Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution

[Banquo's Ghost]

Brenus, your rebuttals read much like the Turkish responses to accusations about their conduct in the Kurdish areas. Denial and disparaging remarks about the reporting. Fair enough, I have derailed this thread enough already.

My point is not to defend the Turkish responses against the PKK and Kurds, but to challenge claims put forward in posts like this:

We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…

I agree with the last sentence, of course. Nonetheless, many other countries, including yours, have taken brutal counter-measures against insurgencies. It is hard for us to point fingers and look aghast when our own actions belie our words.

[Husar]

I agree with the last sentence, of course. Nonetheless, many other countries, including yours, have taken brutal counter-measures against insurgencies. It is hard for us to point fingers and look aghast when our own actions belie our words.

I'm going to throw in Kant here.

As a human everybody is allowed to point fingers in what you describe as long as his/her very own actions do not belie it. As a citizen, that may be a different matter, you have to differentiate between Brenus the human and Brenus the french citizen, though as he defended his government's actions I guess he is posing as a french citizen here, so go ahead.

[Brenus]

“Nonetheless, many other countries, including yours, have taken brutal counter-measures against insurgencies.” Yes, France did. Still interesting in what Johan Hari described is what the French Army allegedly does is not against French Citizens. It is in a foreign country in a typical post-colonial (or even fully colonial) period.
My point was that the Turkish government doesn’t treat (so considered) his Kurdish Citizens are Turk. In bombing Iraqis Kurds in reaction of what a Turkism Kurds did is a plain acceptation that Kurds are one nation… Like the French in Algeria recongnised in practising torture and deportation that Algeri was de-facto an other country...

“It is hard for us to point fingers and look aghast when our own actions belie our words.”
Nope, I don’t support at any cost my country. French chains are chains and not good. However, when I read an article I except to have information and fact, not what an old man, woman, kid or whoever point of view without question.
I had friends in the Foreign Legion (long time ago…) and I know the French African Policy is well, policy. See Chad, Central Africa, Congo, Djibouti etc. Dirty operations were conduct and are still done. However I need facts before to have a judgement and this article gives none. Rwanda and Burundi were never a French Colonies for ex. So why to compare with Central Africa which was? Claiming that the French are responsible for all genocides without a beginning of a proof is not enough for me…
I am sorry; I don’t trust any more journalists. I saw what they did in former-Yugoslavia.

[LeftEyeNine]

Ho-ho it's Geno-mas. Welcome me.

You people already know my point of view about the Armenian Issue. It's an issue to me, emerged and aided by the big brothers always looking have a noose and thus hold of a developing young country which they obviously wished never existed. (I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder)

As long as IrishArmenian and other Diaspora Armenians will keep on underestimating what they had done for a START (514.000 death toll; as a reminder), I doubt anything compromisable will come out of this. But, hey now they have lobbies all around (which is hugely our mistake: we are dumbasses too lazy to foresee a snowball forming into an avalanche; as a reminder), and since Turkish Foreign Affairs is managed something like a zoo or döner kebab restaurant and while Turkey is economically dependant to foreign resources, why not push it in governmental aspects ?

Nobody cares about the French and the Russians provoking and arming the Armenian rebels (once called milleti-i sadıka="the loyal nation"; as a reminder), but since we have massacred each other and have got ourselves a neverending conflict, the French cities can be filled with Armenian "Genocide" Memorial Statues or whatsoever. ALL HAIL THE PUPPETMASTAH! THEY DEMOCRACY SO HARD THAT THEY CAN SCREW THEIR IMMIGRANTS WHILE ERECTING MEMORIALS FOR THEIR COMMITMENT IN A NEVERLAND GENOCIDE ! "ADMIT IT, DOG" ! HUZZAH ! CAN YOU HEAR THE DEMOCRACY JINGLE? HUZZAH!

I'm tired and pissed of it. USA is to blame, France is to blame, Russia is to blame, Great Britain is to blame for this. Being seriously great people as Turkey Armenians as far as I know, now that the imperialist puppetmasters have pulled the strings so well that I'm getting so frustrated to see that we are being torn apart from those nice people, who have wholeheartedly accepted Turkish identity just as how every people over there in US accept to be an American. I still remember Levon Panos Dabagyan, a Turkey Armenian historian, calling for the re-unity among ourselves, calling himself a Turkish soldier in a battle against Armenia, if it could ever happen. I have been told that, there was a banner hung up in the coastal roads of Yeniköy, Istanbul, saying that: "As Turkish Armenians we have felt and will be feeling the pride of living under this flag on these lands - Armanlı Family".

What can Pelosi or what can YOU know about what had happened and how it feels for us by reading news or getting the mighty contribution of super-accurate websites ? While Mesrob Mutafyan, the Patriarch of Turkey Armenians, declares the necessity of the Turkey Armenians to be held out of this resolution mess, openly expressing their will to prevent it, why the hell are those imperialist, so-called humanist masters of divide & manage v2.0 policy in this?

Briefly, why do you hate us so much?

The Turkey Armenians could use ways of armed rebellion as a terrorist organization, but they do not anymore. ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983. (Strangely PKK performs its first terrorist action in 1984. ^^) Why? Because it could not find "soil to take root", from the ethnic group it was meant for. It was because, the Turkey Armenians did not want it.

So, again, why do you try to tear me off from my brothers so hard ?

I'll never touch the PKK issue here, 'cause I'm truly biased about Kurds and I never intend to violate The Org 's beautiful order (once/any more).

Hint:

ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983. (Strangely PKK performs its first terrorist action in 1984. ^^) Why? Because it could not find "soil to take root", from the ethnic group it was meant for. It was because, the Turkey Armenians did not want it.

P.S. IA, your plastic "we are all brothers and sisters !!!1111" are smelling..too plastic.. I guess that's a side effect from it coming all overseas, sorry.

Merry Geno-mas, Ho-ho !

Edit: Please don't misunderstand certain addressings which are definitely away from you here I put by saying "you". Just to make sure. Thanks. ^^

[IrishArmenian]

LEN, you write as if Armenia has flourished and become a western powerhouse. That is, of course false! Why? The very nations you believe support us, the Western powers. So they can play nice with Turkey and Azerbaijan, they don't care how Armenians fare.
Why is it so hard to see that a group of people who help power in what is now Turkey committing ethnic cleansing? The problem lies in your believing that they are your forebears. That is simply not true and that prevents--pardon the generalisation--Turks and Armenians from getting back to that cordiality that existed before the Russian invasion.
That the Genocide has much to do with politics is disheartening. Apparently, politicians decide what happened in the past and what didn't. That politicians, as politicians naturally do, abuse the Genocide insults the Armenian people.
But you seem not to care at all. After all, you already have your pre-concieved notion of Armenians and babbling from someone with such a bias as to have 'Armenian' in his name has no effect on you. The reason behind why I care is because I want to show you that we can coexist peacefully, even if I'm not a Turkish Armenian, I'm an Armenian born Armenian--at the time, it was the Soviet Socialist State of Armenia. See, despite what we both may've been taught in school, the other is still a real person, a real person with morals, a real person who doesn't like arguing over such a tragic issue all the time.
Your cynicism about my believing in brotherhood amongst our people does not surprise me. Maybe you think I'm a property-hungry, greedy person who is looking at increasing my holdings as I understand is the Armenian stereotype or maybe I'm a decietful nationalist. I'm either one of those, or just a person who follows a religion based on peace, brotherhood, compassion, mercy; who developed a strong personal hate for war and who, after hearing from survivors, would never wish such a tragedy like the Genocide on anyone, regardless.
Think whatever you want, but being so calloused as to say merry Geno-mas is absoulutely despicable.
Also, you seem to be using democracy with negative connotations, which is a little odd. Care to explain why?
Lastly, the ASALA died of because Armenians in general did not want it. Do you really think that the only moral Armenians are Turkish Armenians?

[Don Corleone]

I have to admit, I haven't read through this thread, and I may be about to steal somebody else's views on this matter. But until the US Congress passes, and our president signs, a resolution condemning our own genocide against the Native American population, the whole thing will continue to ring pretty hollow to me.

We were practicing biological warfare 200 years ago, handing out smallpox-ridden blankets as 'peace-offerings'. I read somewhere that the United States government has never completely honored the terms of any one of the hundreds of treaties it signed with tribes over the decades. I would say that the bill's sponsors should pick up a copy of a biography of Chief Joseph, or read about the Trail of Tears, and then make a resolution that would give them some credibility. Then, once we've owned up to our own past sins, we might actually have a leg to stand on in discussing these matters with our friends in other countries.

[IrishArmenian]

I have to admit, I haven't read through this thread, and I may be about to steal somebody else's views on this matter. But until the US Congress passes, and our president signs, a resolution condemning our own genocide against the Native American population, the whole thing will continue to ring pretty hollow to me.

We were practicing biological warfare 200 years ago, handing out smallpox-ridden blankets as 'peace-offerings'. I read somewhere that the United States government has never completely honored the terms of any one of the hundreds of treaties it signed with tribes over the decades. I would say that the bill's sponsors should pick up a copy of a biography of Chief Joseph, or read about the Trail of Tears, and then make a resolution that would give them some credibility. Then, once we've owned up to our own past sins, we might actually have a leg to stand on in discussing these matters with our friends in other countries.

I had no idea. I cannot post the correct word to describe it, some mod will use asteriks and I'll get a warning, if I'm lucky I'll get a ridiculous replacemnt a-la Kek, so here goes: that is really messed up!

[Brenus]

“USA is to blame, France is to blame, Russia is to blame, Great Britain is to blame for this.” You forget the Armenians.
To have been killed and still talking... I don't know if it was a genocid, but rejecting all bad things onthers like you are doing it is quite errr unexpected from somebody like I supposed you are...

[LeftEyeNine]

LEN, you write as if Armenia has flourished and become a western powerhouse. That is, of course false! Why?

Because it was Diaspora Armenians I was talking about, not Armenia. Armenia itself is more pity when it comes to comparison. More careful read next time please.

The very nations you believe support us, the Western powers. So they can play nice with Turkey and Azerbaijan, they don't care how Armenians fare.

They can play nice with everyone as far as their expediencies are go. Diaspora Armenians are another tool.

Why is it so hard to see that a group of people who help power in what is now Turkey committing ethnic cleansing? The problem lies in your believing that they are your forebears. That is simply not true and that prevents--pardon the generalisation--Turks and Armenians from getting back to that cordiality that existed before the Russian invasion.

We never did one. We killed many just as you killed many (your massacre was half in numbers, revenge is always the most ruthless)

That the Genocide has much to do with politics is disheartening. Apparently, politicians decide what happened in the past and what didn't. That politicians, as politicians naturally do, abuse the Genocide insults the Armenian people.

Good for you to notice that. But why "sleep in their cradles" then ?

But you seem not to care at all. After all, you already have your pre-concieved notion of Armenians and babbling from someone with such a bias as to have 'Armenian' in his name has no effect on you. The reason behind why I care is because I want to show you that we can coexist peacefully, even if I'm not a Turkish Armenian, I'm an Armenian born Armenian--at the time, it was the Soviet Socialist State of Armenia. See, despite what we both may've been taught in school, the other is still a real person, a real person with morals, a real person who doesn't like arguing over such a tragic issue all the time.

I reaaaally don't care about people who are fighting for their causes and following the Armenian Constitution's Preamble saying:

Recognizing as a basis the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and the national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia

..where 12th clause of Declaration of Independence of Armenia sets the following as a goal:

11, The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.

No. No way I'll be accepting my massacres as a genocide and accept your massacres as "cuddly tiny killings of Turks by gangs in small numbers". Your goal is a self-legalized will of yours. No way I can share the coexistence idea of non-Turkey Armenians under such circumstances.

Your cynicism about my believing in brotherhood amongst our people does not surprise me. Maybe you think I'm a property-hungry, greedy person who is looking at increasing my holdings as I understand is the Armenian stereotype or maybe I'm a decietful nationalist. I'm either one of those, or just a person who follows a religion based on peace, brotherhood, compassion, mercy; who developed a strong personal hate for war and who, after hearing from survivors, would never wish such a tragedy like the Genocide on anyone, regardless.

Assuming you are giving a true sight of yours right here (excluding that Geno-mas), "exceptions don't rule out the laws", should I remind you.

Think whatever you want, but being so calloused as to say merry Geno-mas is absoulutely despicable.

When it is the Genocide time of the year, it is called Geno-mas. That is quite random compared to once-a-year frequency of the Christmas. I don't find massacres funny -no I'm not that ugly. But Armenian tales sound humorous to me, and that's why I call it "Merry Geno-mas, Ho ho!".

Also, you seem to be using democracy with negative connotations, which is a little odd. Care to explain why?

Because it's also used in big brothers' hands as a non-killing super weapon to use against nations. I don't really believe in democracy while we are in a state of problems regarding internal security, economic dependence, and a government with a "hidden agenda". No it's not that I hate it. It's just I don't have faith in democracy for the time being.

Lastly, the ASALA died of because Armenians in general did not want it. Do you really think that the only moral Armenians are Turkish Armenians?

PKK finds its true base from and and through Turkey, where they also have the political extension as well. ASALA died off after taking 40 of our diplomats' lives. Because it didn't receive enough ambition from fellow Armenian-originated citizens. And as every community or gathering needs, some organization unable to fulfill the goal dissolves.

I can't really judge non-Turkey Armenians' level of morality. ASALA's dissolvement does not give a clear idea about them. (Sure extremist ones had supported ASALA in some ways, but I don't take them into consideration)

You forget the Armenians.
To have been killed and still talking... I don't know if it was a genocid, but rejecting all bad things onthers like you are doing it is quite errr unexpected from somebody like I supposed you are...

This is their self-legalized goal, why would not they talk about it ?

So while you don't know if it was genocide or not, how can you blame me doing the unexpected ? Why do you (generally) prefer deciding about things you don't have the accurate and exact information ? And while so, why are Armenians are favored about a topic "you don't know if it was a genocide or not" ?

You're raising the questions about yourselves, not me.

[Brenus]

“You're raising the questions about yourselves, not me.” You lost me here… Can you explain…?

“how can you blame me doing the unexpected” Err, sorry what unexpected?
I blame you for rejecting responsibilities on others (French, English, USA, all the world).
I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.
As I said, I never went in details BUT Hitler was referring of the Armenians slaughter, not the Turkish slaughter when asked about the possibility of the Final Solution. This leads me to suppose that it was more violence and systematic killing in one side.

“I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder” You? So YOU invaded a lot a countries my friends, slaughtering, enslaving, pillaging and raping… The Ottoman Empire was the largest and the longest Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa. And it wasn’t nice to be in an Empire at these times…
Can I remind you that England and France (not for the beauty of the Ottoman Empire’s eyes, of course) rescued Turkey in fighting in Crimea?
What happened to Turkey in the aftermath of WW1 is exactly was happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the II Reich and somehow Russia. They were the Enemies so they were dismantled... They didn’t had an Atta Turck (sp?), some got a Lenin…
So the song of the poor lonesome Turkey facing the entire world manipulated by the evil Armenian Lobby…

“Briefly, why do you hate us so much?” Because raising a question about the past is Hate?

“ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983”: What? Imperialists, whoa… Normally it goes with Yankee and valets…

As a French, my history is full of civil wars (the last one being after WW2, some will say even Algerian war-because the Military Coup), for political, religious, and so-called ethnical reasons. To study them is not an insult or a tragedy. As said somewhere else, the French did their parts in slaughters others nations and themselves.

[LeftEyeNine]

“You're raising the questions about yourselves, not me.” You lost me here… Can you explain…?

Questions:

So while you don't know if it was genocide or not, how can you blame me doing the unexpected ? Why do you (generally) prefer deciding about things you don't have the accurate and exact information ? And while so, why are Armenians are favored about a topic "you don't know if it was a genocide or not" ?

“how can you blame me doing the unexpected” Err, sorry what unexpected?
I blame you for rejecting responsibilities on others (French, English, USA, all the world).
I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.

"If it's not a genocide you're speaking of, why do you blame me ?" I mean. While you can say it was a mutual massacre, why don't you start by suggesting the admittance of the responsibilities to both sides.

I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.

Ah, I know that piece Here goes the Wiki entry 's Conclusion part saying:

The source of this problem appears to be that the quote allegedly comes from a speech made by Hitler, not from any written or published text. Its authenticity or otherwise thus depends on the recollections of eye-witnesses, the validity of which may be doubted, and has been doubted, by later commentators.

A large shadow of doubt is cast upon the speech by its unusually frank style: Hitler openly alludes to Operation Tannenberg, which was, at the time, a secret plan that could only be discussed between the members of the innermost circle of the party

In the absence of any means of either confirming or refuting the authenticity of the quote, and in light of the intense partisan passions surrounding both the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, it is unlikely that this issue can ever be satisfactorily resolved.

As Hitler neither was an expert on the topic, nor had the intention to give a factual report, the relevance of the argument can be regarded as marginal.

Hitler is the Beast of genocides, he had his own foul ideas about the Jewish but sure he must have said something true about the Armenians. :dancing_steven_spielberg:

Really, regarding the conclusion of the Armenian quote above, don't you ever sniff the stink ?

“I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder” You?

When there is a war, there is a struggle, not an "oh-wtf-I-had-done" scenario. After all that war should be the consequences of your deeds. So if I have YOU in my lands, then you are INVADERS. So purely simplistic for someone who has such experiences.

Can I remind you that England and France (not for the beauty of the Ottoman Empire’s eyes, of course) rescued Turkey in fighting in Crimea?

Aye. France was the Catholic church's leader of the world by the times while Russia was the same for the Orthodox. So agreeing with Russia to the extermination of the Ottomans would mean a bigger Russia, finally reaching the Mediterranean, and the Orthodox success and increasing influence in the Christian world. It was not about rescuing Ottoman Empire, it was about guarding the political status quo of Europe by preventing Russia from growing any bigger. I can still feel the sweet intent of the Allies.

What happened to Turkey in the aftermath of WW1 is exactly was happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the II Reich and somehow Russia. They were the Enemies so they were dismantled...

After all, my lands were shared among all of them. The plans to liberate Armenians and the Kurds had been started to apply by creating serious conflicts among them, something ended up here today, which seems never to end. Your ancestors fight dirty, that's all about it.

They didn’t had an Atta Turck (sp?), some got a Lenin…

Well I'd really search and look up for any of the French kings (though they can be the XXVII. or whatsoever, I'd care for who he really is) to have an accurate and peaceful discussion. Just please show some respect to one of the most influential statesmen of the 21st century. I guess you'll be able to see his name correctly while googling for "armenian" "genocide".

“Briefly, why do you hate us so much?” Because raising a question about the past is Hate?

Intended to be directed at the politicians, raising such critical and sensitive HISTORICAL statements (not questions unfortunately) and melding it into the fights of vote is just ugly. It doesn't really seem so humanistic from here.

“ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983”: What? Imperialists, whoa… Normally it goes with Yankee and valets…

Sure, if the Armenians really had wanted it, it would never stop. That gives a clear idea about financing of such terrorist groups. USA is now fighting against the mullahs he had allowed to flourish to use against the Soviets, should I remind you. C'mon, it's not such an unheard method

As a French, my history is full of civil wars (the last one being after WW2, some will say even Algerian war-because the Military Coup), for political, religious, and so-called ethnical reasons. To study them is not an insult or a tragedy. As said somewhere else, the French did their parts in slaughters others nations and themselves.

As a Turkish, we generally praise ourselves for founding around 17 states up to date throughout the history. But we never care why the previous 16 had collapsed.

The Turkish did their part in what wars brought, still identifying themselves as the "army-nation", sure our victories must have brought massacre, pillage and destruction over the conquest. Sure Janissaries were sons who had been taken away from their families and so on.

However we never commited a genocide.

[Lemur]

We were practicing biological warfare 200 years ago, handing out smallpox-ridden blankets as 'peace-offerings'. I read somewhere that the United States government has never completely honored the terms of any one of the hundreds of treaties it signed with tribes over the decades. I would say that the bill's sponsors should pick up a copy of a biography of Chief Joseph, or read about the Trail of Tears, and then make a resolution that would give them some credibility. Then, once we've owned up to our own past sins, we might actually have a leg to stand on in discussing these matters with our friends in other countries.

Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post. I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

[woad&fangs]

Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post. I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

And the Armenian Genocide was caused by the Ottomans and not The current Turkish government. That said, I think it is pretty pathetic how some nationalities can't accept that they have done wrong in the past. The trend in my history classes the last few years seems to have been drag up every crappy thing the US has ever done and talk exclusively about that. For example, so far this year we have learned about The Bonus Army and how crappily Hoover treated the veterans, The relocation to Concentration camps of Japanese living on the West coast, and last week we had to read some crap by Howard Zinn about how the US was only motivated to fight WW2 by economic pressure and that we only dropped the A-bomb to prevent the Russians from from having influence in post war japan. He also said that we dropped the second A-bomb to test the difference between plutonium and Uranium cores.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've begun reading up on the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Attaturk's republic seems to have not taken much of a part in this, with most of the "genocidal" polocies attributable to the Young Turks rulership of the Ottoman empire just before it was torn apart in WW1. Armeno-Turk relations took their most negative down-turn during the administration prior to that -- the last dictator/sultan (blanking on name at moment), so it can be argued that the Young Turks government was mostly reacting to an extant crisis brought about by their predecessor.

The genocidal actions taken may or may not have been a programmatic action of the government. It is a certainty that the "transportation/forced migration" policies ended up killing many Armenians, even if that was not their ostensible intent.

I have not reached a full set of conclusions here.

[Xiahou]

Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post. I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

I agree Lemur. We did some nasty things to the Native Americans- but that doesn't mean that every wild accusation about the horrors we visited on them is automatically true. The smallpox blankets were discussed by British leaders, but afaik, there's no real evidence they ever put the plan into action- maybe they did, but I don't know of any clear evidence. Frankly I don't think that blankets would be that effective, especially when day to day contact with traders, hunters, ect. was clearly more than adequate to set off epidemics that wiped out entire villages.

[LeftEyeNine]

The genocidal actions taken may or may not have been a programmatic action of the government. It is a certainty that the "transportation/forced migration" policies ended up killing many Armenians, even if that was not their ostensible intent.

I have not reached a full set of conclusions here.

Armenians topping a million, during their enforced migration (Law of Tehcir) lost their lives unfortunately, due to the avenging of Turks and Kurds from them about the deeds of the Armenian gangs raised, armed and provocated by the Russians during their Caucasian Invasion and the French. The reasons to such a massacre also compose of the poor organization of the enforcement by the state (I wonder how they thought they could think of succeeding such transportation through those times when the army was exhausted, the state was in chaos and the folk was terribly war worn, poor and furious). Famine, epidemic and -as foretold- murders ended up with so many lives -mostly innocent- getting lost into the darkest pages of history, sticking at the Turkish nation's face as a "genocide" -which was never intended nor imposed.

Once again, God bless the innocent ones who lost their lives during these unfortunate massacres with comfort as they do deserve.

P.S. "Systematicallity" is one of the fundamental attributes of the term "genocide".

[IrishArmenian]

Seamus, Ataturk said something along these lines:
These left-overs from the Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule.
Obviously he was aware of the evil.
Again, I have problems with the deportation issue as burning at the stake is often quite deliberate and rarely happens on accident.
The Armenian gangs who attacked Turkish villages after the Hamidian massacres were vile, inhumane people and I know that. By learning the mistakes and crimes of the past, we can better prepare ourselves for the future, yes?
Also, why would a government, meaning to keep the people being relocated alive, choose to relocate the ethnicity in question--one not accustomed to living in the middle of the desert--into the heart of the desert with no water and no food? No one is that stupid. Even politicians know that people need food and water to live. Please explain the extreme malevolence or if you shall play the 'dumb' card, the incomprehensible idiocy that it takes to disregard such basic human necessities.

[LeftEyeNine]

Also, why would a government, meaning to keep the people being relocated alive, choose to relocate the ethnicity in question--one not accustomed to living in the middle of the desert--into the heart of the desert with no water and no food?

Syria was where they were being transported to -somewhere with a coastline and harbor. The conditions and the organization was sick but no one is that stupid to arrange a systematical killing while the whole state is in a condition of absolute war-weariness, poverty and social chaos and despair. Still it is a bad intention trying to see a bad intention beyond this.

[Fragony]

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... or don't deny it the way they do ... sure this has nothing to do with America, but most Europeans aren't as stupid as they look, they also hear with Turkey says about this now. And they might not like it.

Didn't stop Aybarak, a known deniar, from being in our government.

[IrishArmenian]

Coastal Syria? Kilikia is not far from Syria, so why would the large Armenian population disappear? They couldn't've gotten lost! We're stubborn, sometimes arrogant but we are not that stupid.
And why would a 'scenic' route through the desert be taken? Couldn't a route through much more fertile and forgiving Armenian land be much more effective and would, in fact, be easier? Obviously, great inconvenience was had on the part of the irregulars who committed the crimes they were ordered to, showing that they meant to lead the helpless masses to their deaths in the desert, after, of course, all who could resist and many who couldn't were slaughtered wholesale.

[Louis VI the Fat]

LEN, I agree with Brenus that I don't much care whether there was a massacre or a genocide. That is both needless semanticism, and it creates an artificial distinction between the two. Where the former is considered 'normal' collateral damage of war, and the latter an elevated status, highly coveted at that.

Don't really have a point with the above. I do have a question: do you think that it was the policy of Turkey to create an etnically monogenous state? In other words, was, if not necessarily through death, the disappearance of all Armenians from the soil of Turkey a goal?

“how can you blame me doing the unexpected” Err, sorry what unexpected?
I blame you for rejecting responsibilities on others (French, English, USA, all the world).
I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.
As I said, I never went in details BUT Hitler was referring of the Armenians slaughter, not the Turkish slaughter when asked about the possibility of the Final Solution. This leads me to suppose that it was more violence and systematic killing in one side.

“I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder” You? So YOU invaded a lot a countries my friends, slaughtering, enslaving, pillaging and raping… The Ottoman Empire was the largest and the longest Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa. And it wasn’t nice to be in an Empire at these times…
Can I remind you that England and France (not for the beauty of the Ottoman Empire’s eyes, of course) rescued Turkey in fighting in Crimea?
What happened to Turkey in the aftermath of WW1 is exactly was happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the II Reich and somehow Russia. They were the Enemies so they were dismantled... They didn’t had an Atta Turck (sp?), some got a Lenin…
So the song of the poor lonesome Turkey facing the entire world manipulated by the evil Armenian Lobby…

“Briefly, why do you hate us so much?” Because raising a question about the past is Hate?

“ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983”: What? Imperialists, whoa… Normally it goes with Yankee and valets…

As a French, my history is full of civil wars (the last one being after WW2, some will say even Algerian war-because the Military Coup), for political, religious, and so-called ethnical reasons. To study them is not an insult or a tragedy. As said somewhere else, the French did their parts in slaughters others nations and themselves.

That is a great post!

Johann Hari:

*blahblahblah*

A big 'meh' to Johann Hari here. I'm not impressed. He is right, sure enough, there is a dirty war going on. But for him to present his article with an undertone of breakthrough investigative journalism? Meh. If he had spend twenty minutes on Wikipedia he could've copy-pasted the same article together, with less inaccuracies as a bonus.

I realise that was not the point of your posting it. So yes, fair enough, lots of nations have a hard time facing up to the darker chapters of their own history. Indeed, 'he who is without sin casts the first stone'. The sin not being genocides / mass murders of your own, but the unwillingness to admit them.

(tip: for festering wounds to poke in, try Algeria, or even tired old Vichy. Nobody cares about dark Africa)

[Don Corleone]

Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post. I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

Right, I've had a chance to go back and read more of the thread and I hear what you and Xiahou are trying to say. I'm just struck by the hypocricy of it all. Okay, perhaps the smallpox blanket incident was technically the Brittish (which in 1763, we still were). I'm not a deconstructionist when it comes to history, and I don't think its fair to judge the acts of the 18th and 19th century by the moral standards of today. But come on... we didn't know that Wounded Knee was wrong? And we knew damn well the Trail of Tears incident and what we did to the Cherokees was wrong, even at the time. And how about poor old Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce? Having seen what happened to natives forced onto reservations, they just wanted to go to Canada and leave the US altogether. But nope, that wasn't good enough for us. We had to hunt him and the rest of the Nez Perce down and kill enough of them that the survivors surrendered and were willing to accept any terms allowed.

You can say 'it was complicated' and 'atrocities were committed by both sides', and you'd be somewhat right. But there were a few watershed events that transpired that shocked the sensibilities of white America of the day, let alone people trying to indulge in collective guilt now, and they were pretty much all us against them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Early US (and European) treatment of Native Amerinds:

Things varied quite a bit.

Spanish efforts in Central America, The Carribean and much of South America were little short of horrific. While early conquistadores often made alliances with some tribes in order to secure leverage against other tribes, once the extant empires had been broken, the rest was hideous. For every missionary trying to spread the word of God, there were a dozen others trying to extract every ounce of profit. Most of the native population that did not succumb to disease were enslaved as a matter of policy. Tribes and cultures were, by design, destroyed -- ostensibly to christianize the region -- so thoroughly that (outside the Amazon) native cultures exist in only fragmentary fashion.

French efforts were a lot less intrusive. Most French Caribbean possessions had been depopulated by disease long before the French made claim. Moreover, though there were clashes, French efforts in North America were to convert the Indian groups into an informal trading network. Some degree of economic "imperialism" accompanied this, but this seemed to be a byproduct of their efforts to use North American resources. France, on the whole, was the least acquisitive and least directly damaging of the European influences.

English/Dutch/Swedish efforts on the Eastern Seaboard (latterly controlled exclusively by England) were a mixed lot. Europeans and Amerinds consistently "spoke past" one another. [e.g. The Sale of Manhattan: The Dutch thought they robbed the Indians blind by buying the Island for a few chests of trinkets, while the Indians thought they robbed the Dutch blind because they got paid for land -- which couldn't be owned like a good/possession anyway]. Most settlers in this group were more than willing to exploit the natives (the prevailing attitude was that a pre-technical people were "lesser" beings and that displacing them did no wrong) , although designs on attack/destruction of the natives were not a standard operating procedure at this point.

On the Eastern seaboard, in particular, one element that must have vexed all of the Europeans was the inconsistency of treatment. One tribe would be friendly and the next attempt to kill you -- each tribe was it's own master --and tribalism was one component of European culture that Europe was stamping out. If you couldn't be sure of treatment from one moment to the next, and were already inclined to think of them as "sub" humans anyway (not that they didn't cheerfully breed with them when opportunity presented, hmmm.....), it's an easy step to head toward pogroms as your answer. Treating them all as enemies would be psychologically simple, and humans crave such simplicity.

[Brenus]

“Here goes the Wiki entry 's Conclusion part saying”: I ever used Wikipedia.
And if I would, I would go for the French version, like in most of my research…

“Hitler is the Beast of genocides, he had his own foul ideas about the Jewish but sure he must have said something true about the Armenians”
I heard this kind of things before. If a bad guy says something it is wrong… Well, I think Hitler did agree on the fact that the grass was green. And, well, the grass is green.
What Hitler said, and was proven wrong again, was nobody remembered the Armenians “solution”.

“So if I have YOU in my lands, then you are INVADERS. So purely simplistic for someone who has such experiences.” Yes, no body denies this point. The French, English, Australia and others, did rage war on Turkey. BUT to blame them for what the ottoman Empire did is a little bit fetch…

“I can still feel the sweet intent of the Allies” Yep, nothing was done just for the nice and warm Ottoman Empire… It was a real politic of the time… Again, it was what I said.

“Your ancestors fight dirty, that's all about it”: Yes they did. Yours were the model of chivalry and knighthood.

“French kings (though they can be the XXVII. or whatsoever, I'd care for who he really is”:
No matter, I am Republican. The only King we had with the XVII in fact never existed. Louis the XVII, son of Louis XVI, never reigned. He died in the Temple prison…

Just please show some respect to one of the most influential statesmen of the 21st century” Err, 21st Century?

“Intended to be directed at the politicians, raising such critical and sensitive HISTORICAL statements (not questions unfortunately) and melding it into the fights of vote is just ugly. It doesn't really seem so humanistic from here.” I would agree on that. However, if a clear and really historical research would be possible, it will cut any possible political exploitation of this event, do you think?

[Karo]

LEN what source do you use for the part about the Armenian gangs. And are they supported by the turkish goverment. And you why the Turkish goverment has responsibilty because when it was formed many of the young turks joined the national republic, they got away unpunisht.

[Komutan]

I would agree on that. However, if a clear and really historical research would be possible, it will cut any possible political exploitation of this event, do you think?

No, it will not. The majority of the so-called historical researches about this matter are themselves results of political agendas(agendas from both sides of the debate).

[Brenus]

“The majority of the so-called historical researches about this matter are themselves results of political agendas(agendas from both sides of the debate)” Yes, that is why I said IF.
Somehow, History is politic, it a representation of our past.

[IrishArmenian]

Okay, Komutan, something from a site that is not so blunt as to call itself "The Tall Armenian Tale" or other such biased titles. That includes Turkish and Armenian historians, and if you think the Western historians are too biased towards favoring the Armenians, remember that the West did absolutely nothing while we were being raped, systematically killed, driven from our land and nearly eliminated entirely.