Where is everyone?

That was one unfortunate statement if I ever saw one.

I made it clear that my point was in the general sense. Certainly, there are Turk-haters among the bunch. I don't disagree with you on that. But you cannot say that everyone is a Turk-hater.

Perhaps, to be fair, I should speak on a personal level: I'm certain that my niece and, therefore, my extended family (of Armenians) are not Turk-haters. This, I know for sure. My point is: accepting the genocide thesis as a fact of history does not make one a Turk-hater. Accusing the Janjaweed (Black Arabs) of having committed genocide in the Sudan does not make one an Arab-hater. Accusing the Nazis of having committed genocide does not make one an Austrian-hater or German-hater, or Italian-hater, and so on. If I accuse the father of murder, the accusation doesn't include the son.

Tell any of these retards that Turks killed ten billion Elves last weekend, they'll buy it right away.

You're overreaching it a bit here, but I suppose that I understand.

Do you truly believe any of these have the slightest bit of respect for the truth? Oh, wait... They recognize the genocide! Yay! - that makes them good guys! Right?

I don't know whether or not they do. I don't know them well enough, outside of this board.

Recognizing the genocide does not make one a good person. One's character does not dictate the validity of the facts.

BTW, you don't believe that I associate with anyone from this board, do you? Where would you get the idea that I get along fine with Turk-haters? I don't second their opinions and I don't fuel the fire. So, what would give you that idea? I'm just curious.

Your world consists of deniers and believers only. Black and white. No f ucking shades of gray.

There cannot be any shades of gray when a genocide was carried out from a planned campaign. The genocide wasn't the result of a war. It was a deliberate act, and no one is blaming you for that act. You are solely blamed for its denial, for not recognizing the fact that your ancestors (from the leadership) orchestrated and executed the act.

Now, if you're referring to the resistance in your "shades of gray," according to non-Turkish literature (again, as the majority of historians agree on this), those acts were committed after the fact (after the genocide campaign began, as people did not want to become "sheep to the slaughter").

Now, my English is not perfect but I'm pretty much sure that sentence meant that I knew you a little bit.

Don't kid yourself. This is what is troubling to me about a person like yourself. You seem to be educated, yet you deny the obviousness of the genocide. You're either misinformed (due to Turkish propaganda against the genocide, which has been refuted by the vast majority of historians) or you're cunning (that is to say, you're aware and clearly recognize the facts of the genocide; but due to the grave consequences of genocide recognition and the enormous burden that it would present to the present-day Turkish people, all of whom had no hand in the perpetration of the genocide, you'd rather deny the obvious and appear foolish to the world, as opposed to being a man, or nation of people, of good conscience). Which is it? (rhetorical)

Vita es Morte

So, this is how we know of each other? You are Vita?

reply share

add reply

formatting help