8 ms·

[flagged]

by m00dy 4y ago

[flagged]

tgv 4y ago
> Because, we didn't do it. ... "but they had it coming anyway" Bizarre and amazing. Genocide denial, right there.
murat124 4y ago
> Because, we didn't do it. It's not you, you know? Not even your parents were alive to do it. I hope one day you learn to see it this way so when you claim to be an experienced Turk, it actually doesn't sound like bullshit.
sofixa 4y ago
> Generally speaking genocides or ethnic cleaning is definitely not in Turkish culture Go visit Batak or any other site of Ottoman atrocities and then try again. Brutal ethnic cleansing was very much an Ottoman thing throughout Ottoman history, and especially so in the last couple of centuries of decline. Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. > well, I'm not sure about this but, If I were Ataturk, I would probably build a secular Ottoman state like Ottoman v2 Honestly, in the post-WWI landscape, who would have wanted that? Peoples wanted their own nation state, nobody was interested in living in a multi-ethnic empire where they have no voice. > they were the ones fought like a real men At Gallipoli, and fought like real... What's a stupid aggressive animal doing stupid mistakes and getting itself killed in droves? That one. The Ottoman war effort was a(n almost) total failure. The sheer incompetence of the Ottoman high command and generals is only matched by other bright minds like von Hotzendorf.
- m00dy 4y ago
  >> Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. If we were that bad as you said in your comments, how would they preserve their language, religion and their identity ? I suggest you to take a deeper look at Ottoman's history and Turks. The way it works is that Ottomans used islam to convert non-muslim people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    The Ottoman Empire had a policy of religious tolerance, which was necessary because the ethnic Turks were a minority in the Empire and couldn't afford to cause widespread uprisings by denying people their religions, their customs, and maternal languages. It doesn't change the fact that they still sent their troops (most of them not ethnic Turks, but Arabs, or children of the occupied people stolen and raised as faithful soldiers of the Empire) to drown entire cities and regions in blood as soon as they "raised their head" and demanded their independence. For example: The Constantinople massacre of 1821 was orchestrated by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek community of Constantinople in retaliation for the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830). As soon as the first news of the Greek uprising reached the Ottoman capital, there occurred mass executions, pogrom-type attacks,[1] destruction of churches, and looting of the properties of the city's Greek population.[2][3] The events culminated with the hanging of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory V and the beheading of the Grand Dragoman, Konstantinos Mourouzis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War... The Chios massacre (in Greek: Η σφαγή της Χίου, Greek pronunciation: [i sfaˈʝi tis ˈçi.u]) was the killing of tens of thousands of Greeks on the island of Chios by Ottoman troops during the Greek War of Independence in 1822.[2] Greeks from neighboring islands had arrived on Chios and encouraged the Chiotes (the native inhabitants of the island) to join their revolt. In response, Ottoman troops landed on the island and killed thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre The Ottomans gave incentives to their enslaved people to convert to Islam and become Ottomanised. Those were peaceful incentives. But if the people did not take the opportunity offerred to them, then their lives were worth nothing and they were only fodder for the Ottomans' blades. That is what one sees if one takes a "deeper look".
    - m00dy 4y ago
      so, do you think Ottomans should have waited and sit back ? As you said, It was not under normal conditions as Greeks tried to setup their own state. Blood was shed and they won.
tokai 4y ago
A surprisingly disgusting thing to read on hn of all places.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
The Turks fight like real men when they're up against women and children, old people and unarmed civilians. Like lions they fight then! What bravery, what heroism! When they're fighting someone like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoros_Kolokotronis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoros_Kolokotronis They turn tail and run screaming for mommy. "Real men"...
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Is this the same guy the sacked Nafplion because he didn’t like who his son’s widow took up with, leaving Tripolitsa aside?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    I'm sorry but I have no idea what episode you're referring to. Kolokotronis liberated Tripolitsa, then marched on Nafplio and ran over the force of Dramali pasha at Dervenakia.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      See page 204, Mazower, The Greek Revolution, 1821 and the making of modern Europe. Panos Kolokotronis’ widow took up with Grivas which (among other things) set off fighting with the Rumeliotes (which the book details in other places, not sparing Grivas either) NB: I didn't mean that he turned aside from Tripolitsa, I meant I was leaving the subject aside.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        You'll have to forgive me, but I don't have Mazower at hand. In any case, I don't know the episode you're referring to but the constant strife in the Greek ranks during the Revolution is well known. It doesn't change the fact that Kolokotronis dealt a serious blow to the might of the Empire at Dervenakia. It also doesn't change the ridiculousness of the expression "real men" used by the OP particularly in the context in which it was used. Btw, "selimthegrim", hm? I guess we all have our national heroes... Too bad that they usually killed each other.

[flagged]

by m00dy 4y ago

[flagged]

tgv 4y ago

> Because, we didn't do it. ... "but they had it coming anyway" Bizarre and amazing. Genocide denial, right there.

murat124 4y ago

> Because, we didn't do it. It's not you, you know? Not even your parents were alive to do it. I hope one day you learn to see it this way so when you claim to be an experienced Turk, it actually doesn't sound like bullshit.

sofixa 4y ago

> Generally speaking genocides or ethnic cleaning is definitely not in Turkish culture Go visit Batak or any other site of Ottoman atrocities and then try again. Brutal ethnic cleansing was very much an Ottoman thing throughout Ottoman history, and especially so in the last couple of centuries of decline. Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. > well, I'm not sure about this but, If I were Ataturk, I would probably build a secular Ottoman state like Ottoman v2 Honestly, in the post-WWI landscape, who would have wanted that? Peoples wanted their own nation state, nobody was interested in living in a multi-ethnic empire where they have no voice. > they were the ones fought like a real men At Gallipoli, and fought like real... What's a stupid aggressive animal doing stupid mistakes and getting itself killed in droves? That one. The Ottoman war effort was a(n almost) total failure. The sheer incompetence of the Ottoman high command and generals is only matched by other bright minds like von Hotzendorf.

m00dy 4y ago
>> Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. If we were that bad as you said in your comments, how would they preserve their language, religion and their identity ? I suggest you to take a deeper look at Ottoman's history and Turks. The way it works is that Ottomans used islam to convert non-muslim people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  The Ottoman Empire had a policy of religious tolerance, which was necessary because the ethnic Turks were a minority in the Empire and couldn't afford to cause widespread uprisings by denying people their religions, their customs, and maternal languages. It doesn't change the fact that they still sent their troops (most of them not ethnic Turks, but Arabs, or children of the occupied people stolen and raised as faithful soldiers of the Empire) to drown entire cities and regions in blood as soon as they "raised their head" and demanded their independence. For example: The Constantinople massacre of 1821 was orchestrated by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek community of Constantinople in retaliation for the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830). As soon as the first news of the Greek uprising reached the Ottoman capital, there occurred mass executions, pogrom-type attacks,[1] destruction of churches, and looting of the properties of the city's Greek population.[2][3] The events culminated with the hanging of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory V and the beheading of the Grand Dragoman, Konstantinos Mourouzis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War... The Chios massacre (in Greek: Η σφαγή της Χίου, Greek pronunciation: [i sfaˈʝi tis ˈçi.u]) was the killing of tens of thousands of Greeks on the island of Chios by Ottoman troops during the Greek War of Independence in 1822.[2] Greeks from neighboring islands had arrived on Chios and encouraged the Chiotes (the native inhabitants of the island) to join their revolt. In response, Ottoman troops landed on the island and killed thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre The Ottomans gave incentives to their enslaved people to convert to Islam and become Ottomanised. Those were peaceful incentives. But if the people did not take the opportunity offerred to them, then their lives were worth nothing and they were only fodder for the Ottomans' blades. That is what one sees if one takes a "deeper look".
  - m00dy 4y ago
    so, do you think Ottomans should have waited and sit back ? As you said, It was not under normal conditions as Greeks tried to setup their own state. Blood was shed and they won.

tokai 4y ago

A surprisingly disgusting thing to read on hn of all places.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

The Turks fight like real men when they're up against women and children, old people and unarmed civilians. Like lions they fight then! What bravery, what heroism! When they're fighting someone like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoros_Kolokotronis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoros_Kolokotronis They turn tail and run screaming for mommy. "Real men"...

selimthegrim 4y ago
Is this the same guy the sacked Nafplion because he didn’t like who his son’s widow took up with, leaving Tripolitsa aside?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  I'm sorry but I have no idea what episode you're referring to. Kolokotronis liberated Tripolitsa, then marched on Nafplio and ran over the force of Dramali pasha at Dervenakia.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    See page 204, Mazower, The Greek Revolution, 1821 and the making of modern Europe. Panos Kolokotronis’ widow took up with Grivas which (among other things) set off fighting with the Rumeliotes (which the book details in other places, not sparing Grivas either) NB: I didn't mean that he turned aside from Tripolitsa, I meant I was leaving the subject aside.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
      You'll have to forgive me, but I don't have Mazower at hand. In any case, I don't know the episode you're referring to but the constant strife in the Greek ranks during the Revolution is well known. It doesn't change the fact that Kolokotronis dealt a serious blow to the might of the Empire at Dervenakia. It also doesn't change the ridiculousness of the expression "real men" used by the OP particularly in the context in which it was used. Btw, "selimthegrim", hm? I guess we all have our national heroes... Too bad that they usually killed each other.