Turks,Armenian debate,archives and implication of results

We dont apoligize for things that we havent comitted. It is something about your pride. 

And even if Ottomans had comitted such a crime (they didnt, just assuming), why would we accept their guilt and apoligize to Europeans? We arent Ottomans. Ottomans have never considered themselves as a single nation or ethnicity. We are just the Turkish nation-state that successed fro the empire. Ottomans didnt consider themselves as Turks. This is it. They didnt even speak Turkish. Even their Pashas werent Turkish. So if there is someone who has to apoligize for both Turks and civilian Armenians, that is the Armenian seperatist gangs, Russian imperialists, and some servant Pashas. And even the Armenians should apoligize to themselves because their high class educated society ruled the empire from Istanbul for the last two centuries and caused all these violence and inhumanity.

And in every single anti-Turkish discussion, we see at least one Greek declaring his hatred in their term of "being civilized". They try to show themselves as oppressed subjects but their ancestors were the richest class of the Empire who didnt even fight in the armies and who ruled the empire. If there is someone oppressed, this is Anatolians, since the beginning of their rule, Turkmens and other societies of some sub-sects. In he latest periods of the Ottoman reign, thousands of Turkmens all over Anatolia starved to death while some non-Turks in �stanbul were busy with their non-existant panTurkism.

Yes, Denkta� is a butcher, like all other butchers. They cut the needed amount of meat, and let the others live. So did Denkta�. He killed the some murderers which had to be killed, and then let the rest of the Greek society survive, because whatever happens, they were civilians. So he only killed the ones who didnt respect Turkish existance in Cyprus, and didnt respect human rights. He had cut the necessary amount of meat he had to.

No, no, no. You got me totally wrong here. I respect our past much more than all Greeks respect theirs'. And I dont need any Greek to teach me to respect our past.

Ottoman Empire is our past, noone can deny it, and noone needs to deny it. We have a history that we have to be proud of, and Ottoman Empire is one of the highest levels of reaching Turkic goals in our history. I have always been proud of my past, like all other Turks who know their pasts.

But Ottoman Empire was a multi-national empire that had no specific ethnicity instead of being Ottoman. Greeks, Armenians etc. were non-Muslim Ottomans and Turks, Arabs etc. were Muslim Ottomans. But the Ottoman dynasty didnt consider themselves as Turks. Because they believed that they had reached the upper level of social unification, the state of empire. So the subjects werent differed according to their ethnicities but their religions/sects.

I meant that they didnt speak Turkish in the meaning of the language spoken by Turks of "tashra", and outside of Istanbul. They have spoken a version of Turkish, Ottoman Turkish. Their vocabulary was halfly consisted of Arabic, Persian words, but the grammer and language were all based on Turkish.

So we, current Turks arent Ottomans like you, current Greeks arent Byzanthines. But the Ottomans were of course Turkish origined, not something other, like the Byzanthines were Greek origined, not Roman or some other nation.

I meant the collapse of all governmental functions and the lose of Ottoman authority to non-Turks here. In the declining period of the empire, they lost their identities almost totally and the ruling class of the empire became non-Turkish subjects such as Armenians and Greeks. So I still say that the latest period of the Ottoman reign cannot be considered as a Turkish empire, since they were to degenerated. This is what I meant all over my post. Just dont try to change my sentences into your ideal, denier Turkish syndrome, ok??

Phallanx,

You are as Ottoman as me and Baracuda. Ottomans werent Turkish. They were a multi linguistical, multi ethnical, multi religious empire which had no single national identities. And they didnt call themselves Turks, but "kayser-i Rum"s (Roman caesar). Isnt it clear? Realize history, there was no such thing as Turkish Ottoman Empire...

And, certainly, you arent the one to say me I should be ashamed. No. You should be ashamed. Ottoman Empire were yours, just like it was also Turks', Armenians' and others. And you are the denier of your past, not me.

I have never excused in my last post and I dont need any excuses. I wrote what I think and what I know, and I still support my vision on this issue. But I saw that some forumers couldnt understand it the same way that I meant, so I feeled I had to clear my points. This is it. Dont try to show me as a denier, who has to be ashamed of himself, because this is your personality. I am a Turkmen, I am Turkish, but I am not an Ottoman. Our past is Ottoman, and your past is Ottoman too. We were both different elements of a single Ottoman ethnicity and identity once. The only difference btw us in the Ottoman categorization was our religions/sects.

Almost forgot, you actually accepted what I've been saying all along, that you're NOT original Ottomans, NOT the "pure" decendants of the Mongols that came conquered and formed the empire. You're a mixture of the last years of the empire, as you so correctly put it.

What? Ottomans (Ottoman dynasty) werent originally Mongoloids. They were Turanoids and Turkmens.

Osman Bey, the son of Ertughrul Gazi, who was a Turkmen Uchbegh of the Seljuks of R�m.

And believe what you wanna believe, but if you visit Anatolia sometime, you will witness that lots of us are still Turanoids, and the sons of the Turkish ancestry. Of course, big amounts of intermixing happened btw some societies. But these intermixing havent happened all over the population.

You know I didnt mean ethnic purity or any racist statements. I am all aware of these, dont need your history classes here. I live in Turkey while you live in Russia.

I didnt mean ethnicities by saying "non-Turkish". A person whose family is Turkic originated but very mixed with the locals is Turkish. But a person who speaks Turkish but whose father is an Armenian archibishop isnt Turkish. I can differ them easily, and dont need your advices. Of course, I also know Atat�rk's famous sentence: "Ne mutlu T�rk'�m diyene". But we cant exept a Polish guy to become Turkish if he repeats these words. This is redicilous. But of course, with the new national identity of our country's nation was a national unification of realizing the mentality of being Turkish. This isnt an ethnic thing of course, but we have to have a common history, common language, common national goals and a common religion to be the members of the same ethnicity. This isnt that simple to figure which nation did most of the latest pashas of the Ottoman Empire beloged to. But we can say them they were non-Turkish according to their pasts, visions, and masters.

Yeah, in fact, they had broken a bunch of dinosour eggs, but these eggs werent Armenians or Pontiac guys. This is why we are all fighting for not to be blamed for European stories.

And I think they have been enormously, even excessively tolerant to some of their subjects that those once subjects ruled the empire in its latest periods and tortured its own, mother population in Anatolia. Sometimes, overtolerance ends with the causes of ungratitude and the "besle kargay�" syndrome...