Comments by "William Davis" (@williamdavis9562) on "Jabzy" channel.

@GermanConquistador, you might want to do a little more research on the matter.
5
@Halo CE Magnum, last I checked Turkey still has the same secular laws they've had for a very long time. I'm no fan of Erdogan but can people please stop these tired intellectually lazy cliches which crumble under a microscope? Legally speaking it's still a secular republic with the same laws.
4
@makky6239 At what point did the Russians who were having a economic meltdown not going to do business just to please the Greeks? Seriously?
3
@cabinessenceking And one would have thought invasions and colonization might have had a small part to play in how the middle east is. Yea, lets just ignore the 900lbs elephant in the room lol
3
@cabinessenceking Yes except few nations in any region have been continually occupied for the past 600 years non stop. The middle east is still occupied. You can't possibly say with a straight face that such situations won't effect stability. Oil is probably their biggest curse. The fact you think decolonization actually happened 70 years ago shows how little you know of this region. The only nation in that region which isn't colonized right now is Iran. And you can see how that situation is leading to intense pressure on them. Syria, Iraq and Libya tried their hand at decolonization and you know how that turned out for them.
3
@fanthony But none of these places have been occupied in most cases for 100s of years. So how can you compare that to the middle east which is still occupied? You literally just proved my point without realizing it. Less emotions, more rationality please. Think of how f'ed up the Balkans were when they were still occupied. That is the middle east today. What part of this is confusing you?
3
@fanthony Dude this was like 500 years ago, stop using it as a crutch.
2
@rasputin1917 I get the point you're trying to make but it doesn't really apply here. Especially considering this country was occupied by the allied forces at the time of this "war of independence." They were fighting the French, British and Greeks. Perhaps you didn't know these forces had occupied them?
2
@DimiosTheGreatGR I don't remember watching another video of Greek Cypriots going full Hitler mode in slaughtering a small minority group on an island. I guess killing unarmed civilians was a lot more fun than facing an army. When the Turks showed up they barely fought back lol
2
@DimiosTheGreatGR I'm honestly not about to try to learn history from someone who is completely and utterly bias and then also ignores the fact that a majority group on a small island tried to exterminate a small ethnic minority on said island. Someone this callus and emotionally involved in a topic cannot be taken seriously. I appreciate your efforts though but you really do need to be less emotional and more rational about these things.
2
@DimiosTheGreatGR The hallmark of all ethnic cleansing deniers. "We were simply defending ourselves." This isn't one of those instances where that argument is even possible. Greek Cypriot leaders made speeches claiming along the lines of "we won't rest until there is no (insert ethnic group here) left on this island." That isn't something you can simply sweep under the rug with vague accusations about how they "deserved it." In the modern era you simply cannot go on a campaign of mass slaughter against a small minority and not expect repercussions. Especially when that small minority group has a big brother not too far away. Forget the moral insanity of doing such a thing, when boiled down into pure geo politics how dumb were the Greeks to assume a reaction wouldn't come to this mass slaughter? Stupid things get stupid prizes and they lost almost half their island.
2
@fanthony No the middle east is not exceptional but it is also one of those places which is still under occupation. Just like a select few other places. The Balkans have fully decolonized for well over 100 years now. India almost as long. Neither of these nations can possibly claim colonialism is doing anything to them today. I think the issue here is that your feelings don't seem to care about facts. You're reaching out at issues with your emotions rather than the rational part of your brain. Trying to cherry pick things to fit a narrative that for one reason or another sooth your emotions. I've noticed this a lot in younger generations of men. Perhaps it has something to do society feminizing men. It's sad to witness.
2
To be fair the Balkans were doomed long before the Ottomans got there. And will be doomed long after they've gone.
1
@fanthony Using older colonialism from 100s of years ago is a crutch yes, I've been saying that for years. But talking about current ONGOING colonialism is a different story no? I'll say again, what part of this confuses you?
1
Not to mention how much he cherry picked information regarding certain events. Perhaps not by design but just by lack of proper sources or straight up laziness.
1
@jimmyotool9533 I could nit pick at a lot of things but one thing really stuck out with me. The focus of my history education was mainly centered on Anatolian history. So when he was going through what was going on between the Turks and Armenians I noticed many oddities. Nothing he said was factually false but again seemed to be cherry picked. Such as what went on at Van. He conveniently just skipped over the fact the Armenians massacred the Turkish civilians in the city of Van before they left. The reason this stuck out in my head was when I was reading the Russian army officer accounts of how dumbfounded they were by the atrocities while they were helping control the city with the Armenians. Again all of the atrocities he articulated that were done by the Turks was spot on. I just found it odd how he was telling the story of Van and simply skipped over what was done to the Turkish civilians there as if it never happened. Big red flag as to the veracity of his sources. There are 100s of other things like that but it would take forever to articulate. Again I doubt it was done in purpose, probably just due to absorbing on source really quick and running with it. Essentially academic laziness. It does matter though when you're displaying these things to the public. People appreciate historical accuracy. Going into detail about the atrocities of one group, telling a story about a city and completely ignoring a massacre committed by another group is kind of strange. "They just left Van" Yea that is what happened lol
1
@SamStrange-fy1wm when you have to go back over 1 thousand years in history in a failed attempt rationalize crimes of today. You know you've lost the plot
1
@Ramputin Czar, from this little thing called occupation.
1
@rasputin1917 I'd imagine you need to look up what the word occupation means. It doesn't revolve around your subjective view on the migration patterns of humans from thousands of years ago. According to your logic I can invade Australia, slaughter the inhabitants and occupy the place and they wouldn't be able to call it an occupation? An occupation is when you go somewhere and take over a place against the will of the people living there. Words matter, so do definitions. As far as this Mongolia thing, it's pretty damned ridiculous. Yes I'd imagine the Turks themselves have been brainwashed to believe they are the descendants of nomadic horsemen from the Asian steppe. The reality is that the vast majority of people living in Turkey today are merely assimilated indigenous Anatolians. If you look at western Anatolia in particular, they were once upon a time invaded and assimilated by Hellenic forces. Then they were invaded and assimilated by Turkic horsemen. Now I'll simply wait for the Greeks and Turks to attack this post. Both parties seem to be allergic to reality.
1
@rasputin1917 It actually is when the name of the country is literally named after the ethnic group who conquered it. The fact the people who conquered are for all intents and purposes not there anymore. It is an interesting thing to explore. Also the Ottomans never invaded and occupied what today is Turkey. The Selcuk empire did. When the Ottomans came to be, Anatolia was already under Turkic occupation. But calling the people there today occupiers is rather ridiculous considering their ancestors are indigenous, they've been there literally forever. You do know what occupation means right? Less emotions and more reason and logic please. Facts>your feelings.
1
@DimiosTheGreatGR Is that your debate tactic? Claim the person said something they clearly didn't and then attack that statement? I don't remember denying anything, in fact our conversation was about your completely and utterly denying ethnic cleansing campaign the majority on Cyprus took against the minority. A campaign which they were fairly open and honest about doing. This idea that I'm denying past genocides by the Turks is ridiculous considering they haven't even been mentioned. I'm a large proponent of the Turks recognizing the Armenian genocide and debate this quite often. I however fail to realize what exactly that has to do with Greek Cypriots slaughter and ethnically cleansing civilians. You really need to stop coming off as one of those ethnic cleansing deniers my man. It can't be difficult to admit that slaughtering an ethnic minority is wrong. How terrible of a human being do you have to be to not agree such a thing is wrong.
1
@DimiosTheGreatGR You're quite literally ignoring what triggered the event you're complaining about. That would be like me trying to kill someone's family and then that guy showing up and killing me. Imagine people completely ignoring the part about what I did to trigger this event and only focusing on what the guy did in defense of his family. Pure and utter insanity. Can we agree that ethnically cleansing a minority group on an island is wrong and usually leads to bad things happening? Or again are you one of those people who believes ethnically cleansing the island would have been a good thing and you're simply angry the Turks showed up to stop it? Be intellectually honest for once, is that why you're angry about the invasion, because it stopped an extermination program you wished went through?
1
Oddly enough that was the exact time the Europeans showed up
1
@Adir-Yosef You can't track back who started colonization. It is something humans do. The first colonization was probably by cavemen who colonized another group's cave. Still doesn't change the fact that any society which is currently under an occupation isn't going to be a properly functioning society.
1
@Adir-Yosef With in the confines of this debate it is irrelevant where you start. We're talking about people who are colonized right now this second. Not people who "were" colonized.
1
@IsaiahYoung-mu1zh so you’re saying Israel and Palestine is the most peaceful place around? Considering your logic about colonization? Is that your stance?
1
@IsaiahYoung-mu1zh do you realize how insane you sound? You might as well try to convince me men can get pregnant or that 1000 genders exist
1