>>If USA wants a stable Iraq; why they aranged a fake election. Why they brought a man (Talabani) who wants to divide Iraq as a Prime Minister of Iraq. Facts are not supporting what you have said.<< Fake election? I would bet that Talabani would win in a fair election against Saddam Hussein, who won 99% of the vote in his "elections" against his perennial opponents Mas Grayif (Mass Grave) and Fireen Sqaad (Firing Squad). Ask yourself, Pars, would the recent Iraqi elections be "fair" to you if a Kurd, any Kurd, had won? Talabani is leading a council of Iraqis elected from all over Iraq to form a national government to replace the old government. This is democracy. Turkey should try it some time. >>Some circles in USA already started to say Kurds deserve a state of their own. Next they will say Shia Arabs deserve one. Then Syranise (descendants of Assyria) will deserve one. Then probably Iraq Turks. Then Christian Arabs. Then Durzus.<< Why don't the Kurds deserve a state? >>Where will be the line? Sooner or later it will come to Turkey and Israel to be divided into smaller pieces. This is where it is going.<< I'll let Israel speak for Israel. They're apparently happy to accomodate the formation of terrorist camps on their borders enough to shrink their borders to make more room for them. What is Turkey's complaint? Who is taking land from Turkey and giving it to terrorists?

Pars wrote: "Turkey wants to unite with Europe, not Asia" Hi Pars, as we discussed on another board I will tell you again: No chance at all for turkey. Many Europeans even complain about the new EU-memberstates in eastern Europe. But realy nobody wants Turkey in (exept some governments - but these govenments will vanish). And EVERY SINGLE EU-STATE WILL HAVE TO AGREE. AND ABOUT A DOZEN EU-MEMBERSTATES (THE PEOPLE ARE AGAINST A TURKISH EU-MEMBERSHIP WITH A LARGE MAJORITY) WILL HAVE A REFERENDUM: AGAIN. NO CHANCE AT ALL: And by the way. What real problem will prevent that a great people with such a history like the kurds will get their own state if they really want it? The kurds a numerous. They have a true identity and history. They have their own language (now they are allowed to use and learn their language what was forbidden in Turkey for a long time; one example of former turkish violations of human rights - the kurd are no immigrants but a native people). And they got some kind of their own territory in northern Irak. So compared to history their chances are bright. And the the good news is: If Turkey wants good relations to the west Turkey can't opress the kurds anymore. That makes the future of the kurds even brighter.

God slaughters, is vengeful, does evil, defiles, destroys and creates woes. How kind is the Christian idol. Ex 32:14, Num 31:1-18, Deut 2:30,34, 7:2,16, 20:10-20, 1 Sam 6:19, Job 42:11, Isa 45:7, Jer 18:5,8,11, 26:3,13,19, 42:10-11, Lam 3:38, Ezek 6:12-13, 20:25-26, Amos 3:6, Nahum 1:2, Jonah 3:10 The Bible teaches punishment and vengeance. Jesus got this somehow wrong.. Gen 9:6, Ex 21:23-25,29, Lev 24;16,23 Human sacrifice commanded by God. Ahh, this one is nice. Leviticus 27:28,29. God orders people to slaughter their own relatives because they rejected Moses' religion; 3000 killed. Moses tells the killers that God would bless them for doing this by making them ordained for his service. Pretty nasty, isnt it? Exodus 32:27-29. A person to kill their own family for a difference of religion. Gets even better. Deuteronomy 13:6-10. I will work on that forced conversion, I know its there. I have read it twice (the Bible)...

Well I told you this so much that, I lost the count. In Quran, prays do not have numbers, they have names. I can not know which pray you are talking about unless you give me its name. The number you have writtten has no meaning to me. In Arabic Allah means the God. If Thor had been believed in Arabia before Islam it would be called Allah of Thunder. Please do not be absurd about stuff you do not know. Islam is against revenge. There are several prays about this subject. Besides if you look at history which I guess you rarely do; none of the persons who mocked Hz. Muhammed has been killed when they are captured. More than that some of them even have murdered the kins of Hz. Muhammed. They have been all forgiven when the war ended. Most of them later became Muslims. For example most successful commanders of Arabs during their initial expansion period Amr bin Asr and Halid bin Velid were enemies of Hz. Muhammed during Mekka-Medina war. AK you really like Hot baloons. Do not believe in anything you read. Please check it first, will you.

The results were known in Turkey several months before the election (I heard the results at the time. Find it absurd. Then see it become true). If that does not make it fake; then there is no fake elections in the world history. My grandfather is a Kurd. So I am part Kurd. Also part Caucasian but which part of Caucasia is not clear. Lost too much relatives in WW1 to know family tree exactly. Turkey is a democracy longer than many European countries. Of course with your extensive knowledge you must have known this AK. Why not African-Americans deserve a state? Why not native Americans deserve a state? Why not Corsicans deserve a state? Why not Manhattan deserve a state? Let's create a state for every ethnical group by not taking any attention of the problems it will cause. Look at old Yugoslavia. It was a peaceful country once. Then Western powers Balkanised that country. See the mess the result is. When western powers started to draw a new world map you can never know where will they stop. They have tried it twice in the last century with catastrophic results.

Never say never. In the long run Europe needs Turkey. For many reasons. Aging of European population. There are not many young Europeans. In the near future Europe will be again in need of foreign employess. This time also for qualified workers, engineers, doctors. Turkey is the only nation at Europe that has a population grow. We need to slow it down a bit. High production costs in Europe. China is threatening traditional European markets. If Europe wants to secure his markets, they have to lower production costs. easiest way is to transport production facilities to Turkey, which is far cheaper. Military: Turkish military is one of the world's best. New European army will eventually need Turkish support. Culturally: Like it or not, Turkey is part of European culture at least since 1453. Internal problems: Turkish entrance into EU will have positive effect of Germany's problems with his Turk subjects. There are several works that has been done by German socialogs. I think you might have a better chance to reach them than me.

War in Quran. (Let's look next to the Bible. Any pray that you can suggest?) 2: 190 AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.* (2: 191) And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing.** And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first;*** but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth. * This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al=mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Queanic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quean is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. ** In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisdn al-Arab). *** This reference to warfare in the vicinity of Mecca is due to the fact that at the time of the revelation of this verse the Holy City was still in the possession of the pagan Quraysh, who were hostile to the Muslims. However - as is always the case with historical references in the Qur'an - the above injunction has a general import, and is valid for all times and circumstances. 2: 192 But if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. 2: 193 Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone;* but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong. * Lit., "and religion belongs to God [alone]" - i.e., until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution, and none is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. (See also 22: 40.) The term din is in this context more suitably translated as "worship" inasmuch as it comprises here both the doctrinal and the moral aspects of religion: that is to say, man's faith as well as the obligations arising from that faith. 2: 194 Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked:* for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.** * This is a free rendering of the phrase "the sacred month for the sacred month", which is interpreted by all commentators in the sense given above. The "sacred months" during which, according to ancient Arab custom, all fighting was deemed utterly wrong, were the first, seventh, ; eleventh and twelfth months of the lunar calendar. **Thus, although the believers are enjoined to fight back whenever they are attacked, the concluding words of the above verse make it clear that they must, when fighting, abstain from all atrocities, including the killing of non-combatants. 2: 195 And spend [freely] in God's cause, and let not your own hands throw you into destruction;* and persevere in doing good: behold, God loves the doers of good. *173 Le., "you might bring about your own destruction by withholding your personal and material contribution to this common effort".

The population of Egypt has always beem much greater than the population of the Arabain peninsula. The addition and migration of 2 tribes form the peninsula was not sufficient to bring about a demographic replacement e.g unlike the demographic replacement that took place in what is now the US. Most estimates of Egyptian population place it in the 3-4+ million mark, in the absence of large scale destruction of the indigneous population it is unclear how 2 migration of 2 tribes would have changed the demographic balance. The problem here is to confuse political biological process (something the article does again and again). Contemporary DNA evidence tends to support the view that there was no large scale demographic replacement of the Egyptian population. (See Genes, Peoples, and Languagues by Cavalli-Sforza). Also as you probably aware the Makedonian invasion of Egypt aslo entailed Greek colonies being planted- which provided the soliders and higher levels of the civil service. Egyptian survived in everyday use since the Makedonian and later Romman adminstration As for the hypocrisy argument, the idea that Arab group cannot complain about the 'invasion' and occupation because the spread of Arabic was based on invasion is as valid as saying the US cannot complain about ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia because its formation involved some ethnic cleansing of native Americans. The replacement of Greek which was language of elite discoure by Arabic and then the replacement of Egyptian by Arabic does not ential a biological process. If you have credible evidence (and I do not mean rants from the organs like the Frontpage) that there was a systemic campaign in which Muslim rulers sought to replace Egyptian with Arabic I would be interested in looking at it. Until then my view remains that the change to Arabic occurred over time as literacy spread and Egypt began to become Muslim. Colin Renfrew's book on Archaelogy and Language has a very interesting discussion on language replacement.

Judaism, Christainity and Islam all share Near Eastern pool of sacred narratives- narratives not found in the Vedas or other Indic religons. The stories of Moses, the Flood, Noah which appear in these traditions all have prior Sumerian roots.

"Look at old Yugoslavia. It was a peaceful country once. Then Western powers Balkanised that country. See the mess the result is." Pars, I agree with you that the early support of several Western nations to the declaration of independence of Slovenia and Croatia added fuel to the fire, but to put all the blame of the desmembration of Yugoeslavia on the shoulders of the Western nations fails to account several key factors: - The death of Tito. The former Yugoeslavia was a state designed to have him as a leader, his sucessors hadn't an easy task to comply. - Yugoeslavia own contradictions: It's difficult to kept glued a nation with its ethnical groups in eternal conflict because of facts of History. For instance, about WWII, the Serbs were the offical heroes because many of the partizans fighting the German were from that ethnic group. On the other hand, the Croats were the official traitors because some of them fighted alonside the Germans as irregulars (I think they took the name "ustachis"). - Leaders as Milosevic, Karakdjic, Mladic, Tudjman and the like. Enough said. Tercio