4 Killed in Bible Publisher

[LeftEyeNine]

http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/405826.asp

(I looked around and couldn't find an English source for the time being)

MALATYA - In Niyazi District, 3 killed after a mob to a publisher named Zirve which was publishing books on Christianism. Of those dead, Necati Aydin and Uğur Yüksel were working at the publisher. One of the wounded was named Emre Günaydın, and the other injured person's whose surname is not know yet is named Uğur.

Malatya major Halil İbrahim Daşöz, Headofficer of Security Ali Osman Kahya and Republic Chief Prosecutor Mustafa Demirdağ are inspecting the incident on the location.

Thanks to Mr. Erdoğan & His Friends' encouragement, we have been exposed to some assualt we had forgotten for long.



P.S. One of the wounded has passed away, which makes casualties 4.

[LeftEyeNine]

Here is a Reuters report:

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey, April 18 (Reuters) - Attackers on Wednesday slit the throats of three people in a Turkish publishing house which printed bibles, security officials said, the latest attack on minorities in mainly Muslim Turkey.

NTV said a fourth person had died in hospital, but the report could not be confirmed.

Security officials said six people had been detained in connection with the attack in the southeastern city of Malatya. Television pictures showed police wrestling one man to the ground and leading several young men out of the building, apparently in handcuffs.

An official from the publishing house told local television that they had received threats over its publications.

The attack follows the murder earlier this year of Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink by an ultranationalist, which prompted extra security measures to be taken for writers and journalists. Dink was also from Malatya.

Last year a priest was shot dead in the Black Sea province of Trabzon, which coincided with worldwide protests over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

The government and other officials in Turkey have in the past criticised Christian missionary work here while the European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, has called for more freedom for the tiny Christian minority.

For some Turkish nationalists Christian missionaries are seen as enemies of Turkey working to undermine its political and religious institutions.

[Gregoshi]

LEN, is my impression correct that the Turkish people don't want religion messing with politics? This story seems to indicate concern about Christian missionaries and politics, then there was the huge march you posted about last week protesting some Islamic candidates.

[LeftEyeNine]

LEN, is my impression correct that the Turkish people don't want religion messing with politics? This story seems to indicate concern about Christian missionaries and politics, then there was the huge march you posted about last week protesting some Islamic candidates.

There is an Islamist society, although -for the worst ratio- not larger than secularists living in Turkey, who'd like to see Shariya as the state law. And they are largely encouraged with AKP governments so-called "moderate Islam" approach which is actually a monster with a teletubbie mask.

However the secularist march on the 14th of April has no connection with this unfortunate event. During the last days of Ottoman Empire, the non-Muslim institutions like churches were actively working in favor of invaders. So that a secularist, or someone who is claiming himself a patriot who is aware of the recent history, mainly the foundation period of Turkey, can not open arms wide to non-Muslim activities without any doubt. Such actions somehow blur one's mind and would like to be assured that it's only about religion, not anything else. This is simply a reaction regarding the memories.

But none of the people who marched there, or those who supported this march do favor murderous intentions on the non-Muslim society or activities. I mean, the motive behind this killing is a fanatic Islamist mindset, not a secularist one.

And no, whoever did this, calling it for the sake of Islam, has a lot to forget about what he knows as Islam.

[Gregoshi]

But none of the people who marched there, or those who supported this march do favor murderous intentions on the non-Muslim society or activities. I mean, the motive behind this killing is a fanatic Islamist mindset, not a secularist one.

I didn't think so or wish to imply that. It just seems that from what little I understand about the issues is that the Turkish people cast a suspicious eye at Christian and Muslim influences in government affairs. Regarding the Bible murders, as with many things, there are always the extreme few who feel that killing is preferable to just voting against the undesired influences - whether that "vote" be expressed politically, economically or socially.

Sorry if, through my ignorance of Turkey's history & politics, I'm missing the point of these issues you posted about.

[Strike For The South]

So much for the EU

[Adrian II]

So much for the EU

There clearly are strong forces in Turkey that don't want their country to enter the European Union. They are stirring up violence, controversy and legal issues that would bar the country from entering. One issue they keep hammering on is Christianity, another is minority rights. Christians and Alevis are killed; Greeks, Armenians and Kurds are vilified as instruments of foreign invasion. They know full well that if civil rights and religious tolerance in Turkey do not improve, the country does not stand a chance of acceding.

Islam has always been a part of Turkish nationalist ideology. Many so-called secularists aren't secular at all, they just prefer their own brand of Islam. Some favour a 'Turkish-Islamic Synthesis', something invented by right-wingers in the 1970's to counter communism and socialism. This synthesis holds that Turkish society rests on 'three pillars': the family, the mosque, and the barracks. Of course nationalists think the barracks represent a more important institution that the mosque... And they envy the present ruling party (AKP) for its prestige and positions of power. Of course the fact that the AKP has done some much-needed cleanig up of corruption does not sit well with the old elites either.

And it has to be said that the victories of the AKP have been possible because the political opposition has been a total failure. Faced with a serious challenge to their views and power, the main opposition parties have allowed themselves to be pushed practically into irrelevance. The AKP can always play them against each other because they are more power-hungry than principled. As a reaction, extreme nationalism gains popularity.

As long as Turkish nationalism doesn't deal with its own excesses, its sick attitude toward minorities, toward Armenians and other Christians and toward political power as an extension of the army, there will never be progress. I have become very pessimistic lately that Turkey will ever join the EU.

My two cents.

[LeftEyeNine]

You clearly have a heap of knowledge about political history of Turkey. While there are so many I agree with you, AdrianII, I'd like to comment where I feel the need about your post.

There clearly are strong forces in Turkey that don't want their country to enter the European Union. They are stirring up violence, controversy and legal issues that would bar the country from entering.

I represent a clearly strong force against Turkey entering the EU. I see no benefit in a deal where none of the parties will have use of, or where one party will be exploited thoroughly.

And, no, violence is absolutely not the way to put the idea.

One issue they keep hammering on is Christianity, another is minority rights. Christians and Alevis are killed; Greeks, Armenians and Kurds are vilified as instruments of foreign invasion. They know full well that if civil rights and religious tolerance in Turkey do not improve, the country does not stand a chance of acceding.

Religious murders were not an issue until AKP was a dominant reign in Turkey. I just don't like the idea of simplyfing it to a degree like saying "Christians and Alevis are killed" which sounds like a frequent chaotic situation as it is in Iraq.

Greeks under the wings of the British joined the invasion of Aegean region, which is basically a concept of what they call "war". They were enemies by that time for sure and I have read of news in Greece lately, where Ministry of Education were under pressure since they had removed the "Turks are evil" dictations from the history books. So, consequently, "feeling like enemies" is not a Turkish invention.

Kurds and Armenians were always used as seperatist and terrorizing minorities during the invasion of Anatolia, by Russians, English and the French. Massacred Turks under the command of Taşnak Sütyan and other minor gangs are not an easy memory to forget.

While Kurds, with Kurd Teali Cemiyeti (during the Ottoman collapse period) and Sheikh Said (Nursi) and other similar rebellions (those that were organized and provocated by the British right after the failure of compromisation in Lausanne agreement about Mosul and Kirkuk, after which the Turkish army was commanded to prepare for a military operation to take control of these cities), were another seperatist group who had allied with the invader triumphants of the WWI.

So, as a natural reaction deriving from a humanly reality, "conscious from memory" comes into effect, which I find more reasonable than forgetting about all like a 6-second-memory-served goldfish.

Things can/will get better but Turks are not the only ones to blame about this. After all, "history recurs" and we are intending not to fall into the same traps again.

Islam has always been a part of Turkish nationalist ideology.

Nationalism was a trademark of the Grey Wolves and "Ülkücü"s (=idealists) who were corrupted worse than anything else. The nationalism that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk mentions as one of his principles is what has taken its actual meaning back, from those mafia leaders pretending to be the servants of the country for so long.

Nationalist view is revamped thoroughly in Turkey, something you can't be aware there, it has only recently (no older than 1 years old) been a concrete and formed idea. April 14 March was the first strong show-off this new understanding of nationalism.

"They call us nationalists. We are such nationalists that we hold respect and regards to all cooperating nations. We recognize all what it takes for their nation's survival. Our nationalism is not a selfish and overbearing nationalism."

M. K. Atatürk

This is what the neo-nationalists (which is not a term coined yet) follow.

Many so-called secularists aren't secular at all, they just prefer their own brand of Islam.

This is a general problem with every religion. What it takes to be a follower and what your selfish needs are always conflict. More of an individual problem which is quite "popular".

Some favour a 'Turkish-Islamic Synthesis', something invented by right-wingers in the 1970's to counter communism and socialism. This synthesis holds that Turkish society rests on 'three pillars': the family, the mosque, and the barracks.

What MHP, the political wing of Grey Wolves and Ülkücüs, has degraded into is exactly this one. There are concerns regarding votes behind this as well. The more you welcome, the more votes you'll get, forget about the ambition.

Of course nationalists think the barracks represent a more important institution that the mosque...

Yes I do.

And they envy the present ruling party (AKP) for its prestige and positions of power.

No I don't.

Of course the fact that the AKP has done some much-needed cleanig up of corruption does not sit well with the old elites either.

Old elites ?

And it has to be said that the victories of the AKP have been possible because the political opposition has been a total failure. Faced with a serious challenge to their views and power, the main opposition parties have allowed themselves to be pushed practically into irrelevance. The AKP can always play them against each other because they are more power-hungry than principled.

Excellent political analysis.

As a reaction, extreme nationalism gains popularity.

"Nationalism at all degrees" would suit better. If you shove a stick into a bee hive, expect a cloud of bees freaked out.

As long as Turkish nationalism doesn't deal with its own excesses, its sick attitude toward minorities, toward Armenians and other Christians and toward political power as an extension of the army, there will never be progress. I have become very pessimistic lately that Turkey will ever join the EU.

Excesses are who think they are the sole owners and representers of nationalism, like MHP and BBP and some others alike.

Since you have a thorough upside down understanding of nationalism in Turkey, which is since you looked through the "keyhole" of MHP, BBP etc., you have your rights on commenting like that. However I have to remind you that MHP is totally out of the line and hence any effect. Nor in the policy of today neither during the recent years.

There are sure fingerprints of people from MHP and BBP in the murder of Hrant Dink, while there also is the possibility that they may have had actions in this Christian publisher murders. But this not the sick attitude of Turkish nationalism, this is the sick attitude of MHP and the likes -the reason why they have been omitted from the political scene as an alternative for the future, the reason why I dislike them as much as EU, USA or whichever tools they use to fool around.

My two cents.

I'm honored to hear and being able to have a conversation with someone who is quite knowledgable about Turkey.

[Adrian II]

Kurds and Armenians were always used as seperatist and terrorizing minorities during the invasion of Anatolia, by Russians, English and the French.

I believe everybody used everybody else, no?

The Kurds and Armenians were susceptible to foreign assistance and interference because of their second or third class position within the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Their subordinate position and their willingness to secede from (or fight against) the Porte were ruthlessly exploited by the western powers. And they were ruthlessly exploited by the Sultanate and later also by the Young Turks.

The Ottoman state, in turn, played the Kurds against the Armenians, to the point of arming special units of Kurdish horsemen and giving them free rein to attack and loot Armenian homes and settlements. Around 1908 the Young Turks, in their turn, made their peace with the militant Armenians and used their help against the Sultanate for a while.

The whole thing didn't need to end in genocide, deportations and century old hatreds. There were several moments when developments could have taken a turn for the better.

The crucial problem which was never overcome I believe was the lack of a solid Ottoman citizenship, based on true equality before the law and regardless of religion or ethnic origin. Both the Porte and the Young Turks wanted to have it both ways. A modern Turkish-Islamic state comprising large numbers of non-Turks and non-muslims was a contradiction that cuold only be resolved through mass-murder and forced resettlement.

I'm honored to hear and being able to have a conversation with someone who is quite knowledgable about Turkey.

Nothing special. I love Turkey, both for its modern culture and people, and for its Ancient roots. The Hittites were the forerunners of all European civilization.
EDIT
Oh, and for it beaulicious landscape.

[Gregoshi]

I'm honored to hear and being able to have a conversation with someone who is quite knowledgable about Turkey.

You're welcome LEN.

[Azi Tohak]

Scratch Turkey off my list of places to visit! Need to make them give Constantinople back to Greece before I can go see it I guess.

And I really didn't need to see this before I go work in Turkey's religious-nut cousin either

Azi

[Slyspy]

Why? The tourist's money is still welcome, and I believe that you are involved in engineering rather than missionary work?

Edit:

Greece has never owned that city. Nor is it now known as Constantinople.

[ajaxfetish]

Modern Greece no, but during the days of the Byzantine Empire both the city and the Greek peninsula were part of the same political entity, Greek-speaking and Orthodox Christian.

Ajax

[Adrian II]

Scratch Turkey off my list of places to visit! Need to make them give Constantinople back to Greece before I can go see it I guess.

And I really didn't need to see this before I go work in Turkey's religious-nut cousin either

Azi

Don't you think you are overreacting? The Turks are among the most hospitable people in the world and they have a good sense of humour too. If you have a chance to visit, say, İstanbul, you would be a complete idiot to miss it. İstanbul is a country by itself, a huge sprawling city with a riverfront that hasn't been destroyed by developers, it has layer upon layer of magnificent history, great food, bookshops and libraries, incredible antiques, storytellers on streetcorners, beautiful women, nightlife, &cetera &cetera. And in the early morning you sit down in one the docks with coffee and a ciggy and watch the sun rise thorugh the Bosporus fog.

[AntiochusIII]

Modern Greece no, but during the days of the Byzantine Empire both the city and the Greek peninsula were part of the same political entity, Greek-speaking and Orthodox Christian.

It'd be quite a big stretch for Greece to claim Constantinople based on the old Eastern Roman Empire's cultural ties, though. If they get on it then that's one big slippery slope. And while Istanbul was a multicultural city throughout the entirety of the Ottoman Empire (Thrace being not even particularly Turkish), the modern Turkish state has a much better claim as the direct successor state of the Ottomans than Greece as Byzantium's...and they defended it in the War, a big reason for Kemal's gigantic popularity with the Turkish people as such.

So to give it "back" to Greece is a strange wording. Give it to Greece perhaps, as Azi is making this not-so-serious remark from his standpoint of not wanting to visit Turkey but would've liked to visit the City, but not give "back."

But that's all off topic. All I really do know about Turkey is that it is an extremely interesting nation...one of those nations that receive more attention, be it academic or popular, than others in terms of their history -- USA, Greece, Japan, France, the UK, China -- and that it has its share of truly unique problems. I also admit to real ignorance of Turkish history past the fall of the Ottomans and only a general idea prior (except that the forging of the nation-state out of the crumbling Empire was a real mess). This murder is a terrible sign in a country apparently in conflict with its own identity -- is Turkey Islamic, or secular; what should Turkish Nationalists support between the two; how far would the extremists go, etc.

After all, we outsiders see Turkey from the perspective that it sits on an extremely volatile region of the world.

[ajaxfetish]

It'd be quite a big stretch for Greece to claim Constantinople based on the old Eastern Roman Empire's cultural ties, though.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that there was at least some justification for Azi's choice of words.

Ajax

[Komutan]

But this not the sick attitude of Turkish nationalism, this is the sick attitude of MHP and the likes -

I don't think you can seperate them.

I see it like a pyramid. On top of the pyramid you have the murderers. Just below the top there are a larger number of people who will not commit such murders themselves but are glad that these murders happened. And on the very bottom, there are those who are against such murders but constantly claim that Turkey is being under threat from missonaries, minorities, secret plots of EU and USA etc. If the bottom parts of the pyramid werent there, the top would not exist either.

In recent years I have seen many people blame missionaries for being agents of external forces who want to seize Turkey slowly. Not everybody making these claims were extreme nationalists or Islamists. Some of them were leftists.

[Slyspy]

Modern Greece no, but during the days of the Byzantine Empire both the city and the Greek peninsula were part of the same political entity, Greek-speaking and Orthodox Christian.

Ajax

They were ruled from Constantinople. So Greece proper should belong to Constantinople? I'll just ring the Turkish government and tell them they are the official owners of Greece. They'll be so happy!

[LeftEyeNine]

The Kurds and Armenians were susceptible to foreign assistance and interference because of their second or third class position within the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Their subordinate position and their willingness to secede from (or fight against) the Porte were ruthlessly exploited by the western powers. And they were ruthlessly exploited by the Sultanate and later also by the Young Turks.

The Ottoman state, in turn, played the Kurds against the Armenians, to the point of arming special units of Kurdish horsemen and giving them free rein to attack and loot Armenian homes and settlements. Around 1908 the Young Turks, in their turn, made their peace with the militant Armenians and used their help against the Sultanate for a while.

I don't deny the massacres done to the Armenians, but how come such states politics (of which I don't have a clear idea) could justify murders committed on Turks which eventually led to massacres of revenge called "genocide" ?

And I really don't see the reasoning of racial discrimination in Ottoman state. If you were talking about 1300-1500s or so, I'd believe it but, in a society completely transformed into an Ummah society by the latter and the collapse years, I'd really hesitate to talk about internal nation-based discrimination or exploitations. It would rather be your foreword of this post:

I believe everybody used everybody else, no?

And still nothing can justify massacres, neither ours nor Armenians'.

The whole thing didn't need to end in genocide, deportations and century old hatreds. There were several moments when developments could have taken a turn for the better.

Sure, being a cry baby of EU and USA have never been the right moments. Diaspora Armenians rely on an endless hatred which connects them as a nation outside.

Or as a state, Armenia would be a better place to start a dialogue with, if their constitution was not so "enthusiastic" about their "recognition, restoration and reperation" basis.

The Armenian People,

Recognizing as a basis the fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood and national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia,

Having fulfilled the sacred message of its freedom loving ancestors for the restoration of the sovereign state, committed to the strengthening and prosperity of the fatherland, to ensure the freedom, general well being and civic harmony of future generations,

Declaring their faithfulness to universal values,

Hereby adopts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

... where as the Declaration of Independence of Armenia states in article 11:

...

11, The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.

...

If you stick up a "legitimate knife" in front of my nose, I'll always be ready on the holster, which will never let us sort out things by talking.

Seriously as much as we are/were senseless woods towards this snowball-to avalanche problem, so premature are the Armenians dictating the matter through international pressure, claiming it as a basis of their independence and a prioritized matter of constitution.

Hrant Dink was, although accepting the genocide, trying to help to dissolve the stiffness of the uncompromisable and haughty state of Diaspora Armenians. He is a loss indeed.

The crucial problem which was never overcome I believe was the lack of a solid Ottoman citizenship, based on true equality before the law and regardless of religion or ethnic origin. Both the Porte and the Young Turks wanted to have it both ways. A modern Turkish-Islamic state comprising large numbers of non-Turks and non-muslims was a contradiction that cuold only be resolved through mass-murder and forced resettlement.

Ottoman citizenship was enough to let nations live together while Jews were being witch-hunted. It had to get stuck when dogmatic and religion-oriented way of lifestyle was being slowly abandoned to a more and more liberal state of mind. A nation which was eventually a form of religious aspects would not be able to stand the norms of 20th century and on, it had to stumble and so it happened, me thinks.

Nothing special. I love Turkey, both for its modern culture and people, and for its Ancient roots. The Hittites were the forerunners of all European civilization.
EDIT
Oh, and for it beaulicious landscape.

Yo! You haven't been to Izmir, did you? The only thing that can compete against a ciggy & coffee by the sunrise into the Bosphorus fog is a ciggy & tea by the sun setting into the Aegean Sea.

You're welcome LEN.

And we have Grego-sensei as a tea challenger.

Komutan, I see my reasons to the internal security due to being economically dependent to others, while you see it as the base of the bloody pyramid. The way I (we) could prove that we are not will take time. But for the current time being, I doubt we can agree.

In recent years I have seen many people blame missionaries for being agents of external forces who want to seize Turkey slowly. Not everybody making these claims were extreme nationalists or Islamists. Some of them were leftists.

Socialists and communists love hugging Kurds while some can carry nationalist concerns as well, which is completely "emotional". This is such a country that there are still politicians who were almost able to enter the parliament by handing out 20 YTLs to his "customers"

[ajaxfetish]

They were ruled from Constantinople. So Greece proper should belong to Constantinople? I'll just ring the Turkish government and tell them they are the official owners of Greece. They'll be so happy!

Constantinople was the capital of the 'Greek Empire.' If the French conquered London and held it for some time, and then someone suggested giving London back to the English, would that mean that France should annex the rest of England?

I'm not advocating any modern connection between Constantinople/Istanbul and Greece. That would be purely ridiculous. It's a Turkish city now and should remain so. But Azi's comment about it being given back to Greece is not as misinformed as you suggested. The city was once a Greek city, and the most important one in the world. Anyhow, we're derailing a thread with a tangent that has no bearing on the issue at hand, so let's step aside and let the proper discussion continue.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Apparently they were tortured for some time before being killed:

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php...0-064724-9427r

A sad day, indeed.

CR

[Adrian II]

And I really don't see the reasoning of racial discrimination in Ottoman state.

The Ottoman State was based on both racial and religious discrimination.

From the time of its inception through its death throes the Ottoman State was always based on the premiss of inherent Turkish Islamic superiority. Non-Turks and non-Muslims were regarded as inferior and given lower administrative status. Even the latter-day attempts to introduce modern citizenship (for instance during Tanzimat) were never put into effect. As Bernard Lewis put it, the notion of superiority of Muslim Turks was as difficult for them to shed as it was for western Europeans to shed the notion that they were superior to the black race.

As a result, non-Turks and non-Muslims were never loyal to the Porte unless they could be bought off for a period of time. This crucial political weakness of the Ottoman State, which opened up the empire to endless interference by Christian nations, caused its eventual downfall. In the nineteenth century the centrifugal forces could no longer be contained. The second-rate Christian citizens of the Porte in particular were looking to western Europe as an example and inspiration, and to Christian Russia as a force of salvation. The Porte's own exclusive policies became its undoing.

The Ottoman State was too weak to keep the lid on the non-Turkish and non-Muslim peoples within its borders. It was militarily vulnerable because of its weakness, blindness and backwardness. And so foreign interference became systemic in the nineteenth century, to the point where (British- and Russian-backed) Armenians and other minorities in the Empire were granted privileges and immunities above those granted by Istanbul to its 'own' Muslim Turks.

This caused a growing rancour among Muslim Turks against Christians and other privileged 'inferiors'. That rancour was already evident in the progroms against Armenians and other Christians in the second half of the nineteenth century.

The rancour increased tenfold after Christians in the Balkans and elsewhere threw off the Ottoman yoke, established their own independent states and kiled or deported large parts of their Muslim inhabitants. This rancour among rank and file Muslims, in combination with the increasingly racist theories of the Turkish ruling elite, made the genocide possible.

[LeftEyeNine]

Above all your statements cemented with historical accuracy, I still don't see anything about what Armenians did, which is the general all-time told story of so-called "genocide".

And here it happens once more. It's an Armenian Tales in a Turkish Night again.

[Slyspy]

Constantinople was the capital of the 'Greek Empire.' If the French conquered London and held it for some time, and then someone suggested giving London back to the English, would that mean that France should annex the rest of England?

I'm not advocating any modern connection between Constantinople/Istanbul and Greece. That would be purely ridiculous. It's a Turkish city now and should remain so. But Azi's comment about it being given back to Greece is not as misinformed as you suggested. The city was once a Greek city, and the most important one in the world. Anyhow, we're derailing a thread with a tangent that has no bearing on the issue at hand, so let's step aside and let the proper discussion continue.

Ajax

Quite so.

With no disrespect to LEN, although I confess to know little about Turkish history and less about their Armenian population I must be forgiven for not holding the protestations of a self-confessed nationalist in very high regard. Especially when those protestations take the form of "yeah my lot did bad, but look so did the other lot". That kind of tit-for-tat gets no one anywhere.

[Adrian II]

Above all your statements cemented with historical accuracy, I still don't see anything about what Armenians did, which is the general all-time told story of so-called "genocide".

And here it happens once more. It's an Armenian Tales in a Turkish Night again.

I was trying to explain my view on the run-up to that episode. I want to understand Turkey as it is today and I want to understand its grievances. Like you said, if we want to prevent mistakes from the past we should analyse them. This goes for Turkey and it also goes for western European countries that have played an important part in the conflagrations that nearly spelled the end of Turkey as a nation. So we are in this together, feel free to correct me.

I don't think it is far-fetched to say that the causes of collapse were built into the Empire. Because of the double weakness I mentioned, internal forces and external forces could work together to break it up. Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, Bulgarians and other subject peoples felt no loyalty to the Ottoman State. They understandably armed themselves against pogroms and sought foreign assistance whenever they could.

Western powers were happy to oblige. If it hadn't been for the contradictory purposes and interests of the outside powers, I think the Porte would have been cut up around 1850 and there would have been no state of Turkey left at all. In the 19th century the British and Russians in particular never made it a secret that they wanted to carve up the Ottoman Empire, nothing less. But they blocked each other's attempts to do so. That's the only reason why there was an Ottoman Empire left in 1914.

The Turkish elite knew this and they responded with growing alarm and ever new concepts: Tanzimat, Ottomanism, pan-Islamism and finally pan-Turkism (or Turanism).

I think the Armenian genocide was a last, desperate episode in this lengthy process of loss of territory, political degeneration, moral collapse and nationalist rage. When the Unionist party were faced with the prospect of Allied victory and occupation, they chose to retreat physically and mentally to the Antalya highlands. They wanted to make Antalya their last stand. They even made preparations to move the government there.

And in order to make this Turkish 'heartland' safe for the Turkish population, they set about eliminating the Armenians. It is no surprise that the majority of perpetrators were Muslim refugees from former Ottoman territory in the Balkans (Rumelia), Kurds, and gangs of criminals who had been released from prison for the purpose. The whole thing was coordinated by the Unionist Central Committee, it had been planned beforehand and it was carried out systematically. There is no doubt about that. Even the Germans, the allies of the Ottomans, spelled this out in their consular reports and reports from their officers in the field.

The main lesson I think we can draw from the whole thing is not that Turks are always threatened, but that an ideology of Turkish supremacy is the greatest threat to Turks. And that equal, inclusive citizenship is the key to a Turkish healthy state.

[LeftEyeNine]

And still, your descriptions tell about a muslim non-muslim discrimination in Ottoman society rather than a racial one that I told I had failed to see.

Genocide is a systematical process, of course which would be supported by ideas for those in favor of genocide. Whereas I exactly believe that Armenian Issue is beyond historical accuracy, rather being a political tool.

Even in these fora, in Backroom or Monastery or somewhere else where we were talking about Turkish coffee which suddenly brought back Armenian Murmur, I always faced a strict mentality calling it unrefusable and irrelevant to look up in the archives.

That's why Erdoğan 's invitation to Armenia to search about the matter with a committee was rejected in April 2005, and that's why Armenian historian Ara Sarafyan gave up coming to Turkey to start a research on Armenian Issue by the invitation of Institution of Turkish History chief Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halaçoğlu, which Sarafyan had initially accepted to come.

Once Armenian Tale is agreed to be researched by a committe of Turks and Armenians, I'll agree to its existence and express my condolences if it turns out to be a "genocide" in the end.

The problem is Diaspora Armenians told you everything since they left Anatolia. You never came across with counter proposal.

Especially when those protestations take the form of "yeah my lot did bad, but look so did the other lot". That kind of tit-for-tat gets no one anywhere.

514.000 Turks killed got IrishArmenian saying "yeah we massacred too", which makes both numerous killings a matter of war, massacre, not something systematical called "genocide".

And no it's not that easy to shade a nation. I need consensus reached by the two sides, not overused lies. This should be a matter betwen Turks and Armenians. I want to peace out with people I shared these lands, after reaching an agreement where both parties make the deal.

[Adrian II]

The problem is Diaspora Armenians told you everything since they left Anatolia. You never came across with counter proposal.

The problem for many Turks seems to be that the state told them everything, and they were never allowed (by law) to look at other angles. Second-guessing my sources is not to help you much. The last book I read on modern Turkey was Het moderne Turkije (1993, improved edition 2005) by Professor Erik-Jan Zürcher. He is Dutch, not Armenian, and he has received the Medal of High Distinction from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2005 for 'clearing up misuderstandings and prejudice about Turkey and thereby easing Turkey's accession to the European Union'.

[Kralizec]

The problem is Diaspora Armenians told you everything since they left Anatolia. You never came across with counter proposal.

What do you mean? That the Armenians were the first to come to Europe with the story about it, influenced our point of view wich we never bothered to verify? Or that most European countries have an Armenian lobby wich ensures that only "politically correct" stories end up in the history books? If it's the latter, it's an amazingly well hidden lobby movement because I couldn't name a single Dutch-Armenian person if my life depended on it.

[LeftEyeNine]

The problem for many Turks seems to be that the state told them everything, and they were never allowed (by law) to look at other angles.

The reason why most of the folk says "no we didn't" or "yeah we hell beat it all out of them" is because the state told us NOTHING.

As a general social characteristic of the nation whose history is full of wars in the name of independence but nothing for democratic rights, we expect everything out of the state, the president, the padishah etc. And it ends up like this...

[LeftEyeNine]

Fenring, you have a PM.

Lads, since it seems that the thing is getting off topic here (we even debated on to whom Istanbul belongs or not), I'm kindly requesting not to dwell on subjects unrelated to this saddening incident. Please.

10 under custody due to killings