When you state that the concept of genocide is degenerated because it is used improperly by nations which have only suffered ethnic cleansing, what is it then, when you yourself talk about genocided opinion?
Does it constitute a scientific approach?
Does it constitute a conference conclusion?
And has this point of view genocide, been recognized?
Has it been established?
Has it been accepted by the international community?
Does it constitute a scientific term?
When you are incompetent to support your own position, why do you assume that you can question the task of the recognition of the genocide of the Greeks of Pontos?
When you state that you’re not a clown, then why boast about your red nose?
When you claim that you are not a petty politician, then why do you remain in place and you don’t go, in order to follow your beliefs?
Aren’t you aware that a politician with a sense of value, is precisely the one who doesn’t hold a chair with a government that refutes his positions?
When you are ready to do everything just so that you can hold on to your chair, then how dare you say that your verbalism is worth anything?
And when finally others disagree with you, because you make declarations which are against the decision of the Greek parliament, then you consider that to be an opinion genocide?
But, what opinion,? That of a graduate, a Dr, or of a what?
And what scientific opinion do you obtain which is superior to that of a journalist, when you’re a journalist?
And when your only supporters are merely the ones crowded around you, what’s your belief about the majority which denounces you in the sake of Democracy?