FalconDudehave you figured out any possible loiter times with the amount of internal fuel you plan for the plane?
FalconDudeI realised one little thing here now…
I figured when I had both rockets and a small turbofan that the turbofan inlet doors would have to be closed after mach 1 ( or just before it ).
With these inlet doors closed the intercepting Gekko could ( after climbing at enermous climb rate of of 240 m/s to 12-15 km for instance ) actually dive at over 3000 km/h vertically..not many planes can do that ???
This would save enermous amount of fuel..since there at 15 km if no foe is left plane could glide at 1/17 glideratio even 250 km.
Although I like what you are doing with this, I am struggling to find a purpose for this fighter in real conditions.
Your plane with rockets on will be as visilble to attackers as any SAM would be, without rockets on, it is not powerful enough to get into a fight with any kinematic parity.
What would be useful, would be if this plane was fully capable but at this size. Which I doubt one can do without a revolutionary new engine design.
FalconDudeYou could be right. There is possibility to make it a bit bigger..it seems to be too fast on all possible measures in this size even with this 7.2 kN engine..right now.
I think right now it needs only 5 kN back up from rockets to go high supersonic. Stays high supersonic in 10 000 meters after the lite is off from those rockets ( if the fan rotates along correctly ).
perhaps you might want to consider going for a ramjet configuration where the ramjet picks up from the main engine as speed builds up. That would mean you could ditch the rockets.
Also, you might want to use a model builder and test your design in a simulator package to verify some of its characteristics.
FalconDudeHow about under the pilot feet and behind the pilot ?
I don’t think there is enough volume left in your design for such things. I don’t think you appreciate the volume of avionics. And not just that.
How about pumps for hydraulics? actuators, cooling, cabling. Fuel pipes for fuel balancing etc etc. Not to mention that you maintain internal weapons capability.
I think there isn’t enough volume really.
FalconDudeHere comes the older lay out with this radar measures on it.
It was used in F-20 Tigershark..designed for it…and F-5G ( originally ).
Errmm.. I’m sorry, where would the actual Radar electronics go? your diagram only shows the Antenna.
FalconDudeL-band is widely used for area surveillance for all types of objects, e.g. in shipboard long-range radars.
Yes, but the ability to pick up LO objects (wavelength etc) was supposed to be the reason they are added on the craft. Is this now revised to an IFF ?
FalconDudeI was under the impression the L-bands were supposed to be used primarily to pick up LO targets. ( notice I used ‘pick up’ and not track).
Is this not so then ?
FalconDudeBack to subject please? (kind request)
Guys, for God’s sake, we dealt with the topic! There is nothing more to discuss on the topic of the Atlantiques!
FalconDudeI have issues of The Military Balance going back to the 1970s. The similarity in equipment of the two countries is obvious.
I’ll have a look up the loft any way. It wouldn’t hurt I think. 🙂
FalconDudeI used to have magazines that outlined the balance of equipment between the two countries. I will have an attic adventure it seems as soon as I can to dig up the data.
FalconDudeMost partners have doubts regarding affordability. Turkey may choose to buy it later, after seeing the cost come down significantly rather then commiting itself to a jet, that they cannot afford, or that would be significantly more expensive initially then they had earlier thought. They would have gotten detail breifings about the capability of the F-35, had they thought it to be insufficient compared to their other “options” they could have not signed up as a partner.
Turkey is committed to the JSF. It is also counting a lot to the technology transfer involved with this.
FalconDudeWe can place more trust in Ottoman censuses than private estimates because:
1. Nobody else actually counted. The private estimates are mostly guesses.
2. The Turks had no reason to lie. The censuses & population registers were intended for internal government use, not publication. When the censuses began to be published, they weren’t translated. The unpublished documents used internally are consistent with the published figures.
3. The statistical service was dominated by Christians in the 1890s & early C20, including a Christian head from 1893 to 1908.Yes, you do misinterpret me a lot. It’s so bad I’ve been wondering if it’s deliberate.
You say the Pontic Greeks alone were almost a million – but what evidence do you have for that? Even the propaganda figures bandied around in 1918-19 by Venizelos didn’t claim that.
My sources for population figures are the Ottoman official statistics, with upward revisions (because the Ottoman figures are believed to have undercounted, especially women & children – the sex ratios & age structure strongly support this belief) by modern scholars. Mostly Turkish, just because they’re the ones who’ve published. The only Greek publications I’ve found use the figures I mentioned before, with their unidentifiable sources.
With the numbers I’ve quoted, all the Greeks did not move to Greece. Allowing for those who went to the USA & elsewhere, & allowing for the relatively small number who were counted twice (moved to Greece & then went on), there’s a significant shortfall – which, unfortunately, probably reflects the deaths during the wars, massacres, & the high death rates among those displaced. How many do you think moved to Greece? There’s an official Greek figure, which I’ve never heard anyone suggest is unreliable.
Where do you get the figure of 400 000 Muslim Greeks? The 1991 Greek census recorded 97604. You must be including the large number of non-citizens present, e.g. Albanians.
I find what you say about offensive & defensive equipment weird. The Greek & Turkish armed forces have mostly had the same equipment since 1960. F-104, F-5, F-4, F-16, M47, M48, M60, Leopard, Leopard 2 . . . and so on. What is this great difference between offensive & defensive you allude to? What specific equipment? In what quantities?
What is Greece’s myth? Goddamit, how many months do you have? These things aren’t something I can spell out here. And anyway, you know it. You’ve absorbed it. You’re just not aware of it as what it is, any more than most people are aware of their national myths as what they are. They know them in detail, but take them as given. Think a bit, & you may be able to work it out. It includes such things as Thermopylae. The Turkish one, of course, includes a heroic story of what they call the War of Independence, when the republic was founded. The French one includes Verdun, the resistance in WW2, the revolution, Joan of Arc – you should be getting the picture by now. None of them are all about fighting. There are poets in there, religious leaders, etc.
Ottomans aimed to make subjects lose national identity, that is why I would tend to take those censuses with a grain of salt. Taxation data now can be far more telling.
The Greek figure for the ones who went to Greece is about 1.6m. But the numbers don’t add up because in Istanbul alone resided about 300.000 Greeks c 1924. As you said these usually only include adult men or entire families in inconsistent fashion. That gives us ~1.9 without counting various other populations spread across modern day turkey who didn’t return. We know this from records of people who returned to Greece after the persecutions in Istanbul.
Fidanakis places muslims in Greece of turkish origin to 150.000. That doesn’t include Roma and pomaks. That is a much later than 1991 I think though. during the latest 2011 census according to the Eastern Macedonia and Thrace province/county web published data they are found to be 145.000. Again without counting Roma and Pomaks. The rough ballpark for muslims in Greece is 400.000, but i don’t have any data on the exact break down of this figure.
Greece has spent a large amount of money on anti-tank, anti-air, anti-landing weapons, until recently Turkey had no AA defences to speak of, compared to Greece’s multi layered AA with Patriot, Skyguard, Tor, I-hawk. Kornet missiles etc etc etc.
Greece lacked any offensive stand off weapon until recently whilst the Turkish AF included these a long time ago. Add to this a large number of ever increasing landing craft, LVDs and bridging equipment for Thrace of which Greece never fielded. Long range tactical missiles which Greece never sought to acquire.
SIGINT/ELINT equipment which again Greece doesn’t field and now the purchase of F-35 which is clearly a first strike weapon.
I don’t think there is a Hellenistic myth the way you describe it.
Did the Thermopylae not happen? etc etc.
FalconDudeThis gets sillier & sillier.
Is there a reason or you like to insult?
We are debating in English. You use an ENGLISH term with a perfectly good ENGLISH meaning, & tell us that you have used it with a specifically GREEK meaning. And still, you expect to be taken seriously.
again on the offensive. Near east is a widely known term used in Greece, there are countless clubs cultural and sports that use that term and are referring solely to the western shores. I even played football for one of them in me youth. There is also some fusion with the term “little asia” which may refer to mainland turkey OR the western shores depending who you talk to. You know so much about the area, how come you don’t know that?
Your numbers still don’t support your argument. I haven’t taken any numbers down. Again, you are misrepresenting what I have written.
it seems all I do is misinterpret you.
I referred only to the population of the vilayet in which Smyrna was – i.e. what you referenced when you made your original claim (which you’re now arguing was false, without acknowledging your retreat) that there were almost as many Greeks in Smyrna as Greece. BTW, the population of Izmir sandjak (i.e. the city & surrounding area only) was officially recorded as 641 000 in 1914. Allowing for serious undercounting, it’s been estimated that it may actually have been 800 000. :diablo:
Ok, lets assume my sources are solely Greek or Greek biassed. Which are yours?
Oh yes – Pentzopoulos (2002) gives 2.7 million as the highest estimate of the Greek population of all of what is now Turkey, not just the western shores.
Practically impossible, just the pontian Greeks were almost a million alone.
I suggest you read Skalieris, I know he was Greek but you may find the data in it are valid.
Besides if you count based on your data, then with the population exchange all of the Greeks moved to Greece. Something we know is not true.
His sources are two sets of data cited by three Greeks in 1918-19 (years of no political significance, eh?), the originals of which have never been seen by anyone except those three, & which are not recorded as existing anywhere except in those three Greek publications, & others who cite them. Other scholars, who’ve used the Turkish censuses, have come up with estimates (allowing for undercounting in the censuses) of up to 1.8 million – for all of what is now Turkey.
Why would we take turkish censuses more seriously then?
More silliness: Greek ‘converts’
more offensive use of language. You want to tell me that you know so much about the region but not that a great number of Greeks converted to Islam? Seriously?
. I have no idea why you bring up the straw man of ‘generic muslims who happened to speak Greek’. Where did that come from? I thought the origins of Greek-speaking Muslims were obvious to everyone, & there was no need to elaborate.
Nothing is clear as it seems in this issue.
If one were to carry out a genetic analysis of the population of Anatolia, I am confident that one would find that a very large proportion
conjecture.
I would guess at well over half, are descended from people who did not arrive with the Turks, but were already living there – and most of them probably spoke Greek at the time. Go back further, & I expect you’ll find that the majority of those Greek-speakers were descended from people who lived there before the Greeks arrived (Lycians, Lydians, etc). They were conquered by Greeks, & (gradually) changed their language & religion, & by 1000 years ago, were Orthodox Greeks, indistinguishable from the Greeks who settled among them. They were then conquered by Turks, & again, most changed their language & religion, & became indistinguishable from the Turks who settled among them. The process usually began with religious conversion, & change of language occurred later, or not at all. It also went on in what is now Greece, so by 200 years ago there was a large minority (a majority in some districts) of Greek-speaking Muslims, & a minority of Turkish-speaking Muslims. Everyone with any knowledge of Greek history knows this. So what are you arguing about?
No it isn’t quite so. True some nations were absorbed during the centuries, but this is not a general rule. There is a whole host of issues associated with this, one is opening a whole can of worms if one adopts this. Not to mention that you are now stating more opinion than fact.
You call them converts – but they’d mostly been Muslim for centuries. All Muslims are converts, if you go back far enough, as are all Christians.
Yes if you want to play with words, of course you are correct.
Greek Muslims didn’t, in general, back the winning side in the Greek war of independence, & after the war the survivors didn’t last long. Those who didn’t flee were killed, & their mosques destroyed or converted to other uses. They ended up in various places, mostly in the Ottoman Empire, but by no means all in what is now Turkey. Most have lost their language & identity (though I’ve heard that until recently, there were still Greek-speaking Muslims in Egypt & the Levant, & may even still be a few) & become assimilated into the mostly Arab & Turkish populations among who they settled.
is the first part of this your theory or are there facts behind it? Because as far as I know ,about 400.000 Muslim Greeks live in Greece and are doing just fine.
I’ve explained why the Greek fear is unfounded. The main reasons are the same as why the Turkish fear is unfounded, i.e. that it would be a disaster for whoever started it, & there’s no appetite for it among most of those in a position to do anything about it.
Not really, no you haven’t!
you have clearly stated that Greece is/was in no position to be a threat to Turkey. OK, this however goes against facts. Facts such as Turkey having perhaps its largest concentration of forces directly opposing Greece; And we are talking about formidable forces. Surely such a detail as Greece being unable to pose a threat to Turkey wouldn’t go unnoticed by Turkish superiors, they are far from uneducated or inexperienced. Reasons posed by Turkey such as forces on the Aegean islands etc etc are laughable at best.
Moving on though, even if one was to believe this and carry on taking a look into the inventories of the two countries over the years, starting say around 1960, one would see in which inventory the offensive equipment and were the defensive has been distributed. This is a military forum, I bet you can tell your landing craft from your machine gun nests…
I brought a little history into it to show that there has been no attempt by Turkey to conquer or re-conquer any part of Greece since the 19th century, regardless of opportunities, & the Turkish fear of a Greek attempt to conquer Turkey was, 90 years ago (but not now, of course), founded in reality, to put the Greek fear into perspective.
yes. So so why is Turkey still gearing offensively ? You can look at their procurement programs to see this.
Whether an argument is valid or false is not affected by who uses it. If someone with malign intent misuses a valid argument, that does not invalidate it. I am not familiar with the arguments used by Turkish extremists. I shun such people.
I really hope you do, but I have my doubts.
Many (most?) countries have a national myth. The USA, for example, has a heroic myth covering initial settlement, the war of independence, the expansion westwards, etc. Texas has its own national myth, taken up by the USA & absorbed into the whole US myth. Turkey has a national myth, which I’ve previously mentioned. Odd that you didn’t pick up on that as evidence of anti-Turkish bias. It’s a story about national origin, development, character, etc., which contributes to a nation’s idea of itself.
Yes ok, but what is Greece’s myth?
FalconDudeFalcondude,
you’re doing it again. You said (& I quote)
You’re now quoting an estimate of 2.7 million for all the Near East Greeks (including Egypt, Crimea, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Georgia), & implying that it supports your claim that there were almost as many Greeks living in Smyrna (total population of the region 1.7 million, probably no more than 50% Greek) as in mainland Greece (population 5 million, ca 90% Greek).
Why do you expect to be taken seriously?
BTW, don’t start bringing in the Greek-speaking Muslims. They weren’t counted as Greeks by either side at the time – or by themselves. Both sides regarded religion as the defining factor. Many of the “Greeks” who fled & were expelled from Turkey as a result of the 1919-22 war spoke Turkish (a very very few still do – I once met an Australian-Greek who’d been to school in Turkey because his grandfather was anxious that the family shouldn’t forget their language), & many of the “Turks” going the other way spoke Greek. Same with the population exchange between Greece & Bulgaria. Ethnicity was defined by adherence to the Greek or Bulgarian church, not language.
This went as far as Turkish-speaking Greeks joining Greek-speaking Greeks in massacring Greek-speaking ‘Turks’ and Greek-speaking ‘Turks’ – well, you get the picture.
As for confusing the Bulgarians with the Turks – go back & look at what the Bulgarians did. Technically, one could say they invaded Greece in 1916. But every sane historian accepts that the Bulgarian attack was a perfectly legitimate spoiling attack, intended to disrupt the Allied assault from Greece which the Bulgarians had correctly worked out was imminent. You keep saying this was a little slip, you confused Bulgaria with Turkey, but that sort of slip can tell one a lot about someone’s prejudices.
Now you tell us that saying Greece is a normal country is an argument from the dark side of Turkish extreme nationalism. Good grief! Listen to yourself! You’re confirming my arguments, & don’t even realise it!
You really, really, need to learn some of the history of the region from a neutral point of view, neither Greek nor Turkish, nor identifying with either (nor Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, etc). So far, you seem to have got all your information from Greek sources. They tend not to mention that, for example, the suppression of printing in Bulgarian under Ottoman rule was decreed not by the Ottomans, but by the Greek Orthodox patriarchate, to which the Ottomans had given authority over Orthodox Christians in all such matters.
BTW – of course, the Greek state was trying to incorporate Greeks (& the lands in which they lived) into its territory. I’ve never said otherwise. All I’ve tried to do is point out that it was not the ONLY aim (as you seem to believe), & that at times, the Greek state was openly imperial in its aims. The one & only time it faced a Turkish state weak enough for it to seem possible to destroy it, Greece tried to do exactly that. The Greeks try to forget that. The Turks remember it very well – too well, in fact, since they still care about it despite its obvious (to non-Turks) irrelevance nowadays.
What you are doing is seeing everything that’s happened from a Greek nationalist viewpoint. You rightly see Turkish fear of Greek intentions as unrealistic, but instead of understanding that despite being groundless (if for no other reason, because Greece is incapable of posing a real threat) it is a real fear, that is, that Turks really do feel it, you dismiss it as a cover for Turkish plans to destroy Greece. Conversely, you uncritically accept Greek fear of Turkish intentions as justified, despite its equal lack of realism, & completely fail to understand that Greeks & Turks have the same sort of blindness in this.
Each side (well, for the most part – see below)* knows it is not going to try to destroy the other. Each side therefore interprets the fear of the other side as false, a cover for aggressive intentions. Anyone on either side (& they exist) who tries to bring realism into the question is shouted down by his own side.
What I find bizarre here is that you see a neutral outsider as being not only pro-Turk, but supporting the nastiest & most extreme side of Turkish nationalism, purely because he hasn’t wholeheartedly embraced the Greek national myth.
*There are Turks who say “We should slap the Greeks down”, but there are also Greeks who fondly imagine that the superiority of Greeks is such that despite their inferiority in numbers & weapons they would easily win a war, & suggest starting one. There was one on this forum a few years ago, reckoning that a day or two of fighting would see the Greek army investing Istanbul, & the air force isolating it from the rest of Turkey, for example, & advocating war as a way of dealing with the Turkish menace.
I think I begin to see where our communication problem comes from.
Short facts.
*we use the term “near east” differently. I use the term as I picked it up from Greeks, i.e. the western coastal area of modern day Turkey, i.e. from Bosporus to Antalya approx.
*I don’t get your numbers, I narrowed down the region, and I wrote that sources (I gave you one) place the Greeks in that region to ~2.7m. You use the proper area for “near east” which is a much larger area, with verified populations of Greeks, such as Egypt for example, but you take the number down!
care to explain you math?
*Greek speaking muslims are a major argument of the turkish hardliners. Greek speaking muslims i.e. generic muslims who happened to speak Greek aren’t a real entity.
What existed were converted Greeks to Islam, something that has been documented extensively in literature (ex. The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography) Actually the Ottoman empire taxation records have been used to track this process in recent years. I never brought up anything, you implied I am, and I find your position on the matter equally following the turkish line of arguments as stated in previous posts.
Your example is an anecdote, it did happen, I don’t doubt that, but these things happen amidst the chaos of such times. My wife’s parents spent years before proving they were Greeks and not turkish, but that didn’t take away from what happened in either sides of the Aegean.
As for confusing the Bulgarians with the Turks – go back & look at what the Bulgarians did. Technically, one could say they invaded Greece in 1916. But every sane historian accepts that the Bulgarian attack was a perfectly legitimate spoiling attack, intended to disrupt the Allied assault from Greece which the Bulgarians had correctly worked out was imminent. You keep saying this was a little slip, you confused Bulgaria with Turkey, but that sort of slip can tell one a lot about someone’s prejudices.
Not really, it was an honest slip of the mind. I may be slightly biassed due to personal involvement but I am not prejudiced, perhaps in other discussions the chance to prove this will come.
*
Now you tell us that saying Greece is a normal country is an argument from the dark side of Turkish extreme nationalism. Good grief! Listen to yourself! You’re confirming my arguments, & don’t even realise it!
I said that in your effort to show us that Greece is a “normal” country, you are using hardline turkish arguments.
*
You really, really, need to learn some of the history of the region from a neutral point of view, neither Greek nor Turkish, nor identifying with either (nor Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, etc). So far, you seem to have got all your information from Greek sources. They tend not to mention that, for example, the suppression of printing in Bulgarian under Ottoman rule was decreed not by the Ottomans, but by the Greek Orthodox patriarchate, to which the Ottomans had given authority over Orthodox Christians in all such matters.
See this is an example of you misunderstanding me (and the greeks to an extent) -This is true; and not only this. There are countless examples such as this. One of the things I was surprised to find out -and it was Greeks who told me- was that Greeks were prominent in the Ottoman empire, with many of them occupying high ranking positions and that there was an opposing force to the Greek revolution coming from within the Greek ranks who proposed that Greeks would soon be ruling the empire given their increasing influence politically and financially.
But again, why is this being brought up in this discussion ?
*
BTW – of course, the Greek state was trying to incorporate Greeks (& the lands in which they lived) into its territory. I’ve never said otherwise. All I’ve tried to do is point out that it was not the ONLY aim (as you seem to believe), & that at times, the Greek state was openly imperial in its aims. The one & only time it faced a Turkish state weak enough for it to seem possible to destroy it, Greece tried to do exactly that. The Greeks try to forget that. The Turks remember it very well – too well, in fact, since they still care about it despite its obvious (to non-Turks) irrelevance nowadays.
What you are doing is seeing everything that’s happened from a Greek nationalist viewpoint. You rightly see Turkish fear of Greek intentions as unrealistic, but instead of understanding that despite being groundless (if for no other reason, because Greece is incapable of posing a real threat) it is a real fear, that is, that Turks really do feel it, you dismiss it as a cover for Turkish plans to destroy Greece. Conversely, you uncritically accept Greek fear of Turkish intentions as justified, despite its equal lack of realism, & completely fail to understand that Greeks & Turks have the same sort of blindness in this.
Let us assume for argument’s sake that this is what I do. Please enlighten me in why the Greek fear is unfounded and we can go back to the other stuff later.
Each side (well, for the most part – see below)* knows it is not going to try to destroy the other. Each side therefore interprets the fear of the other side as false, a cover for aggressive intentions. Anyone on either side (& they exist) who tries to bring realism into the question is shouted down by his own side.
What I find bizarre here is that you see a neutral outsider as being not only pro-Turk, but supporting the nastiest & most extreme side of Turkish nationalism, purely because he hasn’t wholeheartedly embraced the Greek national myth
It is the highlighted bit that makes me suspicious of your “neutral” position. I posted before, I don’t even begin to see what this national myth you speak of is. Again, if you care to enlighten us..
FalconDudeWho said ‘simply’? Or only, or anything similar. Read what I’ve written, & stop projecting your own interpretations onto it.
Again, read what I wrote. You referred to the Greek population of Smyrna, not the combined total Greek & Armenian populations of the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire, or any other area, & I replied directly to your ludicrous claim. My figure is the population of the vilayet which included Smyrna (& much more), & is not disputed. The population of Greece (also not disputed) was about 5 million.
I specifically referred to the sad fate of the Armenians. I pointed to it as an example of how Turkey distorts its own history, as Greece does its history. But somehow, you completely missed that, as you show with this –
Then you start forming opinions about me for which you have no evidence – again.
I’m happy to drop it (I didn’t start it: you did, with that silly claim that Greece would cease to exist almost immediately if it let down its guard against Turkey), but I’d like it to end with an apology from you for, or at least an acknowledgement by you of, your misrepresentation of my arguments & opinions, & recognition by you that you’ve got your facts wrong, pretty consistently.
PS. I’ve been to Armenia – or what was Armenia, inside Turkey – and visited some of the fine old churches there, and met some of the Armenians who still live there, & in Istanbul. Don’t you dare misrepresent my knowledge & opinions about Armenia!
You have misrepresented what I’ve said, you have invented (reprehensible) opinions for me, & you have accused me of getting facts wrong when if you’d done any checking at all you’d know I was right. Overall, you have argued dishonestly, & tried to malign me. Is this normal, for you?
I don’t feel I was arguing dishonestly nor did I try to malign you. Whichever line one chooses to follow it is their prerogative.
For starters though as you stated, you consider my original argument silly and your arguments to back that up are that Greece has been on the offensive more often than the Turks. Have I got it right so far?
In which I have countered that this is the wrong way to see it as the motives for aggression were not the same.
I did accept I confused the Bulgarians with the Turks (my bad) but I didn’t get any other fact wrong, I simply don’t agree with your interpretation of them.
For example, there are sources that give a figure of almost 3 million for the near east Greeks (Skalieris, 1990, for example puts it conservatively to ~2.7 million counting only the orthodox and not converted Greeks), which you put down to about 1.5 million, if I remember correctly. The total population of Greece at the time had just (with the annex of territories) hit about 5 million.
Whose arguments do you think these numbers validate mine or yours?
The percentage swings in favour or turkish populations only if you count in armenia and turkish-kurdistan, if not, the Greeks were clearly a majority of the local population with the turks numbering at slightly below 1.8 million.
So were exactly have I gone wrong with the arguments.
You accused me of forgetting the 1897 war, but that was such a different conflict in its nature and by no means an attack on turkish lands since the battlegrounds were pretty much what half of Greece now is, populated by Greeks.
If you feel my approach misinterprets the facts, I don’t because prior to this I already acknowledged in a previous post that Greeks “invaded more”
I don’t feel I maligned you, I merely offered another version of what responses along the lines of “more times than I can count” and “blinded by Hellenistic stars” could be interpreted as.
What does that even mean by the way ? “hellenistic stars”??? I’d love to hear your comments on it.
I don’t know how you cannot see that the line you followed in your attempt to show “how Greece can be as evil as any other nation” is so the line that turkish hardliners follow. If you cannot, you may want to visit some turkish fora and have a look at what they write.
But beyond that, because you feel offended by the way I approached this, I have no problem apologising to you, god damn simple decency demands I do.
Now since I apologised, would you have a problem explaining to me (and anyone else who might care) any solid (non Greece can be as evil as anyone) reasons why my original claim is “ridiculous and /or silly”; Because I was married to a Greek for almost half my life and everyone I ever met down there as sure as hell didn’t feel that was a ridiculous fear!
I am full of virtual ears mate !
Sign In
