So by your definition the Armenian Genocide cant be Genocide.. as the Turks werent able to wipe out the entire the people of the Armenian nation..

you got a screw loose mate.

I dont know shit about the Armenian genocide man.
I never said anything about it or bashed you Turks about it.

All I did is give you my definition of the word genocide.

I know what the definitions of genocide are, not disputing them. What I am arguing is that the acts committed by Greeks (and anyone else for that matter) that you call small (well actually you initially called that 30,000 massacre as 'going genocidal') are not really that much different to genocide in my opinion since the motivation for killing a fellow human being is there 100% from an isolated murder to massive orchestrated annihilations.

The fact that Greeks went ape for half a day and killed 30,000 Turks makes them just as despicable as the Turks that went ape and indiscriminately killed Armenians. What more can I say other than: THAT'S HUMANITY FOR YOU!
Again, you're getting hung up on the official term again, which always has differences to the reality.

Yeah but can't you see the contradiction of the two comments you made?

I did say me first statement on genocide was incomplete.
Thats why I revised it.

Yes, you revised it, you didn't ADD to it.

The revision of it makes the two contradictions.

Anyway, just consider my second statement as the valid one mate. Errors of writting stuff before thinking them thoroughly.

Actually we burned many Bulgarian villages, the Bulgarian neighbourhoods of Kilkis and we had our fair share of killing Turks.

However genocide is either organised by the state mass killing of civilians in order to eradicate them. The massacres of Turks in the balkans doesn't fall into this category as they were not extended to the point of eradicating them (don't forget that during the population exchange there were many Turks in the Balkans)

We retaliated against Bulgar bruttality in the Balkans wars. So they know what we are capable of and seize their actions.

We didnt just go slaughtering people with no reason. Nevertheless its an appaling thing to do. You have a problem with an army, you go and face it. You dont kill innocent people.

Ultranationalism and war made all Balkan countries play harsh games.

During world war 2 the Bulgarians seized a great part of Greek territory by using force and terrorizing the local population, they were offered Northern Greece as an award by the Germans for their adherence to the tripartite pact.

Although irrelevant to the topic this fact indicates what kind of methods the Bulgarians used to their occupied territories

You just contradicted urself there.

First of all I want to congradulate most of you for an excellent thread, particularly Dom, SK and Optimaton!!! (You bastards why didn t anyone draw my attention to this thread!!)


I think Dom and Otpim's postings capture the essence of the "two-angles", as they should be, in a moderate,reasonable and scientific debate on the issues of genocide and ethnic cleansing in post-Ottoman territories!

Most of the things I would have contributed to this thread have already been touched upon. I just want to add 3 more points:

a) I noticed that a main problem in the discussion is the dissaggrement on the number of casualties on each side and their distribution among different categories (battle-casualties, civilian collateral damage, organzied ethnic cleansing). I just wanted to point out that the main reason why this is so, is the traditional radicalization of the debate, between deniers and full-on supporters; and more importantly, the reflection of such sentiments on the level of policy and law-making, which humpers historical research on these matters. The Western laws punishing genocide-deniers and its Turkish equivillents are not only clear violations of the freedom of speech and scientific research but also prolongue the state of darkness and hypothesising that governs most current discussions on genocide/ethnic cleansing in Anatolia and the Balkans.

I think it is time for politicians to shut up and finally let the historians do their job!

b) An equally important parametre is the role of diasporas. It is common knowledge that especially American and Australian diasporas of Armenians, Greeks, Macedonians and Turks alike tend to be more extremist on these issues. Often dettached from the realities of their "homelands" they are swift to demonize the other, ascribe genocide, and preach hatred and segregation (at no cost for their personal predicament may I add). On the other hand Armenians and Rums of Turkey or Greek and Armenian nationals, are generally more promising conloqutors in constructive dialogue, because for them coming to terms with their past can bee seen as a prerequisite for good neighbouring relations, which is in turn a prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity.

c)Finally something about the forum. I am tired of hearing about LosM "drinking problem", especially when such comments come as a reply to pretty apt postings on his part. Leave the guy alone. I really do not mind his occasional trolling given that he does it with his usual, good sense of humor. I am sure the forum would be poorer without him.

can cana kan kana LosM abi!

P.S: By far the most touching Turku from this period that I have heard is "Hey Onbesli". It captures exactly the feeling of suffering that Dom spoke of. If anyone has a descent version please upload.

Cheers Polites Kardesim !!

Not to worry, They are just jealous of my good looks and Inhuman drinking ability... When guys take the piss out of someones drinking.. you know they are either a) Lightweights or b) Pussywhipped.

or
c) you actually do have a drinking problem.

and what the fuck do you know about what or how I drink ??? .. Are you psychic Zeus ?? Or maybe you are a stalker ?? following me from bar to bar...