Genocide (info)

[kataphraktoi]

As long as Turkish chauvinism is being exposed, of course you will be there to defend it's integrity.

As for your eye-witnessess, they only tell us the pent up frustration (of centuries) of Armenians against Turkish rule in the course of which they resorted a frenzy they were subjected too. Or perhaps you want to portray Armenians as ungrateful subjects under the nice , sweet, saccharine and cosy benevolence of Ottoman rule.

[LeftEyeNine]

As long as Turkish chauvinism is being exposed, of course you will be there to defend it's integrity.

As long as anti-Turkish racism is disguised in many ways, of course I'll be there to defend what is rightful.

As for your eye-witnessess, they only tell us the pent up frustration (of centuries) of Armenians against Turkish rule in the course of which they resorted a frenzy they were subjected too.

How do you conclude that it was an aftermath?..

For an uncountable time again : Everyone believes what they want to believe. Truth stands.

...Or perhaps you want to portray Armenians as ungrateful subjects under the nice , sweet, saccharine and cosy benevolence of Ottoman rule.

Armenians were called "millet-i sükun" (sükun: peace, silent; millet: nation) if you want a sidenote about the point of view on Armenians before all murders done.

I'm speaking so loud because relying on the coumentaries, I have concluded that Armenian stuff is all about a lie, not an issue. And I won't take it hard to tell that I was wrong and feel sorry for what I had said, in case the so-called genocide finds proof after scientific and two-sided discussions. I'm sure that won't happen, but I just wanted to let you know that it's not a matter of pride in case it is proven.

[Lemur]

LEN, I am truly under-educated on this whole issue. I took a look at the Wikipedia entry on the subject, and they seem to be trying to give airtime to both historical viewpoints. Very interested to hear what you think of their take.

[LeftEyeNine]

LEN, I am truly under-educated on this whole issue. I took a look at the Wikipedia entry on the subject, and they seem to be trying to give airtime to both historical viewpoints. Very interested to hear what you think of their take.

So did you now reach the point where I am yelling from the start? If you are under-educated about the issue, how can you easily blame a whole nation from a quote that's not yet proven to be real that is extracted from an online resource website where information is contributed, not reached scientifically ?

This is not a personal attack. Take it as a neutral question Why and how easily can you do this after confessing about your inadequateness on the topic, Lemur ? This is the biggest component of the problem behind Turkey and world against it.

[LeftEyeNine]

Why is genocide such a bad word anyway? This is what cultures do and how nations formed. Whether it be feuding clans fighting for control or ethnic groups or empires, people are always trying to force others to assimilate or: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. That's how nations form.

Modern definition of humanity can not accept genocides happening, answer is obvious.

My case is all about a lie being trampled over a nation with false documents that so-called genocided side invented. We have counter-proof but we are told to keep silent, admit and obey...What a wonderful world, isn't it ?

[Lemur]

If you are under-educated about the issue, how can you easily blame a whole nation from a quote that's not yet proven to be real that is extracted from an online resource website where information is contributed, not reached scientifically?

I posted the quote because I thought it was interesting, and I had heard it long before. I added the link to Wikipedia because it cast doubt on the origin of the quote, which I thought was worth including.

Not to get terribly side-tracked, but I'm not clear on the distinction between "contributed" information and "scientific" information. In a sense, all science consists of "contributed" information. Does peer review really make the world go round? And does the collaborative nature of Wikipedia preclude validity? I've found Wikipedia to be a wonderful resource, especially now that they are getting serious about attribution.

But that's probably an issue for another thread.

LEN, I don't hold any strong views about the ... what am I supposed to call it? The Armenian-Turkish Altercation? Anyway, I'll be interested what you think of the article I linked.

[LeftEyeNine]

I posted the quote because I thought it was interesting, and I had heard it long before. I added the link to Wikipedia because it cast doubt on the origin of the quote, which I thought was worth including.

The vanishing of a 1.5 million population is even more interesting, friend. eVerything interesting does not prove out its validty, you see.

Not to get terribly side-tracked, but I'm not clear on the distinction between "contributed" information and "scientific" information. In a sense, all science consists of "contributed" information. Does peer review really make the world go round? And does the collaborative nature of Wikipedia preclude validity? I've found Wikipedia to be a wonderful resource, especially now that they are getting serious about attribution.

I should make myself clear there. Let'!s substitute "contributed" by "contributed by -maybe knowledgable- but ordinary people". It's not a science magazine after all, Wikipedia is open source although corrections and false statements are said to be corrected.

Wikipedia is an easy-to-go source of information indeed. But where even historians' statements are debated, I don't think Wikipedia can cover such sensitive arguments precisely. What's more, conradictively, in the same page they had included the counter-view on the quote as well. I may sound like falsifying my very own idea about Wikipedia just several sentences before, however what I want to remark is that such topics touch the nerves and need better and more serious examination, I think, Lemur.

LEN, I don't hold any strong views about the ... what am I supposed to call it? The Armenian-Turkish Altercation? Anyway, I'll be interested what you think of the article I linked.

I'm not a rank of censorship, lad. You can even call it with a more severe definition than genocide. The problem here is that noone is accustomed to see counter-proof against the issue. I'm not one of those crap Grey Wolves who have nothing more to say but racist remarks. I'm talking on proof and that's why I insist on the topic.

It's even more interesting that a Turk is always "welcome" with words such as "chauvinism", "racism", "nationalism" and so on. So, I should stop talking, accept the other's identification on me, admit every single crap put on the table and bow down. Whenever in the history has it been so dictative and easy?

[Lemur]

LEN, I'm not trying to argue with you. I haven't called you any names. I've never called you a bigot, a chauvanist, or anything of the sort. Ever. All I've asked was your opinion on an article, after saying that I was under-educated on the subject. If at all possible, you you turn down the volume? I don't have a dog in this fight, so my only interest is in historical accuracy. (Although, given the tenor of the discussion so far, I'm not sure that can be achieved ...)

[edit]

It's worth noting that my country committed a massive genocide, and we make no excuses or apologies for it. The northern American continent was not exactly empty when my ancestors showed up in their wooden boats with their boomsticks ...

[IrishArmenian]

It's even more interesting that a Turk is always "welcome" with words such as "chauvinism", "racism", "nationalism" and so on. So, I should stop talking, accept the other's identification on me, admit every single crap put on the table and bow down. Whenever in the history has it been so dictative and easy?

I do not know anyone who has actually expressed thoughts about it. I'll bet my great grandparents and grandparents probably said that, but old people are nationalists, racists, and incredibly biased. I just think in this modern world, it is odd and rare to find a person who says this. Sure, I am biased, but only in context: when someone says late Ottoman Empire sure, I think Genocide, but I do not carrry that view when someone brings up Earlier times, or generally Turkish people. It was not all of the Turks that committed these acts, rather it was quite few and many mercanaries and I see no reason to condemn a whole people for what very few did.

[Vladimir]

Good LORD! Five minutes on a LAN for the page to load?!?

On Topic: I'm starting to see similarities between the Armenian and the Darfur "genocides". In Armenia it seems like both sides were doing their best to kill one another. In Darfur the southern militias took refuge amongst the villages, engaging the northern Sudanese not in open combat, but in hit and hide tactics; thus forcing the northerners to hunt down the fighters in the villages.

I'm not sure how many people here understand logistics or know what a teeth-to-tail ratio is but how do you think these fighters are able to fight? More importantly how do you know who is supporting them and who isn't? The Romans had a philosophy when suppressing a revolt: Kiss our arse and wash our feet when we show our banner or die.

Why is genocide such a bad word anyway? This is what cultures do and how nations formed. Whether it be feuding clans fighting for control or ethnic groups or empires, people are always trying to force others to assimilate or: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. That's how nations form.

On a lighter note it seems that the female gender has been waging genocide on us men since creation (trying to make us change, etc.). :gorgeous