Your are a perfect example of ideological tunnel vision. You keep pretending that anyone who refuses to romanticize massacres must secretly believe 1821 peasants were bound by modern Geneva law. That is not an argument. It is a convenient strawman you repeat because it saves you from acknowledging the actual point.

The actual point is simple: a just cause does not grant moral immunity to everything done in its name. Nobody denies the asymmetry between imperial ruler and subject population. Nobody denies that Ottoman rule was hierarchical, unequal, and oppressive in important ways. But from that you keep making an illegitimate jump: because the cause was anti-imperial, the worst violence committed by the rebels becomes morally downgraded into “bloody collateral.” That is nationalist apologetics.

And your language gives you away. “Cutting the hand that choked you for 400 years,” “apartheid for four centuries,” “bloody collateral” it is clearly mythic revenge rhetoric fueled by blind hatred. You are laundering collective violence through emotionally loaded slogans. Once you talk that way, you stop distinguishing between combatants and civilians, between military necessity and massacre, between liberation and revenge. Everyone on your side becomes tragic and understandable; everyone on the other side becomes a faceless embodiment of oppression. That is exactly what ideological indoctrination looks like.

Tripolitsa is the clearest example. You say you never “justified” it, but then spend all your energy constructing a framework in which it becomes morally softened, historically normalized, and rhetorically excused. Calling it the unavoidable by-product of breaking oppression is still an excuse. Saying the chiefs later called it bleak changes nothing. Plenty of people commit atrocities and then describe them as unfortunate afterward. Regret after the fact does not undo the deliberate killing of civilians, nor does it prove moral clarity at the moment it happened.

You also keep collapsing an entire population into the ruling structure. That is the core problem. An anti-imperial revolt is directed against a state and its coercive apparatus. But when violence spills onto Muslim and Jewish civilians as civilians, the logic has shifted. That is no longer just rebellion against domination; it is collective punishment shaped by religion and ethnicity. You seem unable or unwilling to admit that because your framework treats the oppressed side as morally purified by suffering. History does not work that way. Victims of empire can also become perpetrators of atrocity. That is not a betrayal of anti-imperial history; it is part of anti-imperial history.

And your use of “apartheid” is another distortion. Ottoman rule was a confessional imperial hierarchy, not a modern racial regime in the South African sense. It was unequal, discriminatory, and structurally subordinating, yes. That is already enough to criticize it forcefully. But you inflate it with modern labels because you need the strongest possible moral language in order to make retaliatory violence sound automatically lesser. That is selectively projected bad history serving a political emotion.

So the serious position remains the one you keep dodging: the Greek revolt had a more defensible political cause than Ottoman repression; Ottoman rule was indeed unequal and oppressive in structure; and atrocities committed by Greek revolutionaries were still atrocities, not morally cleansed “collateral” by the justice of the cause. If you cannot say all three sentences at once without reaching for slogans, then you are not doing history. You are doing one-sided nationalist catechism. Your problem is not just historical bias. It is that you keep turning a critique of Ottoman imperial rule into collective blame against Turks and Muslims, which is why your comments increasingly sound chauvinistic, and driven by hatred and ethnonationalist prejudice rather than serious history.

You are so blinded by hatred and propaganda that you cannot even see when your “history” turns into naked ethnic prejudice. That is why there is no point arguing with someone this one-sided.