Armenian Issue - Not Genocide, here's why..

Armenian Genocide is a tool of political threatens created by Armenians so far away, not the ones in Armenia, while the "freaky" political parliaments love to use it. (I can not believe some guy who filled the movie theaters with violence and rubbish action for years now cares about Armenians..Armenian voting power over there in maybe? Heh..Pity Arnie..)

Keeping in mind that I am not a Turkish racist, let me tell you about the reality of Armenian Genocide:

Ottoman Empire covered such a vast land and such a vast foreign population for approximately 600 years. Except for the "Turk-ization" policy imposed in early conquest of the Trachia and Balkans by bringing and settling down the Turkmen migrants in these lands, Ottoman Empire always standed for its tolerance for existence, culture, beliefs over foreign populations it covered. That's why the nationalism was so effective through these lands. Suddenly Greeks, Arabs, Macedonians, Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians etc. declared their liberty (Albania and some others were unwilling about their liberation, intersting point..). The policy of Russians, the French and the British over Ottoman Empire contributed highly on this, not to reject.

Armenians were among the happy and silent people ( called "millet-i sukun" which means "silent nation" by the Ottoman society ). The Turks who suffered their disgusting torments later say that : "We had Armenian neighbors everywhere with whom we had nice relationships, they were good and nice". So what happened? Did we turn into bloodlusting beasts suddenly ? An absolute no.

Russians were one of the major invaders through the Eastern parts of Anatolia where Armenians and Turks were living together in WWI. Their provocations and military supplements, the foundation of Tashnak committee - an Armenian terror group - leaded to Armenians massacring their neighbors. What did they do ?

They gathered up as gangs continuously assaulting Turkish villages. They gathered women, pregnants and children in mosques killing them all. Some memories of the remnants of that massacre tell about Armenians kicking the babies into fire in front of their mothers' eye. That was not a battle, they did torment. Gathering Turkish women in a mansion, raping them whole day ten by ten. The old ones say that raped Turkish women were walking strange after their disgusting lusts. They dressed off lieutenants, peeling off their skins making cuts looking like pockets or ranks of a soldier , then telling them that they had promoted. In Zeytun 100, in Van 3000 and in Mus a total of 20.000 Turks were killed (most of them tormented to death) between years 1914 - 15. The Ottoman governments actions towards calming down that Armenian massacre (not a rebel, attention) were reflected to the global news as the Moslems massacring the Christians.

514015 Turks were killed by the Armenians between 1914 and 1920 in Anatolia and Caucasian lands. Statistics belong to government archives. Summing up the numbers that were possible to figure out took about 10 minutes for me. There is a table also with uncertain numbers of killed Turks in the following link.
( http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/engli...res/lists.html )

As a result Ottoman Empire applied "tehcir" (relocation) policy that forced Armenians to emigrate from their homelands to Syria. On their way to Syria, the Armenian emigrants were killed by the furious Turkish people and virtually-hostile-against-Armenians - the Kurdish generals. Yes we killed, but you decide it in unbiased terms that it was a genocide or a revenge.

P.S. Some tidbits of reality;


IN THE 19th CENTURY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE:
29 Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of pasha,
22 Armenians became ministers, including Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
33 Armenians were elected to the Parliament,
7 Armenians were appointed as Ambassadors, 11 as Consul Generals,
11 Armenians served in universities as professors.


There were 803 Armenian schools employing 2088 teachers with over 80,000 pupils within the Ottoman Empire in 1901-2.

That is a fact counterparting the fake hostility suggested between the Turks and the Armenians. However, that was the past, now there is a humorous saying that "Are you Armenian?" that some Turks use when one does something crimeful and violent. I do not prefer, however. But this is a reality grown by Russians, the French and the British. Now they are harvesting what they intended to. ("they" refers to political terms not in social terms)

In light of the fact that this will undoubtedly turn into a big argument, for this is a statement rather than an explanation, I suggest this is moved to the Backroom -- unless it remains historical.

But I expect either Armenians from their diaspora, or sympathizers, to attack your point, even though it does not deny the genocide.

To start off the debate: I read, actually only an hour ago or so, that these Armenian revenge murders were sporadically and independently executed, while the deportation of Armenians, and their subsequent murder and hangings if they resisted seemed to be well-oiled and organized.



~Wiz

MODERATOR WARNING

I agree with The Wizard's assessment of this topic - this is a Backroom thread waiting to happen. I will give it a chance though. However, if you turn this thread into a political battlefield and it goes to the Backroom. Turn it into a flame war and it will be closed. If you have a problem with something in this thread, DO NOT DEAL WITH IT YOURSELF - contact me with an explanation and I will deal with the problem as best I can.

Now, with that out of the way, let's keep the discussion historical and civil please. Thank you for your cooperation.

Quote:

---

To start off the debate: I read, actually only an hour ago or so, that these Armenian revenge murders were sporadically and independently executed, while the deportation of Armenians, and their subsequent murder and hangings if they resisted seemed to be well-oiled and organized.

---

True. It was pretty well organized. French, American but also German ambassors to the Golden Gate sent letter to their governement in late 1917, asking them to try to put a stop at what the American ambassador called 'mass murdering of innocent christian civilians' (what I call a genocide).
The Armenians' exaction were caused by some silly folks who were fighting for their freedom (weither it was justified or not), while the killing of Armenians was planned by the Ottoman rulers.

Furthermore, I don't see really what's your point about "XXXXX armenians were teachers under the Ottoman Rule".
Wonder how many Jews had an important job in 1933 in Germany ? This was probably one of the reason of the hatred against them.
One of the best french socialist prime minister pre WWII was a jew, and that didn't save him from being persecuted after 1941.

As for saying that the Ottoman Empire was known for being tolerant, I think many historians won't agree with you, but who knows who's the most biased on this issue ? While I'm fascinated by the Ottoman Empire warfare, I don't have that much knowledge about its political and social side. Be sure that I'll investigate this, but until now, I give you the benefit of the doubt :bow:

I've also read news from Armenian newspaper (published in Armenia, not in France, US or Russia), and I think from turkish ones, about the genocide. It might have been exagerated (which I doubt), but it was not invented by french or american armenians afer the war.

The Armenian genocide was not just "Armenian". The Armenians were the main focus, that is why 1.2 million of them got killed. But also more than 200.000 Pontic Greeks died from 1914 to 1923 - most of them in Kemal's times (Enver and Talat just kicked the ball and Mustafa Kemal played along, methinks).

Denial of the genocide is a vain effort. It happened. It was brutal, it was savage and it was an abominal act. Accept it and live with it, instead of trying to convince anyone "it didn't happen". It reminds me the holocaust denial, quite popular in certain quarters nowadays.

Also, about the "tolerance" of the Ottoman empire, so much is true before the 19th century. But following the wake of nationalism of the occupied populations, the tolerance died off. That is how we came to the Young Turks, Enver and Talat and gang, trying to "clean" the "Turkish race" from the "unclean" christians.

Funny thing, if they really wanted to clean the Turkish race, they'd have to start with themselves. Enver was of Jewish origin, for instance. And the intermixture in Anatolia has left very few Turks with "pure blood" (if any).

What Rosacrux says pretty much sums up what I feel and think.

Just wish to add that the Ottoman empire was tolerant towards Jews, as many Jews that fled from Spain settled in Constantinople/Istanbul. And I think 40% of the population in Asia Minor from 15th-18th centuries Orthodox Christian.

I am not intending to fire up here. I have been in many forums up to now, both in my mother tongue and foreign languages. I know about forum behavior, calm down. There will be no offenses here, I promise. I hope all of us try to learn something new and keep unbiased. I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Furthermore, I don't see really what's your point about "XXXXX armenians were teachers under the Ottoman Rule".

---

I also pointed out before that the Armenians were called "millet-i sukun" - the silent nation. I pointed out that the witnesses of the 500.000 "unorganized" (?!!) murders by Armenians called Armenians "good and kind neighbors". The examples you give just do not cover with points I figure here. The Turkish society had no problem with Armenians at all. It was "invented". You can not compare it to the Jewish influence in Germany which caused hatred against them. They are absoultely different things.

Just to repeat, 500.000 deads is a huge number to be counted as a bandit move. Armenians had the organization and militaristic power of English, French and the Russians behind. These countries are "wise" enough, aren't they ?

Quote:

---

The Armenians' exaction were caused by some silly folks who were fighting for their freedom (weither it was justified or not), while the killing of Armenians was planned by the Ottoman rulers.

---

Ottoman Rulers planned to re-locate the Armenians not murder them. Here is the original copy of cryptic telegraph wired on August 29, 1915 to the Governors of Hudaverdigar, Ankara, Konya, Izmit, Adana, Maras, Urfa, Halep, Zor, Sivas, Kutahya, Karesi, Nigde, Mamuretulaziz, Diyarbekir, Karahisar-i Sahib, Erzurum and Kayseri Provinces and sub-Provinces :

"The purpose of the Government regarding the moving of Armenians from their original settlements is to prevent their anti-governmental actions; and to discourage their ambitions of establishing an Armenian State. Their massacre is completely out of question; on the contrary the safety of the groups during immigration should be ensured; and while measures for their catering should be taken, the “Immigrants Allocation” should be used to meet the cost. Armenians who are allowed to stay in their original settlements should not be re-located afterwards. As it was stated before the immigration of the dependents of military forces; protestant and catholic Armenians; and artisans (in accordance with the need) are definitely prohibited by the Government severe legal measures. Against the gendarmes and government officials who attack the immigrating groups or those who lead such attacks severe legal measures should be taken and such individuals should immediately Court-Martialled. Relevant provincial and sub-provincial authorities shall be held responsible for such events."

In another cryptic note sent to Ankara on May 27 1915 it was said that; “The measures taken by the Government regarding the Armenians are based on the necessity to ensure and protect the welfare and order of the Country. Exclusion of the Catholic and Protestant Armenians —who are at present observed as impartial at the present- from immigration, is the indication that the Government has no intention to massacre them”

References: 1) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68/80
2) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68/71; 2. Branch 68/84

The 1.2 millions of massacred Armenians is absolutely false.The last population statistics of the Ottoman Empire was held in 1914. According to this, the Armenian population have a number of 1.221.850. So that, we have swept them all? No.

"A total of 438.758 people were relocated and 382.148 of these safely reached their new destinations. As can be seen, the number of casualties had occurred as follows: 500 people on the road between Erzurum and Erzincan; 2000 in Meskene, between Urfa and Aleppo and 2000 others on the outskirts of Mardin were massacred in attacks launched by bandits or nomadic Arabs. Another 5000 people were killed in attacks on convoys passing through Dersim. It was understood from these documents that many people had also fallen victim to hunger while on the road. Apart from these, some 25-30 thousand people had lost their lives when struck by fatal diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. In all, an estimated 40 thousand casualties had been registered during relocation."

What's more, an Armenian advocate living in Elazig, later migrated to USA, Murad Muradyan tells in one of his letters that some Armenians were escaped to Russia and America and later 50.000 of those trained soldiers went to Caucassia. Also, Artin Hotomyan who was a tradesman in America sent a letter to the Chieftain of Security on January 19, 1915 and stated that thousands of Armenians migrated to U.S.A. and they were facing with hunger and hardships.

Reference:
Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Ait Gercekler (1915), TTK Publication, Ankara, 2001.

Quote:

---

Funny thing, if they really wanted to clean the Turkish race, they'd have to start with themselves. Enver was of Jewish origin, for instance. And the intermixture in Anatolia has left very few Turks with "pure blood" (if any).

---

I see no point with "puryfing" Turkish race. That is a stupid dream. I never progressed on such a matter in my message.

Quote:

---

I've also read news from Armenian newspaper (published in Armenia, not in France, US or Russia), and I think from turkish ones, about the genocide. It might have been exagerated (which I doubt), but it was not invented by french or american armenians afer the war.

---

If the whole world cries out with that lie, Armenian newspapers would feel encouraged enough to spread news on that? Isn't that logical ? Exagerration is the sole truth about the issue.

Quote:

---

The Armenian genocide was not just "Armenian". The Armenians were the main focus, that is why 1.2 million of them got killed. But also more than 200.000 Pontic Greeks died from 1914 to 1923 - most of them in Kemal's times (Enver and Talat just kicked the ball and Mustafa Kemal played along, methinks).

---

Let me tell you this. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is the founder of my country. The period you are talking about covers our Independence War times. It was when my lands were invaded after the Sevres Agreement (10 August 1920) and Mondros Ceasefire Aggreement (30 October 1918) confirmed and signed by the "patient" Ottoman government (rejected by the Turkish parliament founded in Ankara by Mustafa Kemal) , which divided the land between France, England, Greece, Kurds, Armenians, Russians, and Italians. We were fighting for freedom. What's more Mustafa Kemal landed on Samsun, a city in Black Sea region, in 19 May 1919 to start the independence move.

The Pontic Greeks did establish Pontic Greek Community secretly in Merzifon American College in 1904. Their purpose was to liberate a Black Sea Greek Republic ("Pontus Rum Cemiyeti") that extends all over the coasts of Batum to Sinop. Provided their purpose, they released a newspaper named Pontus in Istanbul and established armed gangs in Middle and Eastern Black Sea Region of Anatolia where the Greek minorities were common. The cover of the community was blown in a sudden assault to the Merzifon American college performed in 16 February 1921. So if we have to defend our lands we have to fight. That is war, not a genocide. We were having an Independence war at these times - spreading from 1919 to 1923. Please keep that in mind when talking about any incidents that occur through these times. Pontic Greek genocide is a new one that serves the Megalo Idea of the Greeks and the never-ending hostility between Greeks and Turks. Nonsense..

Quote:

---

Denial of the genocide is a vain effort. It happened. It was brutal, it was savage and it was an abominal act. Accept it and live with it, instead of trying to convince anyone "it didn't happen". It reminds me the holocaust denial, quite popular in certain quarters nowadays.

---

We have committed a huge mistake about remaining silent and parry away the issue until now. If there is something that is unavoidable in terms of rationality, I never gave up - just like our freedom efforts given against invaders. There is no genocide, I am proposing you on references, not blah-blah. I can not live with it because if there has something happened that time it was not genocide, it was a battle and/or an act of revenge (the nature of the concept "revenge" is ignored here, right or wrong, it doesn't matter for the subject.)

By the way, all countries except the mainland of the Turks - Anatolia - that Ottoman Empire covered for 600 years still talk in their own language, live their own culture and religion. That is tolerance..

Quote:

---

Just wish to add that the Ottoman empire was tolerant towards Jews, as many Jews that fled from Spain settled in Constantinople/Istanbul. And I think 40% of the population in Asia Minor from 15th-18th centuries Orthodox Christian.

---

It was Suleyman the Magnificent that let Jews settle in Istanbul. Krusader's proposal is true.


Armenians really worked hard on that subject. That is how they really convinced so many people on this. They made so convinctions that I am forced by non-Armenians to accept a fiction. The rock group SOAD continuously serve to this purpose, while rock culture rejects being fascist. They just built a hatred against Turks - spread anti-Turk fascism all around - betraying rock culture but being listened by millions. I was amazed when I searched "Armenian Genocide" in Google. My god, we have a loooooong way. A Turkish saying: "Wherever you return from the loss is profit".

I must repeat, I am unbiased as well as being a Turkish.

I fear your post does not show anything "unbiased", my friend. On the contrary, I'd say. But I don't want to start another flamewar regarding the Armenian genocide so I'll leave it here. It's your choice to live in constant denial, and I have nothing further to say on that.

Why do not you try decaying what I said, instead of "you are wrong and I am leaving" ? What makes you believe that every word you heard and read about Armenian Issue up to now should be accurate ?

Not only about this subject, but also in any other matter in life, you have to question what is going on and catch different points of view. The politicians are wise enough "to pour mud over the sun". They can direct whole population to fiction, to fear or to some exaggerated victory or to anything else. We have proofs as long as their fiction about a "genocide" is said to have. If you want to see, of course, my dear friend. No offense intended but try to be open. I am denying this so called "genocide" since the time I was able to search and comment on incidents, not for the recent time.

Actually, the Ottoman government stated that its struggle against Armenian nationalists was a legitimate conflict -- "a state has the right to respond with arms to separatists." I quite agree with this philosophy myself.

However, as I recall, to respond to a separatist movement with a program of forced relocation, which leads to the death of somewhere in between tens of thousands and 1.2 million, is not the right of a state.

What is genocide? The fact that the Armenians died along the way to Aleppo etc. is not their fault, but that of the Ottoman government. Besides, explain to me what is fake about archived Ottoman photographs of soldiers posing before executed Armenians?

It seems to me there is a big disparity of numbers between both camps, and that both need to see through the large quantities of mud thrown to locate the truth.



~Wiz

you should read some of the things written by Turkish leaders at the time:
I'd have to say that they were of a genocidal frame of mind.
I'm a bit busy to dig that stuff out at the moment but it's pretty easy to find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Actually, the Ottoman government stated that its struggle against Armenian nationalists was a legitimate conflict -- "a state has the right to respond with arms to separatists." I quite agree with this philosophy myself.

However, as I recall, to respond to a separatist movement with a program of forced relocation, which leads to the death of somewhere in between tens of thousands and 1.2 million, is not the right of a state.

What is genocide? The fact that the Armenians died along the way to Aleppo etc. is not their fault, but that of the Ottoman government. Besides, explain to me what is fake about archived Ottoman photographs of soldiers posing before executed Armenians?

It seems to me there is a big disparity of numbers between both camps, and that both need to see through the large quantities of mud thrown to locate the truth.



~Wiz

---

I already accepted that there were murders under control of military during the relocation. No one is pure white, neither were the Armenians nor the Ottomans.

I know it was a long message up there. It was written that the Government archives say that the last population count was held in 1914 in which the Armenian population counted an exact number of 1.221.850. Does deciding to massacre the whole sum-up nation, none left behind seem logical in the middle of a war ?

The numbers are impossible to believe. And if both sides lose, it is a battle not a genocide, you can not ignore 500.000 dead bodies and talk about Armenian genocide.

One photo tells something but does not describe everything. So does the fictive 1.2-million-murder depend on a bunch of photos ? The cameras should have ultra-hi tech lenses.

Taff, If you are talking about Talat Pasha's documents, I will be proving that they were fake.

If you find time, please dig that stuff for me, I'd love to see what it is.

It wasn't just Talat Pasha, there were a few other important people whose opinions have are recorded.
Ataturk also had some things to say about the actions of his predecessors.

Sorry, I really don't have the time to look for that at the moment. If I happen upon it I'll let you know.

I understand that there is a major international project starting to research the history of the events that you are talking about: previously unavailable records etc. are seeing the light of day. I'll be interested to see what their results are.

Anyway, thanks. If you ever have the time on that, please inform me.

I also appreciate your expectations on new foundings, that really means something for us.

What I just recently heard was that indeed there was gonna be a big academic conference about this issue in Turkey very soon but some Turkish minister stopped it, wonder why....

Kalle

It was Armenian minister stopping that, not Turkish ones. How come these news arrive there in such a shape ?

By the way, Government archives have been made available to ones that show interest in the issue, while Armenia is still reluctant to open theirs. That is the declaration of our Prime Minister.

What I never understood is why Turkey should apoligise, genocide or not, it was the ottoman empire that did it not current Turkey. But I don't understand the rigidness of Turkey's politicians, the cancelation of the debate was nothing more then intimidation. With remarks like 'The Turkish people are the most innocent people in worlds history, no matter what lies are told', sounds a bit weird considering the evidence of at least mass murder.

Turkish people are never told to be "pure white spoon out of the milk". But 1.2 million people were never killed or massacred. I must repeat that I am presenting you proofs. There are so many Turks out there parrying away the issue such as "No Genocide! It's a lie!". But when someone asks about something, they can not answer. That was our colossal mistake - not getting prepared about the Armenian Issue that was clear to be brought back into spotlight on the way to EU integration of Turkey.

We killed because they killed, and that is called a battle not a genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Turkish people are never told to be "pure white spoon out of the milk". But 1.2 million people were never killed or massacred. I must repeat that I am presenting you proofs. There are so many Turks out there parrying away the issue such as "No Genocide! It's a lie!". But when someone asks about something, they can not answer. That was our colossal mistake - not getting prepared about the Armenian Issue that was clear to be brought back into spotlight on the way to EU integration of Turkey.

We killed because they killed, and that is called a battle not a genocide.

---

Turkey is known for sexing up their history, but there have been major armenian
atrocities against Turks and that is not commonly known. So maybe not genocide, but certainly ethnic cleansing. But it's been a while, better just let it rest.

Quote:

---

We were fighting for freedom

---

I think the Armenians, the Greeks and many other nationalities would say the same thing, because the Ottomans were the invaders. Greece, when landing troops in Anatolia, said that they were liberating their fellow countrymen from Turkish oppresion. When the invasion failed, the Turkish authorities set about massacring the Greek population in places like Smyrna and Ephesus. Aristotle Onassis was from Smyrna and fled when his family was killed. And if the Turks were so kind and tolerant, why didn't they give Armenia its independance? Remember the Greeks and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire had more of right to it as their homeland than the Turks, because they were there first. They're probably were atrocities comitted by the Armenians and the Greeks, but let me ask you this, who would be more capable of committing genocide, the Turks, who were the rulers, or the Armeinians, who were an ethnic minority.

There are few sites with interesting articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide this is an impartial, factual website IMHO.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish.php#genocide judging from the site's name, I doubt it wants to fuel nationalistic anger.
http://www.genocide1915.info/ a pro-armenian site.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/foru...p?TID=329&PN=1 a pro-turkish site, I put it here to provide "balance", or more specifically so that LeftEyeNine would not stage a tantrum. It also has a link to the site from where Left got his information on the armenian pashas.

Quote:

---

What I never understood is why Turkey should apoligise, genocide or not, it was the ottoman empire that did it not current Turkey.

---

I am sorry, that's like saying Germany should not have apologised because it is no longer ruled by the Nazis. That, along with things like the "War of Independance", just don't make sense. Indepenace from whom? Themselves?

Quote:

---

... I put it here to provide "balance", or more specifically so that LeftEyeNine would not stage a tantrum.

---

That is not the ideal choice of wording if one wants a discussion to remain civil. I state my point in generic terms and a diplomatic tone so King Henry V doesn't throw a hissy-fit because he thinks I'm picking on him. ~;)

BTW, I want the discussion to remain civil, so let's choose our words more carefully please.

Quote:

---

I think the Armenians, the Greeks and many other nationalities would say the same thing, because the Ottomans were the invaders. Greece, when landing troops in Anatolia, said that they were liberating their fellow countrymen from Turkish oppresion. When the invasion failed, the Turkish authorities set about massacring the Greek population in places like Smyrna and Ephesus

---

Freedom is of whom deserve it. Your words end up with Turks trying to liberate Middle Asia. History is full of stories of invasions and rebellions. Inquiring these historical terms in a wrong manner, you will mix up everything. Do you know that we spilled 250.000 bodies of blood to defend against heavy English navy in Canakkale which is a heroical milestone of warfare history? We wanted freedom and we got it. These lands were ours since about 1200-1300s. Turkish indepence efforts were given under threats of Ottoman government, and the whole "Great" invaders I already mentioned about. Armenians or Greeks or whomever minorities that the "Great" ones would like, would be independent in Anatolia, if they ever deserved to. History always had oppressors and the ones under their control. That's the nature. You should forget about this point of view, because it makes no sense..

What's more since it was the Turkish parliament established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk that planned the liberation in both armed and unarmed ways (Ottoman government was a whole different thing for that time, do not confuse). So it was obvious that this struggle would be given against to all threats to Turkish existence. Please direct your questions in this framework, from now on.

So King Henry, would you welcome someone that supports invasion of your land. Whatever the population was, it was a Turkish land. And I do not see anything strange with Greeks being swept away after such an invasion. By the way, I would be asking why Greeks burnt down all the places when they were retreating ? It is an act of war, of course. So were ours.

If you take every aspect of battle as massacring, you'd better keep off the history. You can not win your hand through handshaking, making agreements all the time. Whoever was that much merciful, I wonder. And also I wonder if such one still exists.

Quote:

---

And if the Turks were so kind and tolerant, why didn't they give Armenia its independance? Remember the Greeks and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire had more of right to it as their homeland than the Turks, because they were there first.

---

Pff..We were kind and tolerant that after 600 years (six hundred you see) they still exist with their own language, own culture, own religion and own places where they used to be for their whole history - Lesser Armenia. Please try to understand what I try to mean in fact.

What kind of right did the British and French had that they came over here and provoked minorities and make invasions ? And do I have more right than anyone else in Middle Asia ? Do you really think that you want to discuss something or just propose blank challenges to oppose me? I fought in a battle, I won, I am free. That's the summary.

Quote:

---

They're probably were atrocities comitted by the Armenians and the Greeks, but let me ask you this, who would be more capable of committing genocide, the Turks, who were the rulers, or the Armeinians, who were an ethnic minority.

---

Through the waning period of Ottoman Empire, the great powers of Europe seized such a control over Ottoman Empire (especially in economic terms) that in these lands minorities had absoultely better rights than Turks towards the empire's collapse. Rulers had been muppets of Europe. Ottoman government could never act in such a manner that would drive things worse with them like a genocide.

What's more, it doesn't mean that Armenians can not commit 500.000 murders in such a weak and chaotic condition. And 500.000 murders equals to "massacre".

About the links you provided :
The whole world knows only what Armenians wanted them to know. One to get clear results should come over here and research through Turkish government archives as much as he/she did with Armenians. So I am not surprised with that wikipedia's definitions.

The second link is a wise choice of domain name registration -LOL-
The whole website is full of anti-Turkish proposals. Do not tell me that you really believed in a website that never mentions about Native American Genocide by U.S., the Algerian Genocide by France or Aztek Genocide by Spaniards. You really did not believe that site selling "Turkish Denial Machine" t-shirts didn't you ? They promote a fascism that works in contradictive way - filling people with anger against Turks. What's more, I never and ever accept anything from a website that uses Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's photo next to Adolf Hitler's and making up a logo with it. Ataturk never had anything related to Armenian incidents happened over there, but they propose that. Briefly, the website has no intentions on "making up things right". They serve to provide anti-Turk community.

The last link you provide and the cause you propose sums up all your manner and intentions. You are not talking to a kid over here. Talking about "balancing" to keep me out of burst is the same thing that www.unitedhumanrights.org website you provided does.

I am here to explain something and will try to avoid provocations as much as I can, I promised to Gregoshi. If you have not much to say, you'd better open the doors of your brain and keep silent. Get rid of your prejudices before discussing such a sensitive topic. Human is human before he is an Armenian, Greek, Kurd or Turk or whatever.

P.S. I just learned that the congress in Turkey about Armenian Issue was cancelled by the Turkish minister, Cemil Cicek. Sorry that I opposed that news and claimed that the Armenians did it.

Quote:

---

I am sorry, that's like saying Germany should not have apologised because it is no longer ruled by the Nazis. That, along with things like the "War of Independance", just don't make sense. Indepenace from whom? Themselves?

---

That's why I am discussing the topic here. Politically, Turkey has nothing to do with the dead Ottoman Empire's deeds. However, the questions and claims are directed towards Turkish people. So that I am challenging here to show the daylight to the truth just as my descendants died for their indepence from imprealistic Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Greece.

By the way, Wikipedia has some problems :

"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

That's the headline notification when you click Armenian Genocide link provided. I think things are going a bit better than before.

[wrong topic]

What to believe? 500000 murders of Muslims by Armenians or 120000000 murders of Armenians by Turks? Less? More? There is such a disparity in the numbers presented by both parties that, to the observing western eye, it seems both are biased and unable to compromise.

But I do have one point. And that is of opposing Armenian nationalism. If you, LeftEyeNine, propose that the Armenians had no more right to their nation than the Turks, who arrived some milennium or two after the former, then you may just as well propose that the actions of the Serbians in the Bosnian theater of the Balkan wars in 1996 are justified. Which is an opinion that is absolutely wrong.



~Wiz

LeftNine Eye, you can’t preach something and say inverse few line after.
I should agree with you about the Armenian Genocide. I don’t have a clue if it was one or not, but as I studied history, I want facts and witnesses, not prejudices and feeling…

"What kind of right did the British and French had that they came over."
Answer: The Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany during WW1 which means to destroy the Ottoman Empire was quiet legitimate, so to debark troops and to use the internal divisions perfectly good tactic AND strategy.

"We were kind and tolerant": Euh, I worked in Serbia, and they don’t think that the Ottoman Empire was particularly kind and tolerant: Wall of skulls in Nis, the payment for their life, the fact that each Christian family had to give one son between 5 and 20 to be slave or janissary to the Porte aren’t to be tolerant and kind…

"imperialistic Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Greece": And the ottoman Empire wasn’t imperialist perhaps? Suleiman went to Vienna; Turkey had the greatest empire in Europe during the longest time… Mohach in Hungary, Kosovo Polje, in Serbia/Kosovo/Kosova (depending if you are Serb or Albanian), and I can carry on like that… Greece was invaded by the Turks…

"Algerian Genocide by France": When, where? Named the extermination camp, show me when the French organised death march through the desert, tell me when the French to kill Algerians just because they were Algerians…

"500.000 murders equals to "massacre": So if I understand what you are saying, when Turks killed half a million of people that is a massacre, when others nations did the same that is genocide…

Don’t misunderstand what I am saying: I admired Ataturk because he saved his country from the invaders. He succeeded to keep Turkey as a country and created the roots for a modern state (separation religion from the state, reforming the old Ottoman Empire). Nevertheless, if you want to make your point, you fist have to give evidences.
And to give a definition of genocide, because I agree with you: A massacre (even a huge one) isn’t genocide; it could be what we call now a war crime.
So I propose mine: Genocide is the will to destroy an entire population (men, women and children) because they are who they are (that is why I didn’t challenge the Native Indian Genocide in Central and North America: they were exterminated because they were Indians). A specific programme has to be programme to achieve this goal (spreading diseases, train and camps, forced labour and death march of the civilian populations. I don’t think that the death marches organised by the Japanese during the WW2 are genocide but war crimes.
Any other suggestions?

Sorry, I sent my post after yours.
The Wizard. In Bosnia, Serbs, Croats and Bosniac have the same ethnic Origin. The are either Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim and they arrived at the same moment in the Balkan. It doesn’t make Srebrenica a legitimate thing but, and I disagree with The Hague and Carla Del Ponte on this one, it wasn’t a genocide (women and children weren’t killed). It was a horrible and huge War Crime but NOT genocide.