if this forum is for searching truths, i want to contribute

[1.5 million]

Another Turkish view

Turkish Minister of Interior (after Talat) - Mustafa Arif stated: "Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did "

[1.5 million]

More from a continuing diologue (disagreement!) with some truly intelligent Turks...

Dear Nihat,

I congratulate both you and Winston for developing a decent and interesting discussion from what I would consider as a good example of cheap political rhetoric aimed at Turkey. I do not intend to imply that political rhetoric against Turkey is cheap, in case if anybody thinks I do. There are some good and very convincing ones out there. But this one is especially bad . It is surprising that the discussion based on this rather unsophisticated piece has so far turned out to be rather pleasant experience.

What rhetorical essays generally lack is their inability to turn the whole discussion upside down and see if it has any implications for the other side. This is understandable, since they are not about giving multiple perspectives.

For example, Turkey has been accused of carrying the genocide discussions to supposedly unrelated platforms. It is not fair, we hear, that Turkey uses her geopolitical position she enjoys in the region for vital US interests to influence these discussions. Suddenly everyone is a crybaby. There is, of course, nothing wrong with carrying these discussions to the political and economic platforms such as EU and to every significant European parliament there is. For some strange reason, linking the Armenian genocide to Turkey’s future with EU is not the same thing. Armenians use EU to pressure and threaten Turkey, and Turkey pressures and threatens the US. Big deal! It is business as usual.

And, about the threats: None of the threats, like closing down Incirlik, the American base, going against the embargo against Iraq, refusing American business, and other ones, meant anything. They were our government’s way of showing her own public how tough she was. It was already declared in major Turkish newspapers, I think the very next day after the threats were made public, that almost all of the threats were undoable and they were not the right way to go about on this matter anyway. It is funny to think and very idiotic to claim that the US can be easily threatened by what is considered to be a country in need of American aid and hand me downs. How can Turkey be in need of American aid and capable of threatening her at the same time? Either Turkey has very cunning leaders or the US has very damn ones. I suppose political rhetoric against Turkey knows no logical limits.

Turkey cannot close down the Incirlik base so easily. And, the so-called Turkish violation of the embargo on Iraq was done with permission. By the way, Turkey is not alone in this. The embargo is not so strict any more. So, what the hell is this writer talking about?

The only threat Turkey is capable of making is the one that she may not be as good a partner in future as she has been so far, if she does not get her way. I am confused here. Based on what principle Turkey cannot say and do this? One starts an alliance, a partnership, with another one; and ends it when it is not in his/her interest. Suddenly Turkey is the only country that puts her own interests before others’. It is politics and business as usual. Too bad that Turkey has finally learned the rules of the game. Too bad the US cannot say the hell with the Turks, we agree with Armenians in the name of justice and morality, we will find another country to do our dirty work. I think we “need to roll up our sleeves and embark upon a strategy of engagement that uses both rewards and punishments to compel a genuinely democratic, law-abiding and western-oriented” America. Or perhaps, this is what being democratic is all about : cheap rhetoric for masses to make them feel important. Let’s teach those Turks a thing or two about being civilized. Let’s ‘cure’ Turkey, the ex-sick man of Europe. Long live neo-orientalism! Obviously the major tenets of the good old orientalism have not changed much.



Posted on Dec 22, 2000, 3:48 AM

me:

Your comments are exceptional (as usual). I had to re-read the piece because you made me doubt my agreement with what it said. After doing so I stand by my agreement with the basic points. Remember it is an opinion piece and has been crafted to make a point. A valid point (Turkish unreliability as a partner etc – IMO – even if it is perhaps an untrue one in a sense as well. I suspect our differences in how we view the piece exactly mimic views held by (some in) Washington and Ankara respectively. From the US perspective Turkey is showing a disturbing independent (contrary to US interests) streak and is ungrateful and uppity considering all the aid & support she is getting from Washington. From (your) the Turkish perspective this is typical “Turkey bashing” and is indicative of the continued prevalence of “orientalism” on the part of the West and it is typical US believing that all its partners need to toe the US party line – regardless of self interests etc. Of course both views are both correct and incorrect at the same time – IMO. And both views perhaps overlook certain fundamental issues & concerns that each “side” has. Neither really gets to (many of) the real points – and this is the problem. Again the “little guy” (Armenia(ns), Kurds etc.) are perhaps not really being considered at all.

The reason I agree with the basic tenet of the piece (even if it at the same time misses the mark in several areas) is my disgust over the shameful (and successful for now) attempts (via essentially blackmail) to perpetuate Genocide denial. (and if the Republic of Turkey [ROT] of today rejects the Ottoman (& specifically Young Turkey legacy - why this extreme concern? Answer - I beleive it clearly fully embraces this legacy) Turkey’s human rights foibles are also of concern. As I have said before some of the other issues are perhaps more murky – and Nihat correctly pointed out the tendency (on the part of non-Turks perhaps) to immediately blame (vilify) Turkey – not only for its own actions – but even perhaps for questionable actions on the part of others that are related to it, etc. But after all - it is easy to just blame the Turks - and Turkey doesn't really do much to change this.

And as I have pointed out – Turkey sacrificed much (more than any other nation perhaps) regarding the Iraq sanctions – understood - (and there is/should be some PR value in this). But my point also is that unless Turkey comes to terms with the Genocide and until it shakes the racist and extreme measures perspective – etc – (all due to legacy of Kemalism & its foundation - IMO) – including human rights/free expression/torture etc. violations, over heavy handedness regarding the Kurds, continued “punishment” (embargo etc) of Armenia(ns) (due to guilt?) and other aberrant type of behaviors – all fully legitimate concerns – Turkey will not be seen in a positive light and will not get the “benefit of the doubt” in any action where there is controversy. These issues are not just excuses for Turkey bashing etc – they are real concerns. This is my point – basically. From your perspective Turkey gets xxxx on. From my perspective Turkey deserves what it gets. Even worse I am appalled (almost to the point of physically being sick) every time Turkey pulls this type of blackmail denialist action and every time in doing such they perpetuate the Genocide of my people/family. (Is this issue so simple – perhaps not – but again – all a matter of perspective & Turks (gov't & people) – IMO – need to better understand the Armenian perspective – both intellectually & emotionally [right Nihat?])

All I have time for now – I look foreword to continuing this discussion with you both and encourage others to join in as well.

[1.5 million]

Ah - how I long for these discussions of old...are there no more worthy Turks?

These definitions and names about Turks have definitely started causing problems for the Armenian scholars. The accusation that the Armenian scholars use names and definitions, especially the ones about Turks, out of historical context (Akarli,1998:58) has been becoming the norm lately among the Turkish scholars. For example, in the discussion that took place between the Armenian and Turkish historians in the journal of Armenian Forum, Engin D. Akarli writes : "(…)If we are to recover the past in its particularities, we might as well begin with two key names: "Ottomans" and "Turks." It is wrong to collapse them together or to use them alternately, as Suny keeps doing in his article.(…)" (Akarli, 1998:55). Quite a lot of, if not all, Armenian scholars use these terms interchangeably. The Ottoman government and/or the CUP frequently become Turkish governments. Reading the Armenian scholars, one may naturally think that there is an organic link between the present day Turkish state and the Ottoman Empire. One may think that the Ottoman Empire simply evolved into the Republic of Turkey. Accepting this explanation, one would definitely find it difficult to explain why this Republic had to fight against the Ottoman Empire, and that if the forces of the empire had their way or had they been a bit more powerful there would have been no republic today and Atatürk would have become an obscure rebel with the name Mustafa Kemal. In fact, the Armenian scholars today would most likely be writing about the crimes of the Ottomans rather than the Turks.

Whether we like it or not, there seems to be a difference between the names ‘Ottomans’ and ‘Turks’ and between the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. And, Armenian scholars, in my opinion, need to acknowledge this difference and approach the problem accordingly. But, this would carry the problem and the political struggle associated with it to a different platform, one that is less political. And, if the denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is quite a sin, denying the distinction between these names is not much different, either. Both acts are political, and because they are political they do not offer real solutions.

"The political is" says Carl Schmitt, "the most intense and extreme antagonism, and every concrete antagonism becomes that much more political the closer it approaches the most extreme point, that of the friend-enemy grouping. (…) (Schmitt, 1996:29). Although Schmitt had a different agenda for his concept of the political in accordance with his own conditions, I find his explanations closest to what I mean by the concept of the political. Hence the quotations. To make even clearer what I try to convey by using the concept of the political in my arguments, I will quote a few more lines from Schmitt. To him, the distinction between friend and enemy "denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation, of an association or dissociation. (…) The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible" (1996:27) To Schmitt, "The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. (…) An enemy exists only when , at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. (…)" (28). "The political can derive its energy from the most varied human endeavors, from the religious, economic, moral, and other antitheses. It does not describe its own substance, but only the intensity of an association or dissociation of human beings whose motives can be religious, national (in the ethnic or cultural sense), economic, or of another kind and can effect at different times different coalitions and separations. The real friend-enemy grouping is existentially so strong and decisive that the nonpolitical anthithesis, at precisely the moment at which it becomes political, pushes aside and subordinates its hitherto purely religious, purely economic, purely cultural criteria and motives to the conditions and conclusions of the political situation at hand. (…)" (38).

I apologize for these long quotes, but it is crucial for my own arguments on the subject of the Armenian Genocide that what I mean by the concept of political is explained clearly. To me, the solution to the conflict between the Turks and Armenians does not necessarily require ending of the denial by Turkey of the Armenian Genocide. The real solution is in the depoliticization of the conflict. The denial, to me, is slowly coming to an end, anyway. For example, today, just by pure coincidence, I received a magazine named Skylife, published by Turkish airlines. In it I came across an article about Ahtamar (the spelling is probably not right). And, in this article I read the following sentences : "Van has been home to many peoples, including the Medes, persians, Sassanians, Armenians and Turks, to name but a few."(194); "The reliefs of Akdamar Church, standing on its lonely island, are among the finest examples of Armenian carving."(196); and under one of the photos that belonged to the article was written once more that "The shores of Lake Van has been home to many civilizations: the Medes, Persians, Sassanids, Urartians, Armenians and Turks" (197). This is a simple monthly magazine published by Turkish airlines for its passengers. It is not a scholarly journal; it would not be right to expect a scholarly article about this place or the history of the Armenians. Still, it is acknowledged that there were Armenians once, and they had a civilization of their own in the same category with the others whose names were mentioned, and this was their church. Obviously, a new non-denialist trend about Armenians is slowly emerging in Turkey. (And, this example is one of the many I observed during my stay in Turkey this summer.)

The reason, I believe, the Turkish state is still strictly holding on to her policy of the denial, in spite of these changes in Turkey one may observe, is because the conflict is a very political conflict. Naturally, I am not claiming that the Turkish state will quit this whole conflict once it is not political any more. In fact, I believe she is one of the reasons why the conflict is a political one. Yet, it takes two to have a political conflict. And, once the conflict is of political nature as described above, theoretically, there is no solution to it other than the destruction of the enemy. This is, however, exactly what the conflict between Armenians and Turks must avoid in order to establish some kind of permanent solution, in order not to cause further political conflicts. And, this is only possible if the existing political stands and/or identities are abolished. There is no solution to the existing conflict within the framework of the existing identities and counter-identities (identities about the other). For the existing identities and counter-identities are geared towards "extreme antagonism", and within this "extreme antagonism", there is simply no solution to the conflict. Both sides need to reorganize the way they see themselves and the other in order to end the political conflict, but not necessarily the conflict itself. This is not saying that we should forget the past. The past must certainly be discussed, and dealt with. However, the present framework of the conflict must be abolished, or rather replaced by one that will include in it the possibility of a solution that is not based on the dichotomy of the enemy-friend.

[1.5 million]

More...

to Winston: sorry, a looong reply, beware complainers
by XXX
Dear Winston,

I apologize for the mocking voice I used in my previous paper. It was not targeted at your personality or anything like. It was simply my stylistic response to your quickly reached misrepresentations about my position on the subject of the genocide. Misrepresentations are an important business, and I was not surprised that it bothers you as well, when it happens to yourself. I was already aware that your position was not what I tried to portray in my paper. Let us see what happened.

It has never been my position to claim that there was no use to recognize the Armenian genocide, if we, the Turks, were still going to be loathed by Armenians. Even though I said this you did not take the time to find out what my real position had been all this time, but instead, chose one paragraph that was added to a paper that was not about the subject of the genocide, and unleashed your attack.

My reply to Petros was the following:

“About the Genocide topic, why don’t you try to show me the post where I argued “it was no use to recognize the genocide and still be loathed by the Armenians”. Because if you can then I can show where you went wrong in interpreting what I argued there. My main argument has always been that the way the recognition business is being imposed upon Turkey will simply not bring the kind of solution we want. The real solution lies in removing the animosity between the two nations. I am not crazy about being loved by Armenians anyway.”

I wrote quite a few post on this topic and even discussed it, while I was in Turkey this summer, with one of the Turkish historians, Selim Deringil, who was in the ‘exchange’ between Armenian and Turkish scholars that was organized by ‘Armenian Forum – Journal of Contemporary Affairs (Volume 1 Number 2). My position is that the solution that is trying to be imposed on the whole problem (Turkey was the wrong word) is of political kind. And, due to the nature of political solutions, that they are based on the dichotomy of us versus others, the enemy, the problem will not be solved in the long run. The solution must be sought on different platforms through apolitical and heuristic means. To some, this is a theoretical/philosophical discussion. To me, this is a very real problem, as many events both in Balkans, in Africa, in post-Soviet republics have showed it.

Of course, I did not write it like that. I thought the discussion was not about this anyway. I was already aware that my explanation was not complete, and I was also aware that some Armenian participants of this forum were going to jump on this to show that how wrong, how whatever I was in regards to this paragraph, forgetting, in the process, the countless posts I had written on this subject. And, I guess, I did not have to wait for too long.

I respect your past dear Winston, and when I am speaking to you I see you as my equal who needs the same kind of respect I deserve. It was very wrong of you to make quite a few assumptions about me in regards to how much I love Armenians. You should have at least tried to find out if this was really the case. If we try to make these posts political ones, us versus the enemy, and treat each other as such, we are not going to reach anywhere. There are enough people doing this successfully and much better than you, anyway. Some people, like myself, grew up in a very political environment where even the slightly wrong word could have meant one's treason among one's own political group. Contrary to what Petros thinks, I grew up in these struggles, so I am both immune and good at political verbal struggles, the polemics. I will play the game, if I am forced to, and we will become enemies. But, it will not bring solutions.

I understand that you have to go by what I write, but there is always the option of asking, especially when it comes to ‘implications’.

Implications, that is, ‘you implied this or that’ kind of statements, are always very dangerous ones to mingle with. Since they are not explicit statements one can always deny them, especially if they are unsupportable by and not easily derivable from other statements, the context itself. Secondly, it is very easy to go from what the other person might have implied to what you, yourself (general you), might have thought he/she did because of your own preconceived ideas about him/her. So, going back to the original subject, let us try to find out what I implied by my sentences. Here is one of your paragraphs, and if you think it is out of context, it is simply my mistake. Just tell me how it is so, and I will fix it.

“And you claim that the solution lies in removing animosity and imply that the Armenians are to blame for such. I am incredulous. And then you make yourself clear – you have no love of Armenians or have any sympathy or care as to what has befallen them. Ultimately your position is – I think – very little different than that of your governments.”

I think the key word here is “we”. This “we”, as I mentioned it in my previous reply to XXXX, was not “we, the Turks”. I was simply talking about you and me, the Armenian and Turkish individuals who were interested in bringing some form of a solution to the problem. I wrote countless posts on this subject mostly to the Turkish Armenian forum, and if you read some of them, it should be almost clear (to me it is), that I do not deny the Genocide, that I have never, especially after my great-grandfather who witnessed the events in Samsun region, told me his side of the story, what really happened, before he died. By the way, he was not crazy about Armenians ( I will come back to this expression), either. In fact he blamed them for starting the events, and just because of this, his opinions count, because despite his ideas he did still not hide anything as far as the whole picture was concerned, the killings and cruelties, even though he blamed them. Also, in case you are wondering, he did not take part in the killings. This is not about cleaning my consciousness, either, as XXXX might think. I am an individual by and on my own right. I do not see a link between my grandfather and myself since I did not raise him. But, if my daughter had done anything like that, I would have been greatly disturbed. However, although I know my great-grand father did not take part in the killings, he also did not do anything, either. Of course, my job, and I think it is a job, is to understand this mentality, how these people became what they were, how they made these decisions, how they closed their eyes, so the problem can really be fixed. Anyway. In addition to not denying the Genocide, I would also like our government to stop its denial. However, I also see that because of the political nature of the solution that is trying to be brought, ending the denial as it is might create an undeserved burden on the Turkish people. Now, don’t jump to the conclusions, I am not favoring the burden on Turkish people over Armenian people. I am simply saying that for the sake of peoples living in that part of the world, it is necessary to reach a solution that works for everyone, because, in my opinion, this is not only about punishing governments but also about the futures of peoples. I realize that you think the Turkish people have not done anything about the genocide subject, but I also think you are being a little unfair here.

In the context of things I have written in past, it should have been clear that I was not using this ‘we’ as ‘we, the Turks’, although I agree that it is ambiguous. But, ‘we’s, ‘I’s, ‘you’s are always ambiguous by their linguistic nature, since what they refer to always depends on the context. So, it is usually a good idea to ask who the ‘we’ refers to. Once we clear that this ‘we’ is not the ‘we’ you thought was, then, I believethe whole story changes. I know you might have gotten the idea from the part that ‘the solution that is being imposed upon Turkey’ that I implied that the Armenians were to blame, but still, the fact that I said that ‘ the animosity between the two nations’ must have given you a pause before you claimed that I implied that the Armenians were to blame. If I had said that ‘due to the Armenian obsession with ending the denial’ or something like that you may have been right. ‘The animosity between the two nations’ is conceptually different from ‘the animosity that is being pushed, created, caused or whatever by the Armenian side’, since the latter implies an active subject. In my sentence, the animosity is without a subject, and that is for a reason. Perhaps, I am not so much interested in who started it, but how it can be solved. On the other hand, you seem to be preoccupied with who part rather than how, so that you are reading my sentence in a different way.

Of course, there is also the ‘I am not crazy’ part. Here I really got surprised, since I had thought all along that English was your first language. Since it is not mine, I got my dictionary and checked the meaning of the expression, in case I had been using it wrong. Well, I grabbed my very useful American Heritage dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition, 1992, and looked it up. Crazy means “ affected with madness; insane”, as we all know. But it also said that “2. Informal. Departing from proportion or moderation, especially: a. Possessed by enthusiasm or excitement: The crowd at the game went crazy. b. Immoderately fond; infatuated: was crazy about boats. (Bingo). c. Intensely involved or preoccupied: is crazy about cars and driving. (Another bingo, a better one)”, and the rest does not interest us. Then I went to the word infatuated like a semiotic detective: Infatuated was explained as “possessed by an unreasoning passion or attraction”. Not clear enough, I thought, and I went to the word infatuation: “a foolish, unreasoning, or extravagant passion or attraction” and it said “see synonyms at love”, that is, the love I was accused of not having. I was on the right track, I said. And there it explained infatuation as “foolish or extravagant attraction often of short duration: Their infatuation blinded them to the fundamental differences in their points of view. (What an example!). By the way, extravagant does not mean lack of, but that it is “exceeding reasonable bounds”, that it is excessive. I guess this is enough information, let me not be infatuated with the explanation itself, or perhaps can I say I do not want to be acting crazy about meanings; but I already am. OK. There is no mocking here; I am just excited. I almost feel like saying check mate, but I will refrain. Now, here is an implication. I am implying that I got you.

Anyway, I have never meant by using this expression that I have no love towards Armenians, or no sympathy with their cause. The expression I used, and I was well aware of its meaning while I was using it (this semiotic exercise was, to steal XXXX expression, for you), was meant to point out that I had no intention of giving up my guest for what I deemed to be a working solution for the problem, even if it meant not being loved by the Armenians because of my ideas. It simply meant that I love Armenians like I do other people, I have sympathy for their cause and their sufferings, but I am not going to give up what I think is the right way.

Now, where do you get the idea that I do not love Armenians? You surely cannot from the expression, since it does not mean such a thing. The expression is about the intensity of a specific feeling, not its lack of. Of course, you came up with statements like if I were not really human, and on and on. I did not take these as insults. See, in order to become insults, they need to be original, shocking, something that one is not used to hearing often. Well, needless to say, your accusations, the ones about my humanity and my lack of love, sympathy, and similar ones, have been around for a while for almost every Turk as usual Armenian responses, accusations, or insults, how ever one may take them. More you hear them more they lose from the status of being insults; they become unwanted background noise. You may think I am again insulting or mocking. No, I am simply stating a fact: one can insult one for so long and so much.

On the other hand, I was not aware that you were going to take the meaning of the expression I used differently, and make it something it was not. If I knew it, I would not use it; I apologize for it. But, the fault was not really mine; it was your misinterpretation, and your assumption that I was insulting. Such sensitivity surely makes talking about these kinds of subjects very difficult; but I should understand where the sensitivity is coming from.

take care

[1.5 million]

Yes I have had a great deal of dialogue on this issue with various Turks...

That goes far beyond any interchages yet in this forum (shame)

Her are some more posts (this time from me):

Posted on Jan 19, 2001, 1:59 PM


To (group)

(and this is what Nihat has complained about regarding me...LOL!). I think that it is clear that both N & P are (basically) sympathetic in their views - as much as we could really hope for I think. Of course I did react negatively to a recent post of Pi's which I felt was (at the very least) an attempt to marginalize the Armenian Genocide issue. Perhaps I was wrong. I think P and N do understand that a genocide has been committed (as any with a brain should understand) - but as Turks they see perhaps mitigating factors or attach importance to other things - such as the Armenian revolutionary activities etc - which color their perspectives (from our viewpoint). And they are uncomfortable with the Armenian (accusatory) approach. Additionally, P appears to have some personal family history of animosity regarding Armenians. (and even then - his great-grandfather - who perhaps witnessed or whose family was a victim of Armenian violence etc - still understood - it would seem - the wrong done to the Armenians in 1915). I don't really know - I am speculating to some extent here. Again I also think that Ackam's points are valid as well and it is difficult for even progressive thinking Turks to come to terms with any concept where the Turkish people are villanized or have any responsibility, etc for the terrible fate which befell the Armenians. We must understand this and understand the limitations (of free speech regarding this issue in specific) which exist in Turkey today. That they have even said what they have is perhaps as much as we can expect for now.

I continue to be interested in the perspective of the single-mindedness of Armenians on this issue - as perceived from the "Turkish" side. Again - I think I understand why this is perceived - though I don't know - in the face of the blanket denial - what can be done about it. I understand much of the political dynamic leading to the Young Turk faction responsible for the situation in 1915 - including the role of Armenians (for whatever it was) in "instigating" or contributing to such extreme attitudes. (we also must consider the excellent points made by Z concerning the role of Golkalp etc though I think (and thus the Balkan experience and other events which were formative - etc). And of course I appreciate the post-war situation and the reason for the rise of the nationalists (with earlier roots). All of these are factors - as the issue of Turkish suffering (before, during and after WWI)...etc. But again - I am not the only Armenian who understands these things - and I do not think that Armenians are deaf to being shown more along these lines. I don't think however, that Armenians will ever give up on Genocide recognition and will ever agree that Genocide against them did not occur. It is just untrue for one - regardless of present day Turkish sensibilities. If modern Turks think that they are being accused or some such - just for this admission - then I don't know what will ever be done to reach any common ground/understanding. And I for one have never thought in terms of compensation or along these lines. Yes you hear such – but I think it is much premature and to me is a non-issue at this time.

I think a better effort to explore the events and establish an accurate timeline and understand motivations and causation in an unbiased scholarly fashion (no such think – I know…) - officially sponsored perhaps – with participation from both sides - with leading scholars and the freedom to air all facts/data - is necessary. Such an effort would need high visibility and sponsorship to succeed I think. Tthough it could be possible that an independent effort could also prove worthwhile - as long as all sides (including non-partisan etc) were well represented - and the conclusions/findings/recommendations etc reflected such. And if such resulted in the novel approach/ new perspective (as suggested by P) - perhaps it could be an impetus for movement out of our current (seeming) deadlock. Lacking such I assume we must just be patient and hope that through the media, education, exposure and the maturation of Turkish society - that current prohibitions can be overcome....etc. In the meantime I cannot see Armenians letting up - no matter how "insulted" or uncomfortable it may make many Turks etc. No matter, even if the tactics are doomed to failure - the denial of Genocide is still the greater crime - and to say and/or do nothing is unacceptable. Am I wrong?


Nihat

And am sorry if you take what I posted as an attack - etc. I understand what you are saying and what you said before (I think). Of course I did not think you have no appreciation/understanding of "the" Armenian perspective. And I am sorry if you think I am just taking you too literally – this is not my intention – of course all communication is flawed for a variety of reasons including of course – the failings of the listener (me).

Again I was/am making a point (and I followed by saying that indeed I think that both you & P know much about these issues - from whatever perspective). The issue I have is that the Armenian people have been the victim of a great crime and that this does not always seem to be appreciated from the "other" side - or even worse. (If you cannot agree that this is true then perhaps our gulf is wider than I have thought - though I am almost certain that you do understand such). As the "victims" of Genocide of population, family & homeland, and as the continued "victims" of denial of such (regardless of who is responsible - the fact that such a thing [Genocide] has occurred is the denial - even if we forego any "blame" at this time) Armenians are deserving of a certain degree of sympathy (or at least understanding) - regardless whether you have "any great love of Armenians" or not - it is a human/humanity thing - such as sympathy for the lost Inca, or for the suffering Africans etc. This is my point. If you think Turks are pained by this issue (when they are ever even conscious of it - as most are not for the most part) - then just imagine how (all) Armenians feel - most all of the time (when not just going about their lives as normal - which is of course most of the time - though it does occupy some degree of thought at times...).

That is all. I appreciate your comments - and though I know you have largely withdrawn from such discussions - I encourage your participation. I hope that we can discuss civilly of course - but if you & P are bored by such - perhaps I shall have to "insult" you again to get you to respond...LOL! Cheers...

Posted on Jan 22, 2001, 1:51 PM

[bell-the-cat]

Yawn. You really are full of yourself, Winston.
You like the sound of your voice so much that you take 2 pages worth of posts to try and prove that 1+1=2.
Personally, I think that someone who is so ignorant that they have reached adulthood without already knowing that 1+1=2 is someone not bothering about. In this context "1+1=2" is the equivalent of our "Someone" not knowing that "2 million Armenians in 1915/30,000 Armenians today = Genocide". It's basic stuff.

[bell-the-cat]

Firstly i must ask you “Is this forum for to accuse Turks or to search truths?”
If the answer is searching truths, i want to contribute.

if you want to contribute, then tell me from where you gained the information that you posted below? Who taught it to you, and in what context?

[

[The Big Fez]

Yawn. You really are full of yourself, Winston.
You like the sound of your voice so much that you take 2 pages worth of posts to try and prove that 1+1=2.
Personally, I think that someone who is so ignorant that they have reached adulthood without already knowing that 1+1=2 is someone not bothering about. In this context "1+1=2" is the equivalent of our "Someone" already knowing that "2 million Armenians in 1915/30,000 Armenians today = Genocide". It's basic stuff.

i suggest we throw water in our faces to keep awake when the windbag blows all that hot air. who wants to read all that.

[imported_Hellektor]

Same predictable rubbish, again and again and again and again and again and again...

Guys! This is the standard crap they always regurgitate, what do you expect?

Someturk, the crap you defecate here has been answered a million times in this and dozens of other forums and in countless books, documents, eyewitness and survivor accounts, etc.

I suggest you do one thing before you spew this boring puke for the zillionth time:
Go buy or borrow a book, "The Burning Tigris" by Peter Balakian for instance, read it, if still not convinced, check all his sources, then come back, if you still feel the need to, and regurgitate the standard Turkish denial excrement here which has already wasted many precious kilobytes of memory on the server of this forum.

By reading this book, you'll also learn that your denial "tactics" are as old your genocidal appearance this side of the Caspian.

[bell-the-cat]

i suggest we throw water in our faces to keep awake when the windbag blows all that hot air. who wants to read all that.

It's not hot air, it's a waste of air. (And forum space).