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

[Brenus]

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?