709) From Where Should we Start the Armenian Issue?

From where should we start and what should we do regarding the “genocide” issue, which has become a tool in the hands of the enemies of Turks, Muslims and xenophobics, as Ara Sarafian, a British historian of Armenian origin, aptly points out? Should we feel relieved over the postponement of the French bill to punish the deniers of the Armenian “genocide” or should we feel the need for a fresh look at 1915? I support the second opinion.

It does not take long for people who live abroad to “crash” into the dimensions of the Armenian issue. Everybody has certain memories that he/she cannot forget and feels himself/herself “caught red-handed.” I also have a story:

I was waiting for the green light several years ago. An old lady, about 80 years old, glaring with her elegance asked in French: “Could you please help me if you are getting across?” It is something very common in Brussels. Europeans are getting alone as they get older. Elderly ask the young to help them while they are counting money in the market or crossing the road. I told the old lady that I would help her with great pleasure and asked her if we could continue in English. With a perfect English, she replied jokingly, “how happy I am with such a handsome man” and asked me if I were English. When the green light was on and we began our very short journey across the road, I said, “No, I am Turkish.”

The old woman forcefully pulled her arm with incredible quickness and shockingly said, “I am Armenian and you are our enemies.” I was trying to figure out what she meant and mumbled, “I like Armenians as I like all human beings. Why should we be enemies?” The old woman had already walked several steps ahead, repeating her hatred for Turks, which was enough to understand that it was impossible to continue the talk. I told her I could take her wherever she wanted to go but she refused politely.

As a rule, after such shocking incidents one starts to do further reading about the events and what follows is the melting of your mindset.

Leaving aside funny arguments such as, “It was the Armenians who actually committed the genocide against us,” or “Armenians died of an epidemic,” one has to accept that in 1915, Armenians, then Ottoman citizens, were subjected to oppression and one has to show respect for the loss of Armenian lives. Even Professor Guenter Lewy, who has become a target for the Armenian Diaspora with the claim of being pro-Turkish, put the Armenian death toll at 642,000. It is in vain to fight the Armenian Diaspora without acknowledging the great sorrow of Armenians; under these circumstances, it is impossible to find even a single serious interlocutor in the West.

Acknowledging the suffering will provide an opportunity to utter few meaningful words about the massacres by Armenian gangs, their siding with the invading Russian army and the joy of the Western world while Muslims were being forced out by a genocidal campaign from the Balkans and above everything the heinous campaign by those who aim to clean their conscious over Turkey but refuse to face their own history.

As one starts looking at the issue from a right point of view, one has to break another taboo. It is the notion that Muslims, Kurds and Alevis have vowed to destroy Turkey. I vividly remember the desperation of diplomats when they listened to General Tuncer Kilinc, the former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, when he begun his speech by insulting women with headscarves. Although the general’s trip to Brussels was meant to build unity, he only left ruins behind. If statesmen themselves begin to categorize the Turks in Europe, then tomorrow, you will not find anyone to defend the country and then you will have to insult your own people time and again. There is dire need for the kind of ambassadors who regard themselves as representatives of all the people in Turkey, whether they are Muslims, Kurds or Alewites, but definitely not the kind of people who transfer the headscarf ban of President Ahmet Necdet Sezer to Europe.

As long as the parrot mindset gives answers to Muslims “Turkey is secular, and will remain secular!” to Kurds “You are mountainous Turks,” and to the Armenians “You died of typhus” there will be no remedy to our woes. Just as we respect the dear remains of our people who gave their blood in the Balkans, in the Caucasus and in Yemen, we have to feel the suffering of the Armenians. Only the, we can begin the fight against the genocide plot.



05.31.2006
SELCUK GULTASLI
e-mail:s.gultasli@zaman.com.tr

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&trh=20060531&hn=33567

---

Dear Editor - Moderator Istanbul June 1, 2006

From time to time I enjoy reading the articles appearing on your bulletins originating from ZAMAN correspondents. However, I understand that the writer. may not have had the time even to read other articles printed by your goodselves, and this time sent you 'an editorial trinity', mixing up diaspora antagonism with state secularism, ending with "head scarves" fanaticism, and for which end purpose several facts have been diverted or slandered. I am personally ashamed to be using your web site for an argument in principle, with a person, may be young enough to be my son or even grandson, when two of us share the same faith, may be the same nationality, but definitely different mentality.

I find your web site extremely balanced and well presented and therefore I do not only read everything you publish (most of the time to learn something) but I do take prints and carefully file them, for the value of the contents and reliability of the sources. Naturally, I would expect other writers and readers, to be even more attentive and eager than myself and thus "learn to respect others' thoughts" without taking cover under outdated dogmas or traditions that make no sense in present days.


The first part of the editorial is amicable, understandable and unfortunately reflects the well known antagonism and grudge, down to the marrow of most diaspora Armenians who are brought up with exaggerated or untrue stories. This is no news. I have read Guenther Lewy's book, and diaspora's labeling everyone who does not endorse their genocide stamping as pro-Turk, also is no news. Guenther Lewy's calculation of 642.000 casualties, needs to be debated and documented in view of too many contradictory figures from several reliable sources. The writer may refer to your Art. 667 regarding the Population Dilemma I had worded last year, and which may be updated with new data available, and in view of the figures given by Relief organisations and Armenian representatives, such a number does not mathematically add up, unless huge errors have been made in the figures expressed by Armenian history writers, American Relief Organisations, Paris Conference data, etc. The subject may be debated among other historians, but so far, with my elementary school mathematics, I cannot justify given figure by logic. The truth is still to be calculated more carefully.

In the second paragraph the writer's green covering starts to fall down when he speaks of the right point of view! The writer contradicts himself saying that there is a notion that Muslims, Kurds and Alevites vowed to destroy Turkey ! Such a populist slander is out of any reason. 98% of the people of Turkey, regardless of their ethnicity are of muslim faith! Will these 98% people commit suicide or destroy their homeland ? And who is to decide and discriminate as regards who believes and does what in his own privacy ? The writer accuses our President Sezer for putting a taboo on headscarves and hence need of new kind of ambassadors (?) to represent "all of the people" (possibly wearing Iran Mullah outfits, fez or Arabian clothing)! The writer also charges General Tuncer Kilinc for insulting women that wear scarves, but gives no explanation as regards the location, circumstances, reason and relation of the headscarves with a meeting of such a high degree of Military Representative, sworn to defend secular constitution. It is a vague statement, likely aimed to give an immunity to all women wearing headscarves and even receiving a priority as devoted muslims, versus the other who are not (because of their showing hair)! Our President is not a King or Khalif, has no power to put any ban, or divert from any subject, not written in the consitution or laws. This insistance of dogmatic symbolism or stubborness, is against our Consitution, our laws.Even the applications made to European Court of Justice, have been refused as well. But the sympathizers still drag this nonesense argument out of the borders of Turkey all the way to Europe, (as if this is our top problem) and even make it a part of the genocide issue !


Such tricks to pull Turkish Republic to Koranic Sharia laws ( made for bedoins some fifteen centuries ago) will bring nothing but discontent, because new religion traders will drive their sympathizers to extremeties, which may even jeopardize the existing full liberty of everyone to excersize his own belief, wherever and whenever he wants but not to make it a public show, because it concerns no one - but individual. Such freedom is confirmed in most holy books. Personally, I would hate to see anyone in the court answering judge in her bikini bathing suit or covered up like a walking ghost in Afgan burka. Wake up gentlemen, let the women learn, think and judge for themselves. There are too many books written in Turkish and some in English explaining the background of the headcovering habit, starting from the Sumerian temple prostitudes serving pagan gods, down to Babylonians having strict laws that are even translated in Turkish books, thereafter passing on two Egyptian clergy, Judaism. Christianity and finally muslims, but only after the return of the Prophet to Mecca, (where all women, free or slave, wore no head covers since everyone knew each other and knew who is a slave prostitude or a free women!. It is only after that period, that this separation was imposed for good.The slave prostitudes could not wear headscarves. This is what the history books tells and prove, but no one dares to go to science when marketing the afterlife salvage as early as now.


Speaking of "parrot mindsets" (familiar for those memorizing holy books) I wish to remind the writer of below excerpts, which is universally good for all similar cases. Refer to:

“Deceptions and Myths of the Bible� Lloyd Graham, Citadel Press., ISBN 0-8065-1124-9;


A section from the preface goes like this; “The Bible is the Book of the Church… The Jewish Church stands behind the Old Testament. The Christian Church stands behind the New Testament. The Bible is the Making. And behind the Church stands the priesthood.�

The back cover reads like this; “Mr. Graham believes it is time this scriptural tyranny was broken so that we may devote our time to man instead of God and to civilizing ourselves instead of saving our souls that were never lost.�


As regards the dramatic finale of the writer, I cordially invite the writer and readers to kindly read and learn from your self-explanatory Art. 679 and 692 . It appears that the writer has not heard of Khatchaznuni or A.A.Lalayan, nor read any serious books in English or Turkish, before soaking his pen in green ink..

With thanks, cordially,

Sukru S. Aya