How happy for those who feel they are Turks

[ardakilic]

If you mentioned people's names specifically, I would have no problem. But once you started to say "they" I started wondering who are "they"? They are this, they are that... You say it is mtht. Then tell it so explicitly. Otherwise, as happened after your post, people will be discussing names for who you meant. And once you use "they" and start definition of who they are, you are starting to categorize people.

I am not a Kemalist. I believe the Kemalist ideology imposes lots of additional problems. But I see no point of discussing Ataturk personally in this forum. That's why I do not engage in discussions. Your discussion of nation-state formation (which I believe why Kemalist ideology is there to discuss) was much more fruitful in terms of providing insight to our current problem.

Regarding the intellectual lynch: I would like to read your detailed posts (references would be sweet) instead of demanding answers to your questions from specific person that you engage in discussion. That will be more useful for everyone. Your post "Responsibles and Their End Plus" is such an example. If you still want to engage people specifically to teach them the truth, I would like to read "DID X person do that" first, instead of "WHY X person did that" to start it like a real discussion based on facts. Of course, these are my personal views, not the forum rules, however gives an idea of what I meant by "lynch".

And I just wanted clarification to your "they", nothing else. It was not an accusation. A personal critic of your attitude maybe...

Just staying in this thread, it was so obvious that my post is for mtht; by quoting his post, by directly addressing him.

Speaking in general, yes they mean lal and mtht. Because whenever i talk about Kemalism (please note that: i am never interested in Kemal's personality, my main interest is focused on Kemalism as phenomena) mtht and lal answered nothing more than "you are full of hatred", "what you say is bullxxxx", "you are a terrorist" etc etc. Please see mtht's and lal's post.

My intention is to start a discussion and continue it in a logical way. For this aim, i have asked some questions. I expected that tehy will have some answers and then i will make some explanations...

When i read your post again, i can see the vangefulness. However, i see no use to extract some implications from your statements.

I think you know that whenever quotation and sources are requested, i present them.

[may]

Just staying in this thread, it was so obvious that my post is for mtht; by quoting his post, by directly addressing him.

The post that I responded was nothing to do with mtht. It started with "they" and I am not the only person that could not figure out who specifically you were talking about. So my response for it to be clarified was a fair one because I started seeing my names as one of the candidates.

Speaking in general, yes they mean lal and mtht. Because whenever i talk about Kemalism (please note that: i am never interested in Kemal's personality, my main interest is focused on Kemalism as phenomena) mtht and lal answered nothing more than "you are full of hatred", "what you say is bullxxxx", "you are a terrorist" etc etc. Please see mtht's and lal's post.

Your question: "Why Kemal sheltered and protected war criminals/AG commiters?" I think this is a very personal level of inquiry, not a discussion about an ideology. Still a valid question, I have no opposition about it but I believe this questions answer will get us nowhere. That's why I do not engage in the discussion.

On the other hand, I remember some of lal's responses concerning some Turkish people respect Ataturk (like herself), and there is no use of personally blaming him apart from alienating people. I do not believe the truth to be hid to make people more comfortable, but I can understand Lal's increasing level of aggression that lead to her engagement about Ataturk issue. I can write more but I do not find it ethical to talk on behalf of her. But briefly talking, there is an overall attitude that bothers me as well regarding the comments on how Turks are, how evil everything about Turks are etc. It is really "cheap" to comment on Turks, because I feel we are not at the same ground level during the discussions, although theoretically we are. I have to think twice before writing my opinion but someone else can write something s/he barely knows as a fact. Maybe it was wrong even mentioning my feeling in few sentences, because that I think and said needs a bit more brainwork. I just have to figure out what is the best way to express it.

When i read your post again, i can see the vangefulness. However, i see no use to extract some implications from your statements.

What you say is pretty serious. I do not know you. I only read your posts in last 2 weeks. What do I have for revenge? I had only one issue which I believe we discussed via PM and clarified. Anything else that I am not aware of? I do not accept to be blamed to be vengeful based on "implications" that you find no use to extract

I think you know that whenever quotation and sources are requested, i present them.

What I am asking is: Don't wait for a discussion or someone to ask to reveal them. Spread the knowledge, do not use it as a tool to gain the upperhand in a discussion.

[Gavur]

ı am curious, what am ı infitrating from this site. am ı a turkish government agent and stealing important armenian documents?or is my important job to provocate and create a civil war among armenians? you are a funny man indeed.

Curious indeed.

[hitite]

Re: How happy for those who feel they are Turks

good answer indeed...and mostly truthfull....

Well it was the answer you wanted to hear, a good answer maybe but not necessarily the correct answer...