Turkey the land of delusions part deux

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 17, 2011 at 07:21

Our dear John (your name is really John (If so then my name must be Mehmet) ? whose ancestors the Greeks and the Armenians and the Assyrians were brutalized by the Turkish hordes that destroyed the Byzantine Empire and detached his likes from their heritage and now he has to be a Turk and speak the language of the invaders and to add insult to injury he is now a follower of the religion of the Arabs and a real Turkish propagandist and no wonder that the Turks are the most insecure and confused people on earth

>Quoting from Times as a source is wrong in the first place. Times is a magazine composed of writers who have their "opinions" on certain matters heard/read world wide. They do not provide information neutrally nor do they report facts as they are. They simply publish their opinions.

Mr. Einstein is is Time and not Times magazine and you know what? did you read the article? I suspect you did not so how dare you comment on something that you did not even read? Let me help you what makes such article a valid reference is that it is an extant literary source (Oh Extant? you need to look this word up) that does not mean that what the author is saying is right or wrong it only means that this is what the author believes happened and you mr Einstein has to apply the tools of literary criticism to prove that the author is right or wrong but all you did is that you made a fool of yourself and you proved to us that you are clueless

So I Mehmet will give you another chance: Prove to us that such article does not reflect what really happened and it is your chance to shine our dear John whose ancestors were brutalized by the Turkish hordes

>That being said,

What being said? that you do not know what to do with extant literary sources? I see

>the people that were hung at the time were accused of "attempting to assisinate the president" or "related to this attempt" . And at the time Ataturk was the president.

I guess if Turks kill 1.3M Armenians in cold blood and deny it what is the big deal about killing a few Turks and then justify it you tell us mr Einstein?

>Even today such an attempt is punishable by death in most of the "modern" countries.

Really? where?

>Ataturk may have been many things but "dictator" was not one of them. Dictators throughout the history, do not form (or at least try to form) a democracy.

Hello: Turkey is not and has never been a democracy as you have to have pluralism and secularism first

And here is a test: go out in downtown occupied Constantinople and shout: There was really an Armenian Genocide and let us see what happens to you

What do you think would happen to you our dear John whose ancestors were brutalized by the Turkish hordes?

Hint: Midnight express!

>In your comment, you sound as if he tried to form his own kingdom with him as the ruler of all! You pretend all the reforms he made, all his ideas do not exist. You also seem to forget the fact that a new country was being formed at the time. He simply did not have the time to change people's minds.

Why would anyone want to change "people's mind"? You tell us

>He had to make it happen fast!

Make what happen fast? Oh the denial that 1.3M Armenians (your own ancestors gasp!) were killed in cold blood? or the killing in cold blood of 1M Greeks (your own ancestors gasp again!) or the forgotten Assyrian Genocide (your own ancestors gasp again and again!) or the deportation of 2M Greeks from their homeland in Asia Minor from time immemorial?

So much for pluralism and seculalism Turkish style

>Imagine all the opposition he encountered when he mentioned that people should not be prosecuted according to Islamic law, that a modern law system is needed.

Could it be because al-shari3a al-islamiyya is ridiculous and so is Islam?

>Imagine;

Imagine what? that you are really ignorant? we know that already! Or that you are no more than another Turkish propagandist? we also know that

>all the imperial forces supporting islamic movements so that a strong/free/democratic cannot be formed. You think after the First World War, the war was over? After the establishment of the Republic, all was good?

What was good or not good? you mean the bloody past of the Turks and their imperialism?

>I agree with your comments on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a "must have" for a democracy.

If so then i suggest that you stand at the front door of let us say hagia Sofia and demand that it be given back to the Greeks and let us see what happens to you

A Turk that talks about freedom of speech! Oh spare us this one

>People should have the right to speak their mind and should not be prosecuted for it. However, freedom of speech do not grant people the right to attack a great leader.

If so then there really is no freedom of speech in Turkey!

>Even though, I support Ataturk and his ideals, I agree with you; criticizing him should not be punishable by law.

And how about telling the world that there was really an Armenian Genocide? why any Turk would be punished for stating the truth? you tell us

>However, that law was only came into effect after extreme-islamists (again supported by impeial forces, especially US)

Oh blame al-kuffar a typical Muslim tactic

Spare us this one too

>started swearing him/his ideals/his legacies and the Republic of Turkey. And believe me, they were not criticizing him...

So what were they doing?

>Anyway, of all the good Ataturk has done to my country, I want people to show respect.

What respect? respect is earned and the turks with their bloody past have no earned it

>And there are many like me. And that's why every year on his memorial, at the exact time, people like me stop whatever they are doing and share a moment of silence. And that is not enforced by law of any kind.

One word: gobbledygook

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".