Dink, who was a strong supporter of freedom of expression, had been pursued three times under article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code for his statements "insulting Turkishness." While Dink may have termed the 1915 events "genocide," he always tried to convince the Armenian Diaspora not to view the people of Turkey with the spectacles of a past era, but rather to seek ways and means of sharing their history with Turks to ultimately achieve reconciliation. Dink's murder opened many debates in the Turkish media about the perpetrator(s) of this attack, their motives and the possible repercussions of this murder on Turkey's future. Yeni Şafak's Fehmi Koru, pointing out the grief over Dink's murder was shared by the entire Turkish public and indicating slogans like "We are all Armenians, we are all Hrant," says that Turkey has always been a place for different people to come together in peace. "Many Turks do not have a problem with Armenians or somebody from another ethnicity. People from all religions and ethnicities can come together and discuss the problems of this country while preserving their ethnic identities," explains Koru. He admits that there is a conflict in Turkey, though he says the views that religion is at the base of this are mistaken. The empty search for conflict in the wrong places has a high price, Koru says, adding "We all lost Hrant Dink because of this."
Milliyet's Fikret Bila expresses appreciation for the attitude of the Turkish public in the aftermath of Dink's murder. He thinks that the Turkish public is demonstrating awareness as he explains: "(The Turkish public) has not been deluded by such provocations; it has not been carried away by them or fallen into conflict. This is the biggest gain and reassurance for us," remarks Bila. He insists that the priority is to find those behind Dink's murder and evaluate who benefits from such a barbarous act. With such political assassinations, he asserts, the perpetrators lie deep beneath the surface. The underlying reasons behind the assassination should be investigated carefully, he urges, since most of the excuses for past assassinations turned out to be wrong.
Radikal's Hasan Celal Güzel says although the grief of the Turkish nation is great, one can't ignore the obvious mistakes made by Turkey that might have resulted in Dink's murder. He cites the adoption of article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code as one of these, as well as Turkish Security's failure to provide security for Dink. Although Dink may not have asked for protection, the one agency trusted with fully understanding the danger of the situation, failed to act pro-actively in response to the death threats Dink received and had publicized. Güzel suggests five possible groups as suspects behind this attack: Turkish nationalists, the 'deep state,' the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdish groups, the Armenian Diaspora, and foreign intelligence services. Güzel does not think that Dink's murder was motivated by either Turkish nationalists or the "deep state," as neither wants to stain the Turkish identity, and argues that those who are quick to point the finger at such organizations should be investigated. He considers the remaining three options possible: rationalizing that the PKK, for example, might have wanted to divert Turkey's attention from the Kirkuk issue; the Armenian Diaspora was disturbed by Dink's views about reconciliation with Turks, and considers the fact that they organized bloody attacks in the past; or foreign intelligence services might have wanted to spoil the relatively stable environment in Turkey.
