|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 18, 2008 3:36:37 GMT -5
"Greeks in that time were also in a hasty retreat. The damage they were doing could not possibly have been total and complete. It was hasty destruction as a means of weakening Turkey as much as possible. "
Dont be so pro-turk...that is not what happened. I know you have your bias...but please.. That is so out of touch w/ reality its not even funny..
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 18, 2008 3:54:49 GMT -5
Thats all? Smyrna was a Holocaust in comparison to that. Thats really not much. As you see the great numbers refer to material damage. As I said above I wished it were the Greeks who burned the villages...and Smyrna. But I dont think so....tell me why....should the Turks who killed so passionate tens of thousands of humans, let the material things totally untouched as you claim? That doesnt make sense at all Tourkala and you have to admit that. The Greek army has been in Anatolia for years with the support of the British Empire, and committed horrible crimes that paved the ways to the "Greek Disaster" in Izmir. It was the Greek and Armenians which started the fire. That is why, most wealthy parts of Izmir (belonging to the Greeks and Armenians) were burned down. After all, why would anyone burn a wealthy house abandoned by the owner?
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 18, 2008 4:01:02 GMT -5
" After all, why would anyone burn a wealthy house abandoned by the owner? " - Jan
Bcause that is your specialty..that is what you do. Like the Huns....you just destroy. It is in your nature...
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 18, 2008 4:02:57 GMT -5
Because of the same reason he destroys the life of the house's owner.
Anyway... the important thing is Turkey couldnt benefit from the wealthiness...stupid as they are.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 18, 2008 4:16:11 GMT -5
He is taking revenge for not supporting Kosovo. Let him do, I support Serbia independendly from if he supports turkey or not.
|
|
|
Post by Toskaliku on Jun 18, 2008 4:25:41 GMT -5
Same on my part. Now follow the discussion rather then whose discussing.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 18, 2008 5:14:42 GMT -5
Bcause that is your specialty..that is what you do. Like the Huns....you just destroy. It is in your nature... Your specialty must be entertaining the Turks for free. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jun 18, 2008 9:32:04 GMT -5
Romania has admitted its role in the genocide, yet we were not discussing that; and I don't see how mentioning that helps your argument. I asked you if you believe that the populance should be held accountable for their actions. Not just in this case, but in general. You avoided answering that question and brought up other things. I tried to debate seriously with you, but it seems that you like to keep to your old habbits. Too bad...
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 18, 2008 13:27:46 GMT -5
Romania has admitted its role in the genocide, yet we were not discussing that; and I don't see how mentioning that helps your argument. I asked you if you believe that the populance should be held accountable for their actions. Not just in this case, but in general. You avoided answering that question and brought up other things. I tried to debate seriously with you, but it seems that you like to keep to your old habbits. Too bad... I think I explained to you the difference between "genocide" and "violence emerged as a consequence of ethnic conflicts or wars". Greek-Turkish conflict did not stem from racial or religious hatred, but stemmed from the desire to dominate a certain piece of land in line with the certain rationale applicable at a given point in time. There was no such thing in the extermination process of the Romas or the Jews. Those two were exterminated since these peoples were deemed as "subhumans" or "some social infection that must be sterilized". That is why, I do not try to blame the Greek or the Bulgarian nations for executing ethnic crimes during some revolts or developing nationalist views against the ruling Ottomans, however, I do see Russia still accountable for the genocides committed on tens of millions, just like some innocent Armenians might see the Ottomans accountable for their expulsion from Anatolia, and the sufferings experienced due to loss of hundreds of thousands of their relatives. In these events of Izmir, there is nothing that can be named as "democide" or "genocide" as every war involves such clashes particularly if the conflicting nations have each others' minorities in within the conflicting areas. So, one might talk about pogrom (even one can even speculate involvement of the government), but one can not alter the definitions as one wishes, I think. I hope I explained what I meant more clearly this time.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 18, 2008 13:49:48 GMT -5
You just say that because you know very well that the Turks have killed hundred times more humans of these peoples than vice versa, with other words you are absolutely aware of the fact that your people was the committer, while the other oppressed peoples your victims.
A murderer wont blame his victim for scratching him either...
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jun 18, 2008 13:54:21 GMT -5
My question to you was not about genocide, nor was my argument about genocide; so yes, thank you for taking the time to explain it to me, but that's not what I asked for. If it helps you answer my question (see above), then annul my mentioning of genocide in my argument. The reason I mentioned it was because I wanted to point out to the mentality of man and make a connection between the different states of mind. That same state of mind that can cause people to act irrationaly, can be found everywhere--even in the street--not just in massive events. To make it clear: I was not trying to suggest that what transpired in Smyrna should be counted as genocide.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 18, 2008 15:09:25 GMT -5
My question to you was not about genocide, nor was my argument about genocide; so yes, thank you for taking the time to explain it to me, but that's not what I asked for. If it helps you answer my question (see above), then annul my mentioning of genocide in my argument. The reason I mentioned it was because I wanted to point out to the mentality of man and make a connection between the different states of mind. That same state of mind that can cause people to act irrationaly, can be found everywhere--even in the street--not just in massive events. To make it clear: I was not trying to suggest that what transpired in Smyrna should be counted as genocide. I understand what you mean. How one could be a part of some social hysteria, or how could one approve to participate in a war of aggression or some acts of violence? I think, people go through different life experiences after all. Some get decent education, family care and social status, some do not. Even cultural barriers could impose one to develop certain values. What I am saying is the fact that people might behave differently under altered or stressful circumstances. Usually, when one commits a crime, he/she knows as whether it is some good or bad act, but in most cases, people tend to avoid the consequences. That is where justification takes in to play, I suppose. War is after all, is an act of social violence. It is primitive by definition. However, when a war breaks out, you never know how you could act, it all depends upon the circumstances you are in. During some acts of social violence, or some clash between different groups, one could hold on some humanitarian values, but some others might not. Ultimately, it is hard to judge the past by looking from certain distance. As you imply, even though it is important to discuss the liabilities of each entity, I am not so sure as whether this could help to prevent violence stemming from the habits of human societies. Perhaps it might be helpful to reveal the sequences of events leading to social hysteria or mass violence.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 18, 2008 16:15:15 GMT -5
Perhaps if islam wasnt a religion based on the sword...maybe less killings would of been commited. I mean afterall.. when they are fighting against christian gavur infidels...it makes it a lot easier to kill. Combine that w/ ataturk ideology of the " young turks " and eliminating traitors then that is a perfect mix for a genocide. Rwanda is a perfect example, they were killing each other, due to commands being broadcasted on the radio ! There is no doubt about the killing frenzy the turks commited against ethnic natives of the land. They must learn to accept it...hopefully soon.
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jun 18, 2008 20:32:51 GMT -5
Oh, may be they should have done as Crusaders did when they seiged Jerusalem and killed everybody (Muslims, Jews and even Christians). And they have send a proud letter claiming the march in the streets of Jerusalem through the rivers of blood up to their knees... Ok? Please, don't even start with the sword cliche... Turks had enough to time to wipe out all the Christians and Jews during their 500 year rule. Yet all of those millets preserved their ethnic IDs and their religion...They should thank us for that instead of badmouthing... Instead you can tell me more about Christian tolerace if you will? You can start with the times of Inquisition... Thanks...
But the fact is that if somebody decides to side with one side of warring powers then it means you become a part of it and you agree to take the risk of diying in the course... And of those who die in the conflict they are considered victims of war not of innocent victims of genocide...
PEACE
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 19, 2008 2:02:32 GMT -5
Yahac...the crusades example will not work. Nor will the inquisition example work... bottom line is this...there are no more greeks left in turkey, you completely wiped them out. Meanwhile you are supporting a minority of over 100000 " turks " in Greek thrace. You tell me who is doing a better job in protecting its minorities.... And yes...during the ottoman empire the " millets " were peaceful, however when turks took notice that the empire was falling apart, that is when the "millets" became a target. I mean how else would you have a turkey for turks when there are so many other ethnic groups in the country. right ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade#Hussite_CrusadeEastern Orthodoxy Like Muslims, Eastern Orthodox Christians also see the Crusades as attacks by "the barbarian West", but centered on the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Among vast[citation needed] quantities of gold, which was accumulated for more than 1300 years by the Roman Empire, many relics and artifacts taken from Constantinople are still to be found in the West, in the Vatican and elsewhere, like the Greek Horses on the façade of St. Mark's in Venice. Both the cultural and the economic capital gained after of the sack of Constantinople played a significant part in the rise of the Italian cities that gave birth to renaissance.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jun 19, 2008 6:22:50 GMT -5
Is someone having difficulty to distinguish political forces and enemy forces from civilian establishments? Because I don't think anyone asked the kids what side of the conflict they wanted to play on. They just happened to be there.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 19, 2008 7:18:55 GMT -5
kids ?! c'mon Anittas...everyone knows that was just collateral damage...pfft...kids....
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jun 19, 2008 8:14:31 GMT -5
The point is that your argument about religious difference played some role in this is ridiculous. Somebody who defends his own country doesn't have to look any further in order to know what to do. If Greeks were greedy enough to get a piece from somebody elses cake they should take the risk of slap on the face. And that is what exactly happened.
They got their slap along with their local collaborators (traitors). What is so hard to understand?
And unfortunately when there is adeadly conflict for possesion of some piece of land there is always innocents suffering. That is sad but very hard to avoid sometimes.
Those who knowlingly kill kids, women and elderly are guilty for sure and should be punished on this life if not then they don't escape the devine justice.
But I am not going to whine about some hysterical Greek soldiers who sacked the towns they lost on their way back home. They came here to steal what was ours, but were not good enough to achieve that.
Well, sorry, so long... You didn't get it because you didn't deserve it Live with that and be satissfied with whatever is left to you.
If you don't want to, then next time prepare better...
PEACE
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 19, 2008 8:44:24 GMT -5
you mean to tell me that smyrna was not rightfully greek ? are you kdding me ? The name alone should give you a clue ! Anyway, we had the city. We lost it due to our own " greediness " not by your cleverness or bravery...for some reason we tried to push you back to the altai mountains where you belong. But unfortuantly, we should of stopped somewhere along the middle... your're right again...better luck next time
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jun 19, 2008 9:27:31 GMT -5
What he means is that the winner is right and the loser is wrong.
|
|