruler”, or “Ulu Hakan” in Turkish; of course, he was “the Great Ruler” to the Ottomans, but not to the Turks and other subjugated nations who were forced to live under the most brutal Ottoman system of oppression and exploitation. Another example to indicate how “Turk” the Ottoman rulers were not is Mehmed II or the Conqueror. “Mehmed II, born under auspices held to be ominous during a plague which carried off two of his father’s brothers, had been afflicted with an unhappy childhood and upbringing. He was the third son of a father who preferred his two elder half-brothers, Ali and Ahmed, and did not envisage him as a likely successor to the throne. Their respective mothers moreover were women of some birth and standing, whereas the mother of Mehmed was a slave girl, of undetermined but probably Christian origin. He thus had blood in his veins that may have accounted for characteristics in him contrasting with those of his father and grandfather.” (The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinros, Page 87).
“... When Mehmed the Conqueror captured it (Constantinople), he considered himself to be their successor (Byzantines), announcing that henceforth his throne would be Constantinople, and ordering the immediate construction of a palace in the center of the city, in which he might dwell in a manner fitting to his new station as heir of the Caesars.... Once installed in his new and splendid abode, Mehmed, not content simply to live in a palace similar to the Sacred Palace in which the Byzantine Emperors had lived, also adopted many of the features of the Byzantine life, and his successors furthered the process. The result was that by Suleiman’s time the sultan lived in almost oriental seclusion, and the complexities of the etiquette which surrounded him was truly Byzantine in its elaboration; indeed, much of the ceremonial of his court was taken over directly from Byzantine days and had been described by the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his great work on court ritual, De Caerimoniis Imperio.” (Suleiman the Magnificent by Antony Bridge, page 32). “... in the heyday of the Ottoman Power in the sixteenth and \seventeenth centuries of the Christian Era, the lingua franca of the Padishah’s Slave-Household was Serbo-Croat, and the language of the command in the Ottoman Navy Italian.” (A Study of History by Arnold Toynbee).“... Hence, no external or internal element was in a position to interfere with absolutism of the (Ottoman) central government controlling the separate compartments (non-Moslem millets and Moslems) of state which were too isolated from one another to present any serious threat. Even the danger of family rivalries, perpetually present in a polygamous society without a clear laws of succcession and consequently vulnerable to harem intrigues, was allayed by the merciless decree of the Conqueror (Mehmed II) that all male relatives of the reigning sultan were to be executed at his accession.” (The Columbia History of the World”, editors John A. Garraty and Peter Gay, page 612) Another typical example was a man known by the name Barbarossa, a very successful(!) Greek Christian corsair, and a renegade, at the age of 67 or 68 converted voluntarily (of course to serve for his own benefits) to become a Moslem (Ottoman style) and an Ottoman Pasha to command the Ottoman naval fleets as the Ottoman Grand Admiral. Barbarossa was one of 4 sons of a former Ottoman devshirme (a Janissary), born during the times of the father of Suleiman I, Selim I the Terrible on the Greek Island of Mytilene, the ancient Lesbos. His father was a young boy when Ottomans abducted him from his Greek Christian parents to convert him to Moslem and trained him to be a Janissary. After he retired, he returned to his native island took up pottery for a living and married the widow of a Greek Orthodox priest who gave birth to his four sons, Ishak the eldest who was a merchant, and the other three (Uruj, Khaireddin known as Barbarossa, and Elisa) were corsairs. At the mean time, “the rigid orthodox Muslim empire of Suleiman I, the Ottomans came to believe that nothing of conceivable worth could be learned from the barbarous infidels” (The Columbia History of the World).Babarossa was certainly the role model and the leader of Ottoman Naval force; in him, Ottoman Empire found a very valuable capability to conquer, enslave and plunder other peoples and countries before they would do so to Ottomans. Brutality, in the entire human history, was the primary tool to survive for humans as individuals as well as organized political entities such as empires, kingdoms, states, etc.; the rule was: one had to do it to others before the others would do it to him; and every empire, kingdom, state, principality, town, city, village etc., regardless of race, religion, culture, region, nationality, etc., was equally brutal to everybody else in order survive. Just because; “War was, until the Industrial Revolution, the fastest and the most direct way (most likely the only way) of capital accumulation. Booty and, afterward, the tribute of conquered lands stimulated the economy. The skill of captured and enslaved craftsmen sustained the economic growth.” (The Columbia History of the World) But the totally unfair and unfortunate side of this for Turks and Turkiye is that now, according to the Ottoman propaganda taught in schools in Turkiye by the descendents of former Ottomans as the Ottoman history, Barbarossa, the Greek Christian corsair is being made to be known as “the father of Turkish Navy and sailors.” His tomb erected in 1547 by his master Suleiman is kept as a “Turkish National shrine and monument” by his descendents in Istanbul at the shores of Baspouros. So, the Turks get it from every which way regardless.
As the Armenian proverb says “When the axe came into the forest, the trees said the handle is one of us.” So far, Armenians have not realized this yet. Turks during the last seventy plus years proved how kind and gentle people they are by their behavior towards and treatment of Armenians and other minorities since they gained their independence from Ottoman system of oppression and exploitation which was controlled by Armenians, Greeks, and other Eastern European peoples who were deliberately employed by the Ottoman as explained above. On the other hand Armenians proved how blindly hateful and hostile towards Turks they are by just murdering hundreds of innocent Turkish diplomats.
For fair use only.
------------------
From: Surensoy, E.
Subject: Re: You say this..., He says that,...
They say: There is only one CYPRUS because...
Date: 04 Sep 1998
Newsgroups: alt.culture.turkish.cyprus, alt.news.macedonia,
soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.greek, soc.culture.turkish
Ivan T<vank...@s> wrote:
Listen Ozgun, How do you think the Greeks or Bulgarians and others liked living under a Muslim regime for 5 centuries? Did the Greeks not lose when they were forced to migrate from Constantinople and Izmir and Bursa or did the Bulgarians when they migrated from Edirne, Lozengrad and so on. So I can care less about what happened to your family because there have been much more terrible things going on. Do you know how many Bulgarians were TURNED into Pomaks although they are not Turkish? The same goes to Greeks and so on because you see what even 50 years living under a foreign influence can do.
>Ozgur wrote:
>>Xtes-00k wrote:
[Surensoy, E. writes:]
Listen Ozgun, How do you think the Greeks or Bulgarians and others liked living under a Muslim regime for 5 centuries? Did the Greeks not lose when they were forced to migrate from Constantinople and Izmir and Bursa or did the Bulgarians when they migrated from Edirne, Lozengrad and so on. So I can care less about what happened to your family because there have been much more terrible things going on. Do you know how many Bulgarians were TURNED into Pomaks although they are not Turkish? The same goes to Greeks and so on because you see what even 50 years living under a foreign influence can do.
>Ozgur wrote:
>>Xtes-00k wrote:
[Surensoy, E. writes:]
Let’s not forget another fact which is that Ottoman regime was not democratically elected and supported by Turks alone who constituted only less that 25 percent of total Ottoman subjugated population.You ignore these facts just because you are a Christian and because of the historical Christian Crusade vs Moslem Jihad hostilities which still linger around and shape your and Jihad loving idiots’ minds and souls. The descendents of Ottomans who managed to or happened to remain in Turkiye after Turks won their independence and built their Republic of Turkiye want desperately to ignore the above facts, establish a link between Republic of Turkiye and the oppressive Ottoman Empire (even though very false) just because they want to re-establish a Neo-Ottoman oppression in Turkiye.The Republic of Turkiye was born on October 29, 1923; until then there was no Turkiye as we know it today (a democratic republic based on basic human rights and freedoms) and Turks were forced to live without any of their basic human rights and freedoms under the oppressive rule of Ottoman Empire which was not supported nor democratically elected by Turks (neither was it supported nor elected democratically by any other ethnic group). Ottoman Empire was an ultra fundamentalist Islamic-military imperialist dictatorship which never in its entire 600 years of history claimed itself as a Turkish state nor did it pursue the aspirations or welfare of Turkish Nation; the Turks who did so were punished by death by the Ottoman Law. Under Ottoman rule, Turks were only landless peasants with virtually no other options in life working for next to nothing all their lives. Anthony Bridge, in his book “Suleiman the Magnificent”, writes about the Turks as conscripts in Ottoman military during the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1529 the following:“.... After the near-disaster of this sortie by the Austrians, the two sides settled down again to a war of mining and counter-mining, the defenders not wishing to risk another adventure outside the walls and the Ottomans not daring to launch another immediate assault upon them until they had been breached by a mine. At about three o’clock on the afternoon of 9 October (1529), however, two mines were detonated, one either side of the Carinthian Gate, and for the next three days the city was under constant attack. At first Ottomans sent in waves of half-trained troops most of them conscripted peasants, to wear down the defenders before launching Janissaries and other trained soldiers on them. The fact that most of these wretched people were either killed on the spot or wounded did nor worry their commanders; there were many other peasants where they had come from, and they were regarded as expendable, especially since even in death their bodies performed the useful function of filling the ditches and moats over which the Janissaries would later have to move up to the attack. As for the peasants, if they refused to oblige their commanders by advancing like sheep to the slaughter, they were promptly shot for disobedience. Thus under a furious artillery bombardment of the wall on either side of the two great breaches in it, while trumpets were blown and drums beaten, wave upon wave of terrified conscripts rushed screaming at their objective, only to be mown down in hundreds by the Austrians and Germans armed with arquebuses.” Note that the peasant conscripts mentioned above were part of the timar obligations of the Ottoman provincial rulers (governors, mayors, beys, agas, etc., who were obligated to bring them to the Ottoman military service in time of war in predetermined numbers depending on the size and monetary value of the timars assigned to them by the Ottoman Sultan. They were all very poorly trained and equipped; none of them was a Christian; Christians were forced to pay poll tax to be exempt from military service. So, these conscripts were Moslem Turks, Kurds, Arabs, and other Ottoman Moslem subjects. Anthony Bridge in his book mentioned above describes the Turks of Anatolia under Ottoman rule as:“As to the everyday lives of the ordinary Turkish working men and women, materially they did not differ very much from those of the common people in Europe: their existence was precarious, they worked hard, and they were poor. The rights of the urban poor were to some extent protected by trade guilds, which all working men joined, and whose existence was guaranteed by law; even so, some members of the guilds were very poor indeed. In thegreat city of Brusa (Bursa), where records were kept during the second half of the fifteenth century of the wealth of those who died, twenty- six percent owned fewer that twenty ducats at the time of their deaths, while only sixteen per cent owned 200 ducats or more.
… A large number of poor Turks still led a nomadic life, following their flocks and herds to their traditional pastures in the huge empty spaces of Anatolia, co-existing with little settled communities of Christian peasants, trading with them, and as the years went by intermarrying with them more and more frequently. Their lives were hard, but they were no harder than they had been in their fathers’ days or those of their grandfathers.
... In fact, all the evidence, such as it is, goes to show that by nature the Turkish people were easy-going, friendly human beings...”
Baron Wenceslas Wradislaw, an ambassador to Ottoman Constantinople, observed and documented “Never did I hear it said of any pasha, or observe either in Constantinople or in the whole land of Ottoman, that any pasha was a national born Turk; on the contrary, kidnapped, or captured, or turned Ottoman.” “The strength of the empire rested neither on the Muslim majority nor obviously on the millets, but on the hierarchy of the Kapi Kullari, commonly known as the “Slave” or the “Ruling Institution”. All members of this group were legally slaves of the sultan; all were born Christians and converted to Islam primarily, though not exclusively, through the devshirme; and all were trained by the state for their official functions. The slave status carried no social stigma, but divested the kullars of any personality outside of the service of their masters. Forbidden to contract legal marriages, to have acknowledged children, or to own private property, paid, advanced, demoted, or executed at the sultan’s will, they were totally dependent on him, and their honors and possessions reverted to him at their death. The most famous component of the Kapi Kullars was the crack regiments of the Janissaries, who formed the backbone of the Ottoman army, but all officials, from the palace cooks and gardeners to provincial governors and the Grand Vizier himself, were drawn form the Slave Institution. By this remarkable, if precariously balanced, tour de force, the Ottoman empire obtained a superlative group of administrators, entirely devoted to their duties (since they were isolated from the interests of the rest of the population), undistracted by personal allegiances and preoccupations, and dependent for their careers and their very lives on the demonstration of their efficiency and loyalty. Simultaneously, their nonhereditary status precluded the formation of a powerful ruling elite which might threaten the authority of the sultan.” (The Columbia History of the World) “By such a process of assimilation did Mudad I sow the seeds of a multiracial, multireligious, multilingual society which was to function effectively under the rule of his successors for centuries to come. It created over a wide area a Pax Ottomanica, which in due course would merit comparison with Pax Romana of an earlier age. In its own essence the composite realm of the Ottoman Empire was indeed to become, through its eclectic policies, a true successor to the Empire of Rome. For it took over the Roman tradition of giving citizenship to foreigners, naturalizing them in its own fashion, and encouraging them to use their opportunities both to their own and to the Empire’s advantage. It enabled the Sultan’s Christian-born subjects, in common with the Moslem-born, to rise as first-class citizens to the highest offices of the state. It was a like practice, in Professor Toynbee’s view, “had enabled the Romans first to build up an Empire and then to revive it again and again.” In virtue of this he goes to so far as to claim that Ottomans “were able to build up an Empire which was truly the fifth revival of the Roman Empire in the Near East and Middle East”—and which was to survive as such into the first quarter of the twentieth century.” (The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross, page 59).Note that the above “Moslem-born Ottoman subjects” who were allowed to rise “to the highest offices of the state” were the offspring of the Christian-born subjects of earlier generations. No Turks were allowed to hold any office or authority in the Ottoman system.
The Columbia History of the World: “Religious opposition blocked the printing of works in Turkish until the 18th Century, even though the Jewish, Armenian and Greek millets had maintained presses for centuries. The enormous technological and intellectual advances thrust the Western Europe into the modern era were contemptuously ignored by the Ottomans”.That means Jews, Greeks, Armenians and other non-Moslem millets had printing press along with it their freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of communication, etc., but not Turks. It was perfectly acceptable to Ottoman for the Jews, Armenians, and Greeks and other Christians to exercises their freedoms but not for the Turks. Just because, Ottoman was Jew, Armenian, and Greek rather than Turk.
So, Ottoman Empire was controlled and ruled by the Ottomans who were former Christian Armenians, Greeks, and other Eastern European peoples abducted by force from their families at young ages (devshirmes), trained in a special school, and converted to a pseudo Islam to be employed as the rulers, officials and the sole beneficiaries of Ottoman system of oppression. With on the top the bastard who called himself Ottoman Sultan who was the son of an enslaved concubine of many hundreds like her who were former Eastern European Christians converted to the same pseudo Islam also, some of the Ottoman Armenians were:
Gabriel Noradunkyan Ottoman Foreign Minister
Ohannes Sakiz Pasha Ottoman Ambassador
Artin Dadyan Pasha Ottoman Ambassador
Harutyan Dadyan Pasha Ottoman Ambassador
Manuk Azaryan Ottoman Ambassador
Agop Kazazyan Pasha Ottoman Finance Minister
Mikael Portaklayan Pasha Ottoman Finance Minister
Ohannes Sakiz Pasha Ottoman Finance Minister
Field Marshal Garabet Artin Davud Ottoman PTT Minister
Field Marshal Garabet Artin Davud Ottoman Housing and Urban Development Minister
Andon Tingir Yaver Pasha Justice of Ottoman High Court
Abraham Yeramyan Pasha Justice of Ottoman High Court
Mihran Duz Justice of Ottoman High Court
Bedros Kuyumcuyan Justice of Ottoman High Court
and many others, too many to mention here; even the Ottoman official language used in foreign relations in its final couple of centuries was Armenian Language.
Abdul Hamid II is a good example; he was one of the most brutal Ottoman bastards who terrorized his subjugated peoples, especially the Turks, most brutally for 33 years from 1876 until 1909; he was known as the Red Sultan for the blood of his innocent victims in his hands and Bedros, or Peter in Armenian, because of his Armenian features and his Armenian mother who was one of the may hundreds of concubines of his father’s women slave courtiers called harem. The decendents of former Ottomans who live in Turkiye and have been relentlessly anti-Turkish and anti-Turkish Republic since the early moments of the Turkish Republic refer to him as “the Great Ruler”, or “Ulu Hakan” in Turkish; of course, he was “the Great Ruler” to the Ottomans, but not to the Turks and other subjugated nations who were forced to live under the most brutal Ottoman system of oppression and exploitation. Another example to indicate how “Turk” the Ottoman rulers were not is Mehmed II or the Conqueror. “Mehmed II, born under auspices held to be ominous during a plague which carried off two of his father’s brothers, had been afflicted with an unhappy childhood and upbringing. He was the third son of a father who preferred his two elder half-brothers, Ali and Ahmed, and did not envisage him as a likely successor to the throne. Their respective mothers moreover were women of some birth and standing, whereas the mother of Mehmed was a slave girl, of undetermined but probably Christian origin. He thus had blood in his veins that may have accounted for characteristics in him contrasting with those of his father and grandfather.” (The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinros, Page 87).
“... When Mehmed the Conqueror captured it (Constantinople), he considered himself to be their successor (Byzantines), announcing that henceforth his throne would be Constantinople, and ordering the immediate construction of a palace in the center of the city, in which he might dwell in a manner fitting to his new station as heir of the Caesars.... Once installed in his new and splendid abode, Mehmed, not content simply to live in a palace similar to the Sacred Palace in which the Byzantine Emperors had lived, also adopted many of the features of the Byzantine life, and his successors furthered the process. The result was that by Suleiman’s time the sultan lived in almost oriental seclusion, and the complexities of the etiquette which surrounded him was truly Byzantine in its elaboration; indeed, much of the ceremonial of his court was taken over directly from Byzantine days and had been described by the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his great work on court ritual, De Caerimoniis Imperio.” (Suleiman the Magnificent by Antony Bridge, page 32). “... in the heyday of the Ottoman Power in the sixteenth and \seventeenth centuries of the Christian Era, the lingua franca of the Padishah’s Slave-Household was Serbo-Croat, and the language of the command in the Ottoman Navy Italian.” (A Study of History by Arnold Toynbee).“... Hence, no external or internal element was in a position to interfere with absolutism of the (Ottoman) central government controlling the separate compartments (non-Moslem millets and Moslems) of state which were too isolated from one another to present any serious threat. Even the danger of family rivalries, perpetually present in a polygamous society without a clear laws of succcession and consequently vulnerable to harem intrigues, was allayed by the merciless decree of the Conqueror (Mehmed II) that all male relatives of the reigning sultan were to be executed at his accession.” (The Columbia History of the World”, editors John A. Garraty and Peter Gay, page 612) Another typical example was a man known by the name Barbarossa, a very successful(!) Greek Christian corsair, and a renegade, at the age of 67 or 68 converted voluntarily (of course to serve for his own benefits) to become a Moslem (Ottoman style) and an Ottoman Pasha to command the Ottoman naval fleets as the Ottoman Grand Admiral. Barbarossa was one of 4 sons of a former Ottoman devshirme (a Janissary), born during the times of the father of Suleiman I, Selim I the Terrible on the Greek Island of Mytilene, the ancient Lesbos. His father was a young boy when Ottomans abducted him from his Greek Christian parents to convert him to Moslem and trained him to be a Janissary. After he retired, he returned to his native island took up pottery for a living and married the widow of a Greek Orthodox priest who gave birth to his four sons, Ishak the eldest who was a merchant, and the other three (Uruj, Khaireddin known as Barbarossa, and Elisa) were corsairs. At the mean time, “the rigid orthodox Muslim empire of Suleiman I, the Ottomans came to believe that nothing of conceivable worth could be learned from the barbarous infidels” (The Columbia History of the World).Babarossa was certainly the role model and the leader of Ottoman Naval force; in him, Ottoman Empire found a very valuable capability to conquer, enslave and plunder other peoples and countries before they would do so to Ottomans. Brutality, in the entire human history, was the primary tool to survive for humans as individuals as well as organized political entities such as empires, kingdoms, states, etc.; the rule was: one had to do it to others before the others would do it to him; and every empire, kingdom, state, principality, town, city, village etc., regardless of race, religion, culture, region, nationality, etc., was equally brutal to everybody else in order survive. Just because; “War was, until the Industrial Revolution, the fastest and the most direct way (most likely the only way) of capital accumulation. Booty and, afterward, the tribute of conquered lands stimulated the economy. The skill of captured and enslaved craftsmen sustained the economic growth.” (The Columbia History of the World) But the totally unfair and unfortunate side of this for Turks and Turkiye is that now, according to the Ottoman propaganda taught in schools in Turkiye by the descendents of former Ottomans as the Ottoman history, Barbarossa, the Greek Christian corsair is being made to be known as “the father of Turkish Navy and sailors.” His tomb erected in 1547 by his master Suleiman is kept as a “Turkish National shrine and monument” by his descendents in Istanbul at the shores of Baspouros. So, the Turks get it from every which way regardless.
As the Armenian proverb says “When the axe came into the forest, the trees said the handle is one of us.” So far, Armenians have not realized this yet. Turks during the last seventy plus years proved how kind and gentle people they are by their behavior towards and treatment of Armenians and other minorities since they gained their independence from Ottoman system of oppression and exploitation which was controlled by Armenians, Greeks, and other Eastern European peoples who were deliberately employed by the Ottoman as explained above. On the other hand Armenians proved how blindly hateful and hostile towards Turks they are by just murdering hundreds of innocent Turkish diplomats.
For fair use only.
Hell, even 6 of 10 country in the world still doesn't have democracy at 2010.
Comment