Tyrkjaránið - An Ottoman slave-hunting raid in Iceland 1627

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 27, 2012 at 16:48

Mozere wrote :

"Islands do not have an automatic right to EEZ . International maritime law on delimitation of continental shelf and EEZ is currently a work in progress,it is evolving."

So let's look how it is evolving and what it implies for Turkey and her claims.

Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf states clearly :

"For the purpose of these articles, the term "continental shelf" is used as referring (a) to the seabed and
subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands. "

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in Article 121 ("Regime of islands" ) states :

" 1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf."

Both fundamental legal documents contradict your claims. From them it follows that islands do have an automatic right to their territorial sea, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and the contiguous zone.

In other words your argument is not based on any international law in force but on the simple denial of the valid international law. Why didn't you state clearly what the case is ? It would have made the whole argument much shorter and its implications easier to comprehend. All you are after is not law but the swag the law forbids you to grab as you would love to. And here is the core of the issue and the reason for your anger, isn't it ?

> The convention makes provisions for special circumstances and endorses an equatable sharing of the resources. It has also evolved to take into account that the EEZ should reflect the proportionality of the lengths of the respective shorelines.<

May I ask you a question? Your argument seems to be constructed on the tacit presumption that your "wonderful" country adheres to the convention you talk about. If so, then why are trying to make fools not only of me but of other readers on this point too ? Turkey has never signed either the 1958 Geneva Convention nor the 1982 UNCLOS, so whatever provisions and laws are contained in the Conventions are not applicable to Turkey and can't be used in her favor as Turkey refuses to recognize them. Can't you see this simple logical impossibility ? You can't use in your favor conclusions while rejecting their premises. Is it so hard to see or you think you have here idiots in front of you whom you can brainwash and cheat ad libitum ?

I understand that as a Turk you had no chance to learn to think logically and not magically as you do. But , you know, thoughtless lying is much worse than just omitting and/or forgetting in your reply the point that exposes you.

> Hence the 1983 declaration by France who owns the islands, of 200mi EEZlimit for the St. Pierre and Miquelon islands 20km off the shores of Canada was challenged. In 1992 an arbitration panel awarded the islands only 25% of Frances original claim, thus the EEZ of the said islads is completely embedded in the Canadian EEZ. Similarly the Channel Islands EEZ does not extend for 200mi and is embedded in the French EEZ.

The Meis case is very similar to these cases above and can be used as legal precedents.<

Sign the Conventions you refuse to recognize and then and only then give us a lesson what legal precedents and special circumstances can or cannot be construed , found and taken into account and validated. It's impossible to play a game with somebody that denies its basic rules, don't you think, Turk ?

> In law substance always comes before form.<

Turkey doesn't recognize international law which it has proved both in substance and in form. It didn't appear before the International Court of Justice in 1976 despite summons. It arbitrarily changed existing valid treaties and obligations as I tried to point out in my posts. So I'd rather refuse to be taught by a apologist of the Turkish mafia state a lesson on what comes before what in law.

> If the form gives an unequitable and ridiculous outcome ie a continental mass with no continental shelf and a speck of land just off its shores with a huge continental shelf,no amount of sophistry will hide the injustice of it.<

A nation that has committed several genocides, provoked aggressive wars, questioned territorial integrity of a EU member state despite valid treaties it had signed, has perpetrated innumerable acts of barbarity against her own and foreign populations (Bulgarian, Serb,Kurdish, Greek, Armenian, Assyrian) and has a horrifying human rights record should rather be very careful about brandishing slogans like "justice" and "the equitable", because when applied rigorously to this very nation these slogans may have devastating consequences for it.

> In this case the law will justifiable be called an ass.<

If out of a sudden you Turks have discovered so much love for law, then maybe it's time you signed some international conventions you invoke to fool the ignorant public ? How about rectifying all the breaches of international law you are responsible for ?

> Finally in relation to the cold wars.how many Icelanders the British killed I do not know, probably none, but what I know is that the ancestors of the Icelanders, the Vikings did desecrate and level a lot of English churches<

You apparently have got an extremely distorted notion of time and proportions. The wars of the Vikings lasted for some 200 years and ended 1000 years ago. The wars with jihadist Moslems have lasted for 1400 years, out of which 800 years have been spent fighting Turkish jihadism that has actually never come to an end.

If you still can't see the difference, then take a look at the buildings of 500 churches in Northern Cyprus which Turks have desecrated, changed into mosques or stables or at the ruins of 150 churches , monasteries and chapel in Kosovo that are demolished and desecrated by your brothers in Islam according to the best traditions of jihad.

Yet you still can't see the difference? How can a kafir complain that Moslems do what they have always done and what the Vikings stopped doing 1000 years ago upon embracing Christianity ? Note all the Vikings that came in touch with Christianity became themselves Christians and started building churches and spread Christianity as far as they sailed - up to Greenland. Thus they repented for the wrong doings of their ancestors.

On the contrary, Moslems that came in touch with Christianity destroyed Christianity. How has Ghazi Kemal's Turkey become a 99,8% Islamic monoculture ? Through repeated genocides and extermination of everything non-Islamic,i.e Christian and Jewish! And your jihad continues and even the lies and impudent and stupid propaganda you wrote here are part of your Turkish jihad against us kafirs whom you intend to enslave and Turkify in your own disgusting barbarian image.

> some may have been converted to pagan temples,<

Or may have not been ... Give an example if you have any !

> many Britishers were kidnapped and sold on the slave markets never to see their homeland again<

The only large slave markets were in the Moslem world which was by far the biggest slave concentration camp in world history.

Anyway, the Icelanders themselves , despite vast distances that lay between them and dar al-Islam, also learned what it meant to be exposed to Turkish jihad with its sadism, barbarity, contempt for human life and greed. In the summer of 1627 Moslem pirates from North Africa, an Ottoman province at that time , organized a raid on Iceland whereby they captured c. 400 Icelandic slaves and killed and maimed many people. This bloody event is called Tyrkjaránið (Turkish slave-hunting raid) in Icelandic. If the fear of the Turk lived on in Iceland until the 19th century, then it's easy to imagine what feelings were cherished towards those jihadist animals by their immediate neighbors and victims of their slave-hunting fury.

> many were raped and killed,a lot lost their properties. Do the British carry on hating the nordic peoples? No is the short answer.<

You forgot to ask why ? The short answer is because it was 1000 years ago and Turkish jihad in the Aegean in Cyprus or jihad in Kosovo is taking place now as jihad in European cities is also now. I will leave without further comments the savage ways the Turks behave in European cities where they settle allegedly to work but in fact to have a parasitic life at the expense of their host lands they managed with lies, brainwashing and false promises to talk into opening borders to their colonization.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".