PDA

View Full Version : Frustrated With West, Turks Revel in Empire Lost



Scythian
12-05-2009, 06:17 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/04/world/04cnd-turkey/popup.jpg

Cenan Sarc, 97, the descendant of an Ottoman pasha, was 10 years old at the time of the Empire's collapse in 1922.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/05/world/05turkey2_ready/popup.jpg

Thousands mourned Ertugrul Osman, an heir to the Ottoman throne, in Istanbul.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/05/world/05turkey1_ready/popup.jpg

The traditional costumes of a band in the Sultanahmet district of Istanbul invoked Janissaries, elite Ottoman-era soldiers.



ISTANBUL — More than eight decades ago, Ertugrul Osman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/nyregion/24osman.html), an heir to the Ottoman throne, was unceremoniously thrown out of Turkey with his family. He lived to be 97, spending most of his years in a modest Manhattan apartment above a bakery.

(javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/12/05/world/05turkey1_ready.html', '05turkey1_ready', 'width=720,height=565,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes'))
(javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/12/05/world/05turkey1_ready.html', '05turkey1_ready', 'width=720,height=565,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes'))






But in September, at his funeral in the garden of the majestic Sultanahmet Mosque here, thousands of mourners paid their respects, including government officials and celebrities. Some even kissed the hands of surviving dynasty members, who appeared shocked at the adulation.
The show of reverence for the man who might have been sultan,
historians said, was a seminal moment in the rehabilitation of the Ottoman Empire, long demonized by some in the modern, secular Turkish Republic created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/kemal_ataturk/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in 1923. During Ataturk’s rule, the empire was remembered mainly for its decadence and its humiliating defeat and partition by the Allies in World War I.

Mr. Osman’s send-off was just the latest manifestation of what sociologists call “Ottomania,” a harking back to an era marked by conquest and cultural splendor during which sultans ruled an empire stretching from the Balkans to the Indian Ocean and claimed the spiritual leadership of the Muslim world.

The longing for those glory years — by religious Muslims and secularists alike — partly reflects Turks’ frustration with a European Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org) that seems ill disposed to accept them as members. And in a country where the tension between religion and secularism is never far from the surface, members of the new governing class of religious Muslims have seized upon nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire as a way to challenge the pro-Western elite that emerged during Ataturk’s rule, and to help forge a national identity of Turkey as an aspiring regional leader.

“Turks are attracted to the heroism and the glory of the Ottoman period because it belongs to them,” said the director of Topkapi Palace (http://www.topkapisarayi.gov.tr/eng/indexalt.html), Ilber Ortayli, who, as the keeper of the sumptuous residence where Ottoman sultans lived for 400 years, is also a zealous unofficial gatekeeper of the Ottoman legacy. “The sultans hold a place in the popular consciousness like Douglas MacArthur or General Patton have for Americans.”

The current vogue of all things Ottoman, from the proliferation of historical docudramas to the popularity of porcelain ashtrays adorned with harem women, is sometimes manifesting itself in ways that would surely have made a real sultan blanch.

During Ramadan, Burger King offered a special sultan menu featuring dishes popular in the Ottoman years. In the television commercial promoting the meal, a turbaned Janissary — a member of an elite group of Ottoman soldiers — exhorts viewers not to “leave any burgers standing.”
Ottomania has also infected the nation’s youth; 20-somethings at hip dance clubs here wear T-shirts emblazoned with slogans like “The Empire Strikes Back” or “Terrible Turks” — the latter turning the taunt Europeans once used against their Ottoman invaders into a defiant symbol of self-affirmation.

Kerim Sarc, 42, the owner of Ottoman Empire T-Shirts and the scion of an illustrious Ottoman family, believes that the newfound fondness for a mighty empire that lasted more than 600 years and once reached the gates of Vienna is linked to the long struggle for membership in the European Union. The bloc has imposed tough conditions on Turkey, including asking it to compromise in its longstanding dispute over Cyprus.
“We Turks are tired of being treated in Europe like poor, backward peasants,” he said.

The Ottoman renaissance is equally prevalent in the nation’s highest political circles, where the Muslim-inspired Justice and Development Party government has been aggressively courting former Ottoman colonies, including Iraq and Syria, in at least a partial reorientation of foreign policy toward the east that Turkish analysts have labeled as “Neo-Ottoman.”
That shift has alarmed officials in Europe and Washington, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/recep_tayyip_erdogan/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is expected to reassure President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) when he meets him at the White House on Monday that Turkey has not abandoned its Western course.

It is a sign of the Ottoman Empire’s new hold on the popular imagination that in January when Mr. Erdogan publicly rebuked the Israeli president (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/world/europe/30clash.html), Shimon Peres (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/shimon_peres/index.html?inline=nyt-per), over the war in Gaza, at a debate at Davos, Switzerland, he was greeted enthusiastically by his supporters back in Turkey (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/world/europe/31turkey.html) with the chant, “Our fatih is back!” The allusion was to Fatih — or conqueror — Sultan Mehmet II, the towering sultan who at age 21 conquered Constantinople, now Istanbul, in 1453.

Colleagues said Mr. Erdogan proudly displays an original decree in his office by Sultan Mehmet II granting autonomy to religious minorities within the empire.

“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed,” said Egeman Bagis, the minister for European Union affairs. “Turks can be proud of that legacy.”

Pelin Batu, co-host of a popular television history program, argued that the glorification of the Ottoman era by a government with roots in political Islam reflected a revolt against the secular cultural revolution undertaken by Ataturk, who outlawed the wearing of Islamic head scarves in state institutions and abolished the Ottoman-era caliphate.

“Ottomania is a form of Islamic empowerment for a new Muslim religious bourgeoisie who are reacting against Ataturk’s attempt to relegate religion and Islam to the sidelines,” she said.
In a society struggling with its identity, not everyone welcomes the phenomenon.

Some critics accuse its proponents of glossing over the empire’s decline and of glorifying an anachronistic system that, at the very least, was mired in corruption and infighting in its later years. The massacre of Ottoman Armenians between 1915 and 1918 stands as a particular dark spot in the history of the empire.

“The religious Muslims now in power are trying to feed the Turkish people an Ottoman poison,” said Sada Kural, 45, a housewife and staunch supporter of Ataturk’s vision. “The Ottoman era wasn’t a good period; we were the sick man of Europe, rights were suppressed and women only got the vote after Ataturk came to power.”

While some bemoan what they consider the crude commercialization of a nation’s history, others, like Cenan Sarc, 97, who was 10 years old at the time of the empire’s collapse in 1922 and is the descendant of an Ottoman pasha, cautioned against idealizing an era of dictatorship.

Mrs. Sarc recalled her idyllic childhood in a mansion on the Bosporus, a poetic time, she said, when fathers ruled, mothers stayed at home and Islam held sway. But, she insisted, “we can never go back to that time.” Ertugrul Osman, the Ottoman heir, had himself accepted obscurity. When he visited Turkey in 1992, for the first time in 53 years, and went to see the 285-room Dolmabahce Palace (http://www.dolmabahcepalace.com/), which had been his grandfather’s home, he insisted on joining a public tour group.

Asked frequently if he dreamed about restoring the empire, he always emphatically answered no. “Democracy,” he said, “works well in Turkey.”

hulaku
12-05-2009, 06:23 AM
The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world

Cool story bro!

sepheronx
12-05-2009, 06:26 AM
Cool story bro!

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_Empire_dominated_territories)

Does not look like 2/3 of the world, thats for sure.

Ulytau
12-05-2009, 08:52 AM
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_Empire_dominated_territories)

Does not look like 2/3 of the world, thats for sure.

Of course wasnt 2/3 of the world but their effect,especially after having Caliph tittle non-Ottoman Rule Muslim countries had connection with Caliph directly also before Caliph tittle too


His son Alauddin al-Kahar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alauddin_al-Kahar) extended the domains farther south into Sumatra, but was less successful in his attempts to gain a foothold across the strait, though he made several attacks on both Johor and Malacca,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Aceh#cite_note-2) with the support along with men and firearms from Suleiman the Magnificent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent)'s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Aceh

as i read from a book which is about history when i was at high school when a Ottoman Ship visit a country in friday and if this place is colony or sth people were going to ship for Friday praying cause they were seein ship as free land.

''Must be sth like that i must check more''

About descendants of Ottomans they have serious respect to Gazi Mustafa Kemal ATATURK too,especially Grandchild of Murad V,Kenize Mourad.

Today some dynasy livin in Turkiye and living simple life.

Sumadinac
12-05-2009, 09:52 AM
“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed,” said Egeman Bagis, the minister for European Union affairs. “Turks can be proud of that legacy.”


Non-muslims had the status of dhimmis.

Bathinus
12-05-2009, 12:55 PM
Non-muslims had the status of dhimmis.

That doesn't even conflict with the statement you quoted. They didn't force nations to convert to their religion or to change their language. In fact they learned OUR languages an spoke them in Istanbul if needed.

Did religous minorities have more freedom in other empires? European empires? No. They had less. Often, much less. Jews in Medieval, and even in modern Europe, know that well. But apperantly Ottomans have to be 5 times more tolerant then everyone else, just to be labeled tolerant at all. But you can't just sweep away facts, and the fact is, for the most part people enjoyed the kind of religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire, that was rare for the time.

Give it a rest already.

Sumadinac
12-05-2009, 01:21 PM
That doesn't even conflict with the statement you quoted. They didn't force nations to convert to their religion or to change their language. In fact they learned OUR languages an spoke them in Istanbul if needed.

Did religous minorities have more freedom in other empires? European empires? No. They had less. Often, much less. Jews in Medieval, and even in modern Europe, know that well. But apperantly Ottomans have to be 5 times more tolerant then everyone else, just to be labeled tolerant at all. But you can't just sweep away facts, and the fact is, for the most part people enjoyed the kind of religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire, that was rare for the time.

Give it a rest already.

I was just giving the reason of this tolerance. The way he said this sounds as if non-muslims and muslims were equals. They were not.

INAT
12-05-2009, 02:48 PM
That doesn't even conflict with the statement you quoted. They didn't force nations to convert to their religion or to change their language. In fact they learned OUR languages an spoke them in Istanbul if needed.

Did religous minorities have more freedom in other empires? European empires? No. They had less. Often, much less. Jews in Medieval, and even in modern Europe, know that well. But apperantly Ottomans have to be 5 times more tolerant then everyone else, just to be labeled tolerant at all. But you can't just sweep away facts, and the fact is, for the most part people enjoyed the kind of religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire, that was rare for the time.

Give it a rest already.


Yes taken your own advise,son.

Bathinus
12-05-2009, 04:37 PM
Yes taken your own advise,son.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j166/dan_ratedR/Funny/jules.jpg

Lokos
12-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Did religous minorities have more freedom in other empires? European empires? No. They had less. Often, much less.

We can pretend that this was the case because the Ottomans had a heart of gold - or we can accept that (to the extent it was the case) this is best attributed to a directed policy of decentralization and the placation of restive populations.

You'll note that when the Porte attempted to 'modernize' religious entitlements in the early 19th century, he faced a revolt from his own officials, whose advantages over the other 'people of the book' were considered inviolate. Those officials then faced a wave of uprisings and revolts, in turn, when they clamped down on Christian populations in the Balkans. The health of the Ottoman Empire was jeopardized by underlying, systemic tensions therein. Muslim landholders and officials demanded that their privileged status quo be maintained, while the Christian underclass demanded increased religious freedom (and all associated rights and privileges, such as property rights etc). It was an impossible balance to establish.


They didn't force nations to convert to their religion or to change their language.

Because they considered it less than profitable to try.


In fact they learned OUR languages an spoke them in Istanbul if needed.

That's a blatant generalization that doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

L.

Hazzard
12-06-2009, 12:44 PM
We can pretend that this was the case because the Ottomans had a heart of gold - or we can accept that (to the extent it was the case) this is best attributed to a directed policy of decentralization and the placation of restive populations.


Imo, everything is simplier. Moslems did not pay taxes. The main taxes was land tax (called "Haraje"), and capitation tax(called "jizia"); Moslems paid only "zakiat", that had to be spent on the needs of charity. So, it is obvious that the state is uninterested in a considerable quantity of Moslems as citizens (exept those that was used as warriors and aristocracy).

Atlantic Friend
12-06-2009, 12:47 PM
“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed,” said Egeman Bagis, the minister for European Union affairs. “Turks can be proud of that legacy.”

Two thirds of the world, no less...

And no, of course the Ottoman rule wasn't oppressive at all.

Martel
12-06-2009, 12:56 PM
“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed,” said Egeman Bagis, the minister for European Union affairs. “Turks can be proud of that legacy.”

http://www.flashpointsocialmedia.com/Area51/Orion/Images/o_rly.jpg

Ulytau
12-06-2009, 12:58 PM
^^^^^^
Muslims wont pay taxes?

Öşür : Tax from what they produce

Also they were paying taxes to Sipahi '' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipahi ''

If they live their land without permission or if they wont produce nothing in 3 years also they were paying if there was serious issue ''disaster,war etc.'' with Sultan & Council decision.

Today tax archives of Ottoman Empire very important source for understandin tribes of Anatolian Turks before Turkish Republic founded.

Btw as i check from Turkish sources Egemen Bagis didnt say kind of thing which about conquer too :|

Hazzard
12-06-2009, 01:06 PM
Muslims wont pay taxes?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharaj



Öşür : Tax from what they produce

Also they were paying taxes to Sipahi '' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipahi ''


When was this tax implemented?

Ulytau
12-06-2009, 01:23 PM
^^^^

Since Empire founded 10% of what they produce from their farms,also reach to 30% in 1800s,also every year from Baghdat,Egypt,Basra,Yemen,Habes ''Today Ethiopia'',Lahsa ''today Kuwait and Qatar'' , Algeria,Tripoli,Tunus states were sending tax from their income capital of country too.

This system was called Salyane

Hazzard
12-06-2009, 01:34 PM
^^^^

Since Empire founded 10% of what they produce from their farms,also reach to 30% in 1800s,also every year from Baghdat,Egypt,Basra,Yemen,Habes ''Today Ethiopia'',Lahsa ''today Kuwait and Qatar'' , Algeria,Tripoli,Tunus states were sending tax from their income capital of country too.

This system was called Salyane

So there was taxation of Muslims, but anyway taxation of Dhimmi was higher.

Thugut
12-06-2009, 01:36 PM
“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed”Devşirme
boys, that had not yet reached adolescence, from rural Christian populations of the Balkans, were taken from their families by force, converted to Islam, trained and enrolled in one of the four royal institutions: the Palace, the Scribes, the Religious and the Military.

The Ottoman Empire: Now with new "Human Rights" flavour added!
:roll:

Bathinus
12-06-2009, 01:44 PM
Devşirme


:roll:


Yes, that's about the only thing that is a good argument to show true Ottoman opression. It wasn't a pretty practise, no doubt about that. However after a while people started GIVING their kids to be taken away to receive better education and to basicly have a better life.

Thugut
12-06-2009, 01:45 PM
after a while people started GIVING their kids to be taken away to receive better education and to basicly have a better life.

Yet more proof that non-muslims had it so well in the Ottoman Empire, they had to convert their children in hopes of a better future.

/sarcasm

Don't take me wrong though, it's not as if the Christian nations that liberated the Balkans in the 1912s were any better in their treatment of the Muslims or in fact fellow Christians of different race they encountered. But the Ottoman Empire was certainly not a fun place to be in as an infidel.
Egeman is simply spouting bull****. The Turks have a right to be proud of their achievements and their past empire. Just as long as they don't expect it to give them any right over their neighboring nations, of course.

Bathinus
12-06-2009, 01:47 PM
Yet more proof that non-muslims had it so well in the Ottoman Empire, they had to convert their children in hopes of a better future.

/sarcasm

You're kind of twisting it. As if peasants anywhere in medieval world had it so good. Religion doesn't even enter into that. Being a peasant sucks.

ANY peasant would want a better life for their kid. When we say better life, we're talking being an elite, the top. THE RULING CLASS. They had alot of power.

Hazzard
12-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Devşirme
boys, that had not yet reached adolescence, from rural Christian populations of the Balkans, were taken from their families by force, converted to Islam, trained and enrolled in one of the four royal institutions: the Palace, the Scribes, the Religious and the Military.

The Ottoman Empire: Now with new "Human Rights" flavour added!
:roll:



Do not treat states of this period from the modern morale. How were serfs (or representatives of other religions) treated this time in Europe?

Ulytau
12-06-2009, 01:50 PM
So there was taxation of Muslims, but anyway taxation of Dhimmi was higher.

Yeah because,they werent doing military service too,but as i read especially some Christian villagers who runnin away civil wars in Europe and immigrate to Ottoman lands too.

Hazzard
12-06-2009, 02:09 PM
Yeah because,they werent doing military service too,but as i read especially some Christian villagers who runnin away civil wars in Europe and immigrate to Ottoman lands too.

Really? Never heared about it.

Ulytau
12-06-2009, 02:18 PM
Really? Never heared about it.

I will check from some books which i read.
Maybe a little late but in 1842 Polish people came to Turkiye,today they have their own village too;

http://www.polonezkoy.com/index_eng.asp

in 1990s as i remember from a documentary we had a German village too,some of em turn back to Germany again when Germany wants workers,some important people too like Charles XII of Sweden ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden#Exile_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

Also some well educated people who come from Russia,Hungary,Poland etc. if they are good about their job they had chance for rising at bureaucracy,also they were beein Muslim and changin their names too.

Ghost Nappa
12-06-2009, 02:53 PM
And no, of course the Ottoman rule wasn't oppressive at all.


Yeah, why would any absolute Monarch in the pass using brute force to repress natives or conquerer populations :)

Chimera
12-06-2009, 03:02 PM
“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed,” said Egeman Bagis, the minister for European Union affairs. “Turks can be proud of that legacy.”

France, under the 1st Empire, conquered six-thirds of Europe. Try to beat that.

Paya
12-06-2009, 03:03 PM
However after a while people started GIVING their kids to be taken away to receive better education and to basicly have a better life.
Like hell they did. Balkan Muslims did often send their kids to Istambul, Thessaloniki or Smyrna to acquire a trade or to get an education, but for the Christian raya, there was nothing volontary about the infamous "Blood Tax".

California Joe
12-06-2009, 03:07 PM
Isn't this just a little bit of a wishful nostalgia for an idealized historical time? Where only the good is remembered and the less than savory aspects of that type of reign are allowed to be forgotten...That old broad was the daughter of a Pasha, of course she misses the good old days...

Like Russians wishing for the good old days under the Tsar Nicholas, the Brits for the Victorian era etc...sure it would have been cool if you were one of the ruling elite...but the alternative wasn't exactly a bed of roses...

INAT
12-06-2009, 03:09 PM
Like hell they did. Balkan Muslims did often send their kids to Istambul, Thessaloniki or Smyrna to acquire a trade or to get an education, but for the Christian raya, there was nothing volontary about the infamous "Blood Tax".


Remember Christian children across the Balkans got the privlage of being kidnapped and raised as Muslim janissaries as well as the tax.

Paya
12-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Remember Christian children across the Balkans got the privlage of being kidnapped and raised as Muslim janissaries as well as the tax.
"Blood Tax" or "Danak u krvi" is exactly that.

IronFinn
12-06-2009, 03:23 PM
in 1990s as i remember from a documentary we had a German village too,some of em turn back to Germany again when Germany wants workers,some important people too like Charles XII of Sweden ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden#Exile_in_the_Ottoman_Empire



Of topic. Charles was not certainly a good king. While he had his Ottoman vacation finns among others felt the consequences of his idiotic wars. The Great Northern war is known in Finland as Great Wrath because russian troops raped, plundered and murdered finnish people en masse during the period.

Azatavrear
12-06-2009, 03:42 PM
Remember Christian children across the Balkans got the privlage of being kidnapped and raised as Muslim janissaries as well as the tax.

It is called Child Levy

------------------------

http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=27550

......[regarding the devshirme] provided the [Ottoman] officials with stern measures of enforcement, a fact which would seem to suggest that parents were not always disposed to part with their sons. “..to enforce the command of the known and holy fetva [fatwa] of Seyhul [Shaikh]- Islam. In accordance with this whenever some one of the infidel parents or some other should oppose the giving up of his son for the Janissaries, he is immediately hanged from his door-sill, his blood being deemed unworthy.”

Since there was no possibility of escaping [the levy] the population resorted to several subterfuges. Some left their villages and fled to certain cities, which enjoyed exemption from the child levy or migrated to Venetian-held territories. The result was a depopulation of the countryside. Others had their children marry at an early age…sometimes the children ran away on their own initiative, but when they heard that the authorities had arrested their parents and were torturing them to death, returned and gave themselves up.

A case of a young Athenian who returned from hiding in order to save his father’s life and then chose to die himself rather than abjure his faith. According to the evidence in Turkish sources, some parents even succeeded in abducting their children after they had been recruited. The most successful way of escaping recruitment was through bribery. That the latter was very widespread is evident from the large amounts of money confiscated by the sultan from corrupt…officials. Finally, in their desperation the parents even appealed to the Pope and the Western powers for help.....

California Joe
12-06-2009, 03:47 PM
What if Transylvanians all started running around trying to have "Ottoman Impaling Festivals"...

Breerman
12-06-2009, 03:48 PM
Of topic. Charles was not certainly a good king. While he had his Ottoman vacation finns among others felt the consequences of his idiotic wars. The Great Northern war is known in Finland as Great Wrath because russian troops raped, plundered and murdered finnish people en masse during the period.
He didn't start any wars... Russians did terror raids in Sweden proper as well, attacking mostly isolated villages. A common practice was to throw infants into stoves.

Karl XII was never distant from the war. He lived an ascetic lifestyle and led from the front, got wounded several times. The stay in the Ottoman Empire was part of a political chess game that he was close to pulling off a number of times. As events turned against him it all ended in the famous Kalabalik at Bender, in which 45 Swedes from the King's lifeguard were faced with 10 000 Ottoman soldiers (there were a few hundred cossacks too but they didn't participate).

Ulytau
12-06-2009, 03:52 PM
What if Transylvanians all started running around trying to have "Ottoman Impaling Festivals"...


Hmmm plenty Garlic,Silver bullets,Holy water,silver knife

Just checking my invertory rofl

California Joe
12-06-2009, 03:54 PM
Hmmm plenty Garlic,Silver bullets,Holy water,silver knife

Just checking my invertory rofl

Nice loadout Vampsofter.

INAT
12-06-2009, 03:57 PM
"Blood Tax" or "Danak u krvi" is exactly that.


Oh.got it. :oops: :)

Ulytau
12-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Nice loadout Vampsofter.

I forget showin my camo too '-'

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4711/yenicerizirhi.jpg