I am done with my k8s deployment so let us deal with your childish comments, bottom-up. As Brandolini's law states that it takes a lot more effort to refute nonsense, perhaps this is why nobody entertained you.

I would have expected a bit of googling before parroting this non-sense. If you had read the book, you would have known why these images of slave markets come from the imagination of a French man who painted these while strolling on Champs Elysees. In this video [1] Jonathan Lyons goes into detail about how these images sprung out of the imagination of an orientalist whose head Islam was living rent-free, at the time Europe was coming out of dark ages and Muslim civilization of decedent. Good watch, if you are not a reading type.

Now ask yourself (I know that is a big ask), If Ottomans wanted to kill Greek, they could have done that during all that time when they were ascendant and Greeks were kissing curly tips of their shoes? Why wait till they became "Sick man of Europe to kill Greeks". These claims of genocide are similar to the claim of the Armenian genocide. They are politically motivated, rooted in the racist past and nostalgia - that will only become more pungent with time. It is in the same vein as many Americans, for whom history started on 9/11.

Anywho, watch the video [8] of real historian, Bernard Lewis, talking about the Armenian genocide:

“The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute.”

Wikipedia is heavily edited by every tom, dick and harry with agenda. Take Israeli Hasbara that pays soldiers to edit Wikipedia pages, and you don't need much to twist things. Here Wikipedia characterizes the death of 2,000,000 Muslims as persecution [2, 2a]. Same Wikipedia calls killing of 10 million African "atrocities", where Dutch King [3] used theirs and their children's body parts as currency and hauled them off to Europe like animals to be put in zoos. Is this a coincidence? I think not, this pattern of dumbing down is very common when dealing with brown or black people [10].

This is what Voltaire, a rabid, anti-Islam, has to say about the Ottomans:

"Let us get out of our grooves and study the rest of the globe. The Sultan governs in peace twenty million people of different religions; two hundred thousand Greeks live in security in Constantinople...The empire is full of Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monothelites; it contains Copts, Christians of St. John, Jews and Hindoos. The annals of Turkey do not record any revolt instigated by any of these religions." [Reference: Voltaire, Toleration and Other Essays, translated with an introduction by Joseph McCabe (New York and London: Knickerbocker Press, 1912), 23]

So what changed? What ticked off Ottomans? Well, the bit that says all this happened "during World War I and its aftermath (1914–1922)", when Greek partisans before and after the occupation of Izmir killed their neighbours, raping them and taking their property. Just like what Serbians did to Bosnians recently. It seems like it is in the DNA of Europeans [9].

> "In the chaos, looting of Turkish houses began, and by the end of the day three to four hundred Turks had been killed."

Not to mention what Greeks did to ethnic Greek Muslims and Slavs living in Greek territories. There are still pockets of these Muslims left, and they are regularly denied basic rights even till today.

Keep in mind the treatment of Greek and Armenian came at the heal of Ottoman contraction, with some of these refugees still vividly recalling their treatment in former Ottoman territories [4]. Surrounded by allies, ...