European Court of Human Rights: Armenian Deportation Is Not a Genocide

[acatziri]

bla bla bla

Abu Ghraib Genocide - Part 2:

[acatziri]

bla bla bla

Abu Ghraib Genocide - Part 3:

[acatziri]

In other words, if Perincek suggested that the Ottomans didn't use pistols for executing Armenians, he would be guilty, but hey! He didn't deny that! He said that since there are still some Armenians who are alive, it's not a genocide!!!
It's legalese, but you can't hide over the hecatombes of the massacred Armenians. All you can do is deny there was a genocide simply because at 1915 there was no ICJ or any other authority or international body, not even the Society of Nations, to take upon the case. In contrast, the Holocaust which took place a generation later was established simply because the legal bodies to do so were created right after WWII. The same with Tamerlane: There were no international courts during the 15th century, thus - strictly legally - he didn't commit any genocide!!!

Repeat Number One for Bad Intended Mentally Ill Turk Hating Denial Stress Problems Having People:

We Turks did not commit any genocide. Armenians betrayed the Turks and Kurds with whom they were neighbours for thousand years. It was the 1st World War, and the Ottoman Army was battling against the English, French and Russian allies. During this time of war, the Armenians did not fight for their homeland(the Ottoman Empire in which they were living), in stead in a treacherously way, they betrayed the Turks. While the majority of Turkish and Kurdish men were in duty of the Ottoman Army, Armenian terrorists openly joined the side of the English, French and Russian army.

They killed innocent woman and children in villages were there were few men left, because most of the men joined the Ottoman Army. The Armenian terrorists destroyed complete cities like Van and Erzurum. Much worse, they wore the uniforms of the Russian and French Army. While the Ottoman Army was busy with the 1st WW, the Armenian and Greek traitors stabbed the Ottoman population in the back. What the Ottoman State did was even humanly, look at what the Russian and US puppet Armenians did in Khocali? The Ottoman State only deported the traitors that stabbed the Ottoman state in the back. This has nothing to do with genocide.

The Armenians tried to divide and weaken the Ottoman state from the inner side to make their owners(the English and the Tsar Russians), and the Armenians and their masters were the ones that committed a Muslim Genocide during the 1st WW, the Turks only defended their country, during war, if the enemy tries to kill you, you have to defend your country, this is what we Turks did, the English and their Greek and Armenian puppets tried to kill us and take over our country, and we did not let this happen, and had a victory against them after the Turk War of Independence.

Also, there are thousands of documents in the Russian and US Archives, which shows the exact numbers of Armenians whom were deported to Syria(also Ottoman region at that time), and from here to the US and other countries. The numbers show that there is NO KIND OF A GENOCIDE, the population number of the people safely deported is the same as the number of Armenians that lived in Ottoman country before the 1st World War.

Of course, every human that dies, we should be upset about it, but this was a World War, and if you try to take over the country of the weakened dumb Ottoman dynasty, then the Turks will not surrender, and will defend their country, and that is what we did successfully! End of the Point!

Repeat Number Two for Bad Intended Mentally Ill Turk Hating Denial Stress Problems Having People:

Most important examples are the cities Erzurum and Van, the Armenians committed a genocide on the Muslim Turks and Kurds just to fullfill the orders of their Tsar Russian and English masters. The same unhuman situations were performed in all regions of Türkiye.

I really want you to understand what i mean in a good intended way. Think of it like this:

-There is a First World War ongoing.

-Majority of all Muslim men in Ottoman Türkiye did join the Ottoman army to fight against the Tsar Russians and British.

-The villages are left only with women, old people and children.

-Then all the sudden, Armenian terrorist groups like Hinchaks ve Tashnaks whom wore the military uniforms of the Russians, French and British, and were publicly in the service of the Russians, French and British armies, killed and raped the innocent civil(not soldiers) Turks and Kurds and burn and destroy as much as villages as possible(Van and Erzurum completely) with whom they lived together for 1000 years in peace.

-This is treason, and this treason is performed while the majority of the men were fighting in the battle fields against the real enemy armies of the British and Russians and their puppets(like French, Italian, etc.).

-The head of the state of the Ottoman Empire did not give any kind of order to massacre the Armenians that committed treason. The Ottoman Army was stabbed in the back, while the Ottoman Army was fighting in war, at the civil regions Armenians were commiting treason. The Ottoman state decided only to deport the Armenian population from "Türkiye"(Anatolia) regions to the region of Syria which was then still under control of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman State(The Turks) DID NOT in any kind of way perform any kind of massacre or genocide against the Armenians. Use your logical instincts, if an Armenian group of terrorists kills many of the relatives of a Turk who was in duty in the Ottoman Army, what would a Turk have to do to defend the remaining members of his family in his village? The fact is that the Armenians wore Russian and English military uniforms and tried to take over our country with the performing of hundreds of unhuman campaigns, and we Turks DEFENDED OUR COUNTRY, OUR FAMILIES AND OUR HONOUR SUCCESSFULLY, this is NOT GENOCIDE, this is a WAR, and the Turks were the ones being invaded. Of course, many unfortunate situations, revenge killings have happened, but if you look at the Ottoman records, you can see easily that the Ottoman State, executed(sentenced to death) dozens/hundreds of Turks/Kurds whom murdered against the law.

-Reading the following Report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia, shows that all my arguments above are completely true:

CONGRESS REPORT TO THE TASHNAK PARTY

Hovhannes Kajaznuni, or Hovhannes Katchaznouni (Armenian: Յովհաննէս Քաջազնունի) (1 February 1868 – 1938) was the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia from May 30, 1918 to May 28, 1919. He was a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

Hovhannes Kajaznuni, has submitted a report to the Congress of the Tashnaksütyun Party which was held in 1923 in Bucharest-Romania. In this report, Hovhannes Kajaznuni bravely tells the truth about what happened during and after the First World War.

The Summary of the Report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni is like this:

"The Tsar Russia, England and France DECEIVED us Armenians. They told us that they would give us a state reaching from a sea to another sea, and hereby they armed us(gave us weapons) and send us to the fire(to risk ourselves, to die for them, to kill innocent people for them, for what they promised us).

The Turks acted in the pupose of defending. Mutual massacres happened. We massacred the Muslim population. Guiltiness(The ones that did wrong) should not be sought outside of the Dashnak Party. In this case, htere is nothing left to do for the Dashnak Pary. The Dashnak Pary should dissolve itself.
"
The remaining other Armenian statesmen did also write reports like this.

-Also, looking at the Turk Genocide in 26 February 1992, which was committed by the Armenians against the Azerbaijani Turks in the Khocali region, we can CONCLUDE, finally that we TURKS DID NEVER COMMIT ANY KIND OF GENOCIDE. The Armenians murdered in any kind of horrifying unhuman way within only one day, hundreds of innocent Azerbaijani Turks who did not have the proper weapons to defend theirselves. Please have a look at the following pictures to understand what kind of horrifying massacres/genocides the Armenians committed to us Turks in 1992 and understand that the same kind of unhuman acts(massacres/genocides) were also performed during and before the World War 1(1914-1918) against the Türkiye Turks in the Anatolia region.

More photos of this horrifying unhuman Khocali Genocide can be seen at: http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12279

Repeat Number Three for Bad Intended Mentally Ill Turk Hating Denial Stress Problems Having People:

Do i have to keep repeating the same message, this is what the Court said:

-The Court took the view that the term “genocide” as used in the relevant Article of the Swiss Criminal Code was likely to raise doubts as to the precision required by Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

-The Court pointed out that it was not called upon to address either the veracity of the massacres and deportations perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards, or the appropriateness of legally characterising those acts as “genocide”, within the meaning of the relevant Article of the Criminal Code.

-In this connection, the Court clearly distinguished the present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the Holocaust.

Another new quotation from the official pdf the Court published:

The Court also pointed out that it was not called upon to rule on the legal characterisation of the Armenian genocide. The existence of a “genocide”, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths.

If you still keep on further with your denial problems, go see some doctor and medicate yourself, i am not your doctor

Another quotation:

The applicant, Doğu Perinçek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). Being a doctor of laws and the Chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party, Mr Perinçek participated in various conferences in Switzerland in May, July and September 2005, during which he publicly denied that the Ottoman Empire had perpetrated the crime of genocide against the Armenian people in 1915 and the following years. He described the idea of an Armenian genocide as an “international lie”.

The Cassation Division emphasised that Mr Perinçek had only denied the characterisation as genocide without calling into question the existence of the massacres and deportations of Armenians.

Agreeing with Mr Perinçek, the Court took the view that the notion of “genocide” was a precisely defined legal concept. According to the case-law of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, for the crime of genocide to be made out, the acts must have been perpetrated with intent to destroy not only certain members of a particular group but all or part of the group itself. Genocide was a very narrow legal concept that was, moreover, difficult to substantiate. The Court was not convinced that the general consensus to which the courts referred in convicting Mr Perinçek could relate to such very specific points of law.

In this connection, the Court clearly distinguished the present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the Holocaust. In those cases, the applicants had denied the historical facts even though they were sometimes very concrete, such as the existence of the gas chambers. They had denied the crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime for which there had been a clear legal basis. Lastly, the acts that they had called into question had been found by an international court to be clearly established.

Lets analyze the following statement:

"it was not called upon to address either the veracity of the massacres and deportations perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards, or the appropriateness of legally characterising those acts as “genocide”
"

Synonyms:

It was not called upon to address: It was Not Correct to Define
Veracity: Truthfulness, Conformity to facts; Accuracy
Appropriateness: Rightness

Full Translation:

1a- It was not called upon to address the veracity of the massacres and deportations. =
1b- It was Not Correct to Define the Accuracy of the massacres and deportations =
1c- The massacres and deportations described in the Swiss criminal code are not Accurate.

2a- It was not called upon to address the appropriateness of legally characterising the massacres and deportations as “genocide” =
2b- It was Not Correct to Define the Rightness of the legally characterising of the massacres and deportations as “genocide” =
2c- The massacres and deportations WERE NOT GENOCIDE.

Different example about the term "called upon to address":

New Scottish Government called upon to address Equal Marriage for same sex couples

The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland today launched a new report calling for access to equal marriage for same sex couples in Scotland. The report is a result of a symposium recently held by the Commission to investigate perceived barriers to equal marriage and suggest ways forward for legislators.

The report calls upon the Scottish Government to consider these disparities and to take steps to bring about equal access to marriage in Scotland. The evidence and research contained within the report aims to inform their deliberations.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/a...me-sex-couples

[Petros Houhoulis]

In your previous post you claimed Timur to have killed 17 million people, now you lower the number to between 100,000 and 200,000. What will the number in your next post consist of?

The wikipedia article mentioned the destruction of a single city - Isfahan - that resulted to between 100,000 and 200,000 people massacred. Tamerlane destroyed many more cities, not just Isfahan. Can you grasp it moron?

Maybe 1000? And you still did not mention the source name of the historical ancient book in which the numbers of 17 millions or even 40 millions is mentioned. This shows, that you are a simple liar, and shows how weak and unreliable your arguments are. You can not decorate, beautify or garnish your lies with the copy pasting of some large graphical images, it does not mean anything at all.

Read history. The death toll of Genghis Khan was so impressive, it turned the planet greener! There is even archaeologic evidence that pastures went abandoned for decades after Genghis Khan passed from there. China had a census, and the population of North China was reduced by 40 million after the conquest of Genghis Khan!!!

Wikipedia provides the source about Isfahan:

• Chaliand, Gerard; Arnaud Blin (2007). The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to Al Qaeda. University of California Press. p. 87.ISBN 978-0520247093.

You dont know the meaning of the term "Genocide". Go see a doctor, and get yourself medicated for your denial problems. If "War" was equal to "Genocide", then all the killings during the historical wars were "Genocide". This is not true.

Do you suggest that all 100,000 to 200,000 citizens of Isfahan were combatants and that their murder was simply an act of war? Of course it was genocide you moron! An entire city was wiped off the map!!!

"Genocide", means this, let me tell it to you piece by piece, maybe you will enlighten yourself, or else go see a doctor. Genocide, is a procedure used to a specific foreign nation. In fact, "Timur" was of "Turk" origin, and he also attacked and made "War" with the Ottoman Army(also of Turk origin) too. Many Turks died at the War between the Ottomans and the Timurids, but this has nothing to do with "Genocide", this is "WAR".

Where did I claim that Tamerlane forced a genocide against the Ottoman Turks? I mentioned Isfahan which was not part of the Ottoman empire. You accuse me of something I never wrote! Tamerlane was indeed a Turk who pretended to be a Mongol. Get used to it.

"Genocide" is when a "State" will have a goal to on purposely "DESTROY" all other foreign ethnic groups within the "borders" of a state.

False definition. The NAZI Germans for example did not attempt to destroy every ethnic group within NAZI Germany. Only the Jews and - partially - the Slavs. According to your definition, they did not commit genocide because they didn't try to exterminate all other non-German groups, like the French in occupied France or the Norwegians in occupied Norway!

But a war declared to the official army of another state is NOT GENOCIDE. Conquering is also NOT GENOCIDE. But, after the conquering(after the finish of the war with an official army), if a state on purposely kills the innocent defenseless civil people(non military) just because they are of another nation, this is GENOCIDE and an UNHUMAN RACIST action. This has never been the case for all Turks in the history.

That's exactly what Tamerlane did in Isfahan. The Timurids kept massacring to the tune of 100 million people during the millenium of their rule in India.

War and conquest has nothing to do with genocide.

Of course they have a relationship. Genocides happen usually during wars. Probably only during wars because mass extinctions outside of wars are defined as "genocides".

During a war between soldiers, genocide is not possible. Everywhere, were the Ghengisid armies went, they offered peace if they surrendered, and all historical facts show really that if the countries accepted the offer, their countries lived in peace under the Genghisid(=Timurid) rule. A genocide is a legal term describing the killing of innocent civil(no military) people(based on ethnical hate crime) that cant defend theirselves. During Genghisid rule, this never happened, after conquest like you can see for example during the rule of Kubilai Khan, you can see that a foreign Marco Polo became one of the most richest statesmen in the empire of Kubilai Khan. The only mistake the Turk royal families made in history is eating of each other(their own people) for the fight for the throne.

Genghis Khan - 50 million corpses. Tamerlane - 17 million corpses. Keep blabbering!!!

Tell me something, in the Ottoman period before the loss in 1918, did the Ottomans ever kill 1.5 million innocent civilians, to make theirselves and their elite companies richer?

Not that many, but you massacred hundreds of thousands of people during various rebellions. There was on average a rebellion in Greece every 2.5 years during the Ottoman rule!!!

No, never. Just after the British and American rule in Iraq started, a genocide of millions were conducted, is this a coincidence? Why werent the Muslims killing each other during the Ottoman period?

They were. You just admitted above that Tamerlane attacked the Ottoman empire. Didn't you even realize it?

We should know the fact that no one in Iraq is killing each other. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of CIA controlled sleeper cells, and dozens of subgroups of larger CIA controlled terrorist organizations like the PKK, which on purposely are causing the CHAOS in Iraq.

It's pointless. YOU ARE INSANE. THERE ARE NO CIA SLEEPER CELLS IN IRAQ!!!

All these CIA sleeper cells and the CIA terrorist organizations are being commanded by the US army special forces like Delta Force. In fact, the majority of these sleeper cells and terrorists are sneaky US, UK, Israeli and Armenian originated soldiers.

How come none of them is ever killed? If they did really exist, they would have to speak Arabic without accent and without anybody to realize that they are alien to the Arab/Muslim customs!!! Some of them would have been killed and people would find out their identity. There are Yankee casualties, but they are contractors, not sleeper cells. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE.

All these US genocide structures i mentioned just now are based on secret organizations, and we should not forget the obvious officially publicly killings of the US army which were leaked to the international media.

For example look at this horrifiying unhuman acts of the US soldiers in the leaked pictures of the Abu Ghraib Genocide:

Ebu Gureyb Soykırımı - The Abu Ghraib Genocide

This was NOT a genocide you moron! A genocide requires physical extinction of a large number of people. Those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were not executed. THEY WERE TORTURED, BUT THEY ARE STILL ALIVE. Grow up you moron!!!

[Petros Houhoulis]

Repeat Number One for Bad Intended Mentally Ill Turk Hating Denial Stress Problems Having People:

We Turks did not commit any genocide.

Only a half dozen of them!

Armenians betrayed the Turks and Kurds with whom they were neighbours for thousand years.

That was not a betrayal. The Ottoman empire was not democratic. If you didn't respect the will of the Armenian people within the Ottoman empire, they didn't betray you!

It was the 1st World War, and the Ottoman Army was battling against the English, French and Russian allies. During this time of war, the Armenians did not fight for their homeland(the Ottoman Empire in which they were living), in stead in a treacherously way, they betrayed the Turks. While the majority of Turkish and Kurdish men were in duty of the Ottoman Army, Armenian terrorists openly joined the side of the English, French and Russian army.

That was because you didn't allow democracy to flourish in the Ottoman empire, and because you kept massacring them in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres

The Hamidian massacres (Armenian: Համիդյան ջարդեր), also referred to as the Armenian Massacres of 1894–1896^[1] and Great Massacres,^[1] refer to massacres of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-1890s, with estimates of the dead ranging from 80,000 to 300,000,^[2] resulting in 50,000 orphaned children.^[3] The massacres are named after SultanAbdul Hamid II, who, in his efforts to reinforce the territorial integrity of the embattled Ottoman Empire, reasserted Pan-Islamism as a state ideology.^[4] Although the massacres were aimed mainly at the Armenians, they turned into indiscriminate anti-Christian pogroms in some cases, such as in Diyarbekir Vilayet where some 25,000 Assyrians were killed (see also Assyrian genocide).^[5]
The massacres began with incidents in the Ottoman interior in 1894, gained full force in the years 1894–96, and tapered off in 1897, as international condemnation brought pressure to bear on Abdul Hamid. Despite the fact that the Ottomans had previously suppressed other revolts, the harshest measures were directed against the Armenian community. They observed no distinction between age or gender, and massacred them with brutal force.^[6] This occurred at a time when thetelegraph could spread news around the world, and the massacres received extensive coverage in the media of Western Europe and the United States.

They killed innocent woman and children in villages were there were few men left, because most of the men joined the Ottoman Army. The Armenian terrorists destroyed complete cities like Van and Erzurum. Much worse, they wore the uniforms of the Russian and French Army. While the Ottoman Army was busy with the 1st WW, the Armenian and Greek traitors stabbed the Ottoman population in the back. What the Ottoman State did was even humanly, look at what the Russian and US puppet Armenians did in Khocali? The Ottoman State only deported the traitors that stabbed the Ottoman state in the back. This has nothing to do with genocide.

The Armenian occupied those cities temporarily at best, they didn't massacre all the inhabitants of those towns. What you claim is pure propaganda. Furthermore, you were massacring the Armenians and Greeks in concentration camps and while they were forced in exile.

The Armenians tried to divide and weaken the Ottoman state from the inner side to make their owners(the English and the Tsar Russians), and the Armenians and their masters were the ones that committed a Muslim Genocide during the 1st WW, the Turks only defended their country, during war, if the enemy tries to kill you, you have to defend your country, this is what we Turks did, the English and their Greek and Armenian puppets tried to kill us and take over our country, and we did not let this happen, and had a victory against them after the Turk War of Independence.

You could have simply allow the Ottoman parliament to function and listen to the grievances of the Armenian and other ethnic groups within the Ottoman empire. It was your mistake to believe they were supposed to follow your orders even when they didn't like them.

Also, there are thousands of documents in the Russian and US Archives, which shows the exact numbers of Armenians whom were deported to Syria(also Ottoman region at that time), and from here to the US and other countries. The numbers show that there is NO KIND OF A GENOCIDE, the population number of the people safely deported is the same as the number of Armenians that lived in Ottoman country before the 1st World War.

Show me the documents...

Of course, every human that dies, we should be upset about it, but this was a World War, and if you try to take over the country of the weakened dumb Ottoman dynasty, then the Turks will not surrender, and will defend their country, and that is what we did successfully! End of the Point!

The Ottoman empire was not a democracy. It was a despotic regime. Even Kemal Ataturk claimed that the Turkish state waged war against the Ottoman empire and liberated Turkey from the Sultans' yoke!!!

Repeat Number Two for Bad Intended Mentally Ill Turk Hating Denial Stress Problems Having People:

Most important examples are the cities Erzurum and Van, the Armenians committed a genocide on the Muslim Turks and Kurds just to fullfill the orders of their Tsar Russian and English masters. The same unhuman situations were performed in all regions of Türkiye.

I really want you to understand what i mean in a good intended way. Think of it like this:

-There is a First World War ongoing.

-Majority of all Muslim men in Ottoman Türkiye did join the Ottoman army to fight against the Tsar Russians and British.

-The villages are left only with women, old people and children.

-Then all the sudden, Armenian terrorist groups like Hinchaks ve Tashnaks whom wore the military uniforms of the Russians, French and British, and were publicly in the service of the Russians, French and British armies, killed and raped the innocent civil(not soldiers) Turks and Kurds and burn and destroy as much as villages as possible(Van and Erzurum completely) with whom they lived together for 1000 years in peace.

Those were liberation fighters, no different than Kemal Ataturk who also rebelled against the rule of the Sultan and the Ottoman empire, and whose army also committed some massacres - but not as many as the Ottoman regime itself.

-This is treason, and this treason is performed while the majority of the men were fighting in the battle fields against the real enemy armies of the British and Russians and their puppets(like French, Italian, etc.).

There is no treason in undemocratic regimes. People are entitled to seek their freedom and democracy.

-The head of the state of the Ottoman Empire did not give any kind of order to massacre the Armenians that committed treason.

There was no direct order from Hitler or anybody else to gas the Jews in the gas chambers. So what?

The Ottoman Army was stabbed in the back, while the Ottoman Army was fighting in war, at the civil regions Armenians were commiting treason. The Ottoman state decided only to deport the Armenian population from "Türkiye"(Anatolia) regions to the region of Syria which was then still under control of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman State(The Turks) DID NOT in any kind of way perform any kind of massacre or genocide against the Armenians.

Even Perincek accepted that there were massacres against the Armenians. So did Erdogan. You deny even the smallest Ottoman crimes!!!

Use your logical instincts, if an Armenian group of terrorists kills many of the relatives of a Turk who was in duty in the Ottoman Army, what would a Turk have to do to defend the remaining members of his family in his village?

The real question is how did the Armenians showed up in that village, what they really did, and how come the Turkish troops which were supposedly fighting in the front showed up so far away from the front, and who was guarding the front while they were back home, not to mention that the Ottoman army had attempted an offensive into Russia and faced a crushing defeat. You see, in reality, not all of the Turkish army was on the front, and there were always plenty of troops around Van and Erzerum that didn't really have to be recalled from the front.

The fact is that the Armenians wore Russian and English military uniforms and tried to take over our country with the performing of hundreds of unhuman campaigns, and we Turks DEFENDED OUR COUNTRY, OUR FAMILIES AND OUR HONOUR SUCCESSFULLY, this is NOT GENOCIDE, this is a WAR, and the Turks were the ones being invaded.

If the Armenians wore Russian and English uniforms they would have to use them in the front line, not around Van or Erzerum. In reality, the Armenians who served in the Russian and - perhaps - the British army wore those uniforms while serving in the Russian and/or British armies, not while fighting as renegade rebels inside Turkey. If they did so, they would be considered as deserters, because the Russian and British army did not undertake any operations so far inside Turkey, and they would be insane to not attempt to conquer/liberate any areas closer to their lines of defense anyway.

Of course, many unfortunate situations, revenge killings have happened, but if you look at the Ottoman records, you can see easily that the Ottoman State, executed(sentenced to death) dozens/hundreds of Turks/Kurds whom murdered against the law.

-Reading the following Report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia, shows that all my arguments above are completely true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovhan...3_ARF_Congress

Kajaznuni prepared a critical report for the April 1923 ARF convention in Bucharest (the 10th Congress of the Party was held in 1924)^[3][4] titled "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do," which called for the dissolution of the Party and Armenian support of Soviet Armenia.^[5][6][7][8] It has been claimed that the convention of 1923 was "highly secret and closed to the public",^[9] which was common for party gatherings. Kajaznuni published his report in Vienna (1923). In the same year, it was republished by non-A.R.F. circles in Tbilisi, Alexandria (Egypt), and Bucarest.^[10] Its claims immediately drew rebuke from the party.^{[11][12][13][14]} Until recently, the report was available through its abridged English translation by Matthew Aram Callender, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing to Do Any More, edited byAvedis Boghos Derounian, and published by the Armenian Information Service, directed by the latter.^[15] The Armenian original was reprinted twice in Yerevan in 1994 and 1995, and copies of different editions are available through major Armenian libraries worldwide.
In 2007 Turkish historian Mehmet Perinçek,^[16] son of politician Doğu Perinçek, the first person to be convicted by a court of law for denial of the Armenian Genocide, claimed to have produced a new Turkish and English translation of the full text, based on a reportedly unabridged Russian copy (printed in Tbilisi, 1927) held in the Russian State Library in Moscow.^[17] This story is disputed by some Armenian intellectuals such as Viken L. Attarian, who claim that all these "discoveries" are actually forgeries of this document, made by alleged Turkish unscrupulous historians to rebuke the fact of the Armenian Genocide,^[18] which is proven by the fact that the translations of the text in Turkish, English, and German were published by Kaynak Press, Istanbul, as the first in a book series titled "Ermeni Belgeleriyle Ermeni Soykırımı Yalanı," "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents" and "Die Lüge vom Genozid an den Armeniern Anhand armenischer Dokumente.", whilst in the version which is translated from the original by Matthew A. Callender Kajaznuni describes what happened as "holocaust" (p. 7) and says:

The second half of 1915 and the entire year of 1916 were periods of hopelessness, desperation and mourning for us. The refugees, all those who had survived the holocaust, were filling Russian provinces by tens and hundreds of thousands.^[19]

-Also, looking at the Turk Genocide in 26 February 1992, which was committed by the Armenians against the Azerbaijani Turks in the Khocali region, we can CONCLUDE, finally that we TURKS DID NEVER COMMIT ANY KIND OF GENOCIDE.

Just because somebody massacred some Azerbaijanis is no proof that the Turks have not committed any genocide of their own. The massacre of 161 people is not a genocide either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_Massacre

The Khojaly Massacre, also known as the Khojaly tragedy, was the killing^[3] of at least 161 ethnic Azerbaijani civilians^[1] from the town of Khojaly on 25–26 February 1992 by the Armenian and, partially, by CIS armed forces during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. According to the Azerbaijani side, as well as Memorial Human Rights Center, Human Rights Watch and other international observers,^[5][6] the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces, reportedly with help of the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment, apparently not acting on orders from the command.^[7][8] The death toll claimed by Azerbaijani authorities is 613 civilians, including 106 women and 63 children.^[4] The event became the largest massacre in the course of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.^[2]
Western governments and the western media refer to it as the "Khojaly massacre", "Khojaly tragedy" or the "Battle for Khojaly".^[9] Azerbaijani sources^[10][11] occasionally refer to the massacre as "Khojaly genocide" (Azerbaijani: Xocalı soyqırımı) and the "Khojaly tragedy" (Azerbaijani: Xocalı faciəsi).^[12]

The Armenians murdered in any kind of horrifying unhuman way within only one day, hundreds of innocent Azerbaijani Turks who did not have the proper weapons to defend theirselves. Please have a look at the following pictures to understand what kind of horrifying massacres/genocides the Armenians committed to us Turks in 1992 and understand that the same kind of unhuman acts(massacres/genocides) were also performed during and before the World War 1(1914-1918) against the Türkiye Turks in the Anatolia region.



Repeat Number Three for Bad Intended Mentally Ill Turk Hating Denial Stress Problems Having People:

Do i have to keep repeating the same message, this is what the Court said:

-The Court took the view that the term “genocide” as used in the relevant Article of the Swiss Criminal Code was likely to raise doubts as to the precision required by Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

-The Court pointed out that it was not called upon to address either the veracity of the massacres and deportations perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards, or the appropriateness of legally characterising those acts as “genocide”, within the meaning of the relevant Article of the Criminal Code.

-In this connection, the Court clearly distinguished the present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the Holocaust.

Another new quotation from the official pdf the Court published:

The Court also pointed out that it was not called upon to rule on the legal characterisation of the Armenian genocide. The existence of a “genocide”, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths.

If you still keep on further with your denial problems, go see some doctor and medicate yourself, i am not your doctor

Another quotation:

The applicant, Doğu Perinçek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). Being a doctor of laws and the Chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party, Mr Perinçek participated in various conferences in Switzerland in May, July and September 2005, during which he publicly denied that the Ottoman Empire had perpetrated the crime of genocide against the Armenian people in 1915 and the following years. He described the idea of an Armenian genocide as an “international lie”.

The Cassation Division emphasised that Mr Perinçek had only denied the characterisation as genocide without calling into question the existence of the massacres and deportations of Armenians.

Agreeing with Mr Perinçek, the Court took the view that the notion of “genocide” was a precisely defined legal concept. According to the case-law of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, for the crime of genocide to be made out, the acts must have been perpetrated with intent to destroy not only certain members of a particular group but all or part of the group itself. Genocide was a very narrow legal concept that was, moreover, difficult to substantiate. The Court was not convinced that the general consensus to which the courts referred in convicting Mr Perinçek could relate to such very specific points of law.

In this connection, the Court clearly distinguished the present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the Holocaust. In those cases, the applicants had denied the historical facts even though they were sometimes very concrete, such as the existence of the gas chambers. They had denied the crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime for which there had been a clear legal basis. Lastly, the acts that they had called into question had been found by an international court to be clearly established.

Lets analyze the following statement:

"it was not called upon to address either the veracity of the massacres and deportations perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards, or the appropriateness of legally characterising those acts as “genocide”
"

Synonyms:

It was not called upon to address: It was Not Correct to Define
Veracity: Truthfulness, Conformity to facts; Accuracy
Appropriateness: Rightness

Full Translation:

1a- It was not called upon to address the veracity of the massacres and deportations. =
1b- It was Not Correct to Define the Accuracy of the massacres and deportations =
1c- The massacres and deportations described in the Swiss criminal code are not Accurate.

2a- It was not called upon to address the appropriateness of legally characterising the massacres and deportations as “genocide” =
2b- It was Not Correct to Define the Rightness of the legally characterising of the massacres and deportations as “genocide” =
2c- The massacres and deportations WERE NOT GENOCIDE.

Different example about the term "called upon to address":

I'll have to post once more the essential (non) judgement of the court about whether there was a genocide or not:

The Court pointed out that it was not called upon to address either the veracity of the massacres and deportations perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards, or the appropriateness of legally characterising those acts as “genocide”, within the meaning of the relevant Article of the Criminal Code.

[acatziri]

The wikipedia article mentioned the destruction of a single city - Isfahan - that resulted to between 100,000 and 200,000 people massacred. Tamerlane destroyed many more cities, not just Isfahan. Can you grasp it moron?

Do i have to repeat each time, that when you start insulting me, it clearly shows that you are desperate, and that your arguments are of very low quality and are based on non scientific faked up information?

First of all, what is the exact historical source giving the number of between 100.000 and 200.000? And i am not your history teacher, give me the exact ancient source with the quote mentioned with the numbers, DO NOT COME TO ME WITH AN ESTIMATE. Between 100.000 and 200.000 is an estimate, not a fact, the people that estimated this are NOT fortune tellers, so to begin with if you want me to take your argument seriously, make up your arguments in a more scientific way, and i promise you i do not have denial stress problems and hate crime feelings like your kind.

Secondly, how does someone FALL DOWN from a number from 17 MILLION to between 100.000 and 200.000? What are the exact historical documents that lead you to give the number of 17 million? IF YOU CANT PROOF YOURSELF, IF YOU CANT PROOF THE 17 MILLION NUMBER, THEN I DECLARE THAT YOU ARE A SIMPLE LIAR, AND ARE NOT FIT TO CONDUCT A HEALTHY AND SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION, END OF THE POINT! Its obvious your only purpose is to change the subject, like your Turk hating other friends. This topic is about the Armenian Slander, you lost the discussion about that, you do not have any more lies in your closet to use in your arguments, then you start to direct the discussion to another subject, your intentions are so easy to spot

Read history. The death toll of Genghis Khan was so impressive, it turned the planet greener! There is even archaeologic evidence that pastures went abandoned for decades after Genghis Khan passed from there. China had a census, and the population of North China was reduced by 40 million after the conquest of Genghis Khan!!!

I do not take your numbers serious, what is the historical ancient source for the number of 40.000.000? You wont provide it, because you are a simple liar.

Wikipedia provides the source about Isfahan:

Chaliand, Gerard; Arnaud Blin (2007). The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to Al Qaeda. University of California Press. p. 87.ISBN 978-0520247093.

Do you suggest that all 100,000 to 200,000 citizens of Isfahan were combatants and that their murder was simply an act of war? Of course it was genocide you moron! An entire city was wiped off the map!!!

This is a present day book, with a bad intended title including "Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization created and still used by the US government. Give me the exact historical ancient source where the number of 17 MILLION and 100.000-200.000 is mentioned.

The US should stop with the false propaganda in which they want to proof that they are against terror, in fact the US is the main source of the majority of all international terrorist and illegal organizations. Did anyone of you know that Osama bin Laden was a CIA agent. Please have a look at the following picture in which Osama bin Laden is trained by CIA agent Zbigniew Brzezinski. How could the El Kaide and the sub group called ISIS be against the US, if they are created and controlled by the US? If the US is the source of dozens of terrorist organizations, then why does the United Nations not put an EMBARGO ON THE US?

Do you suggest that all 100,000 to 200,000 citizens of Isfahan were combatants and that their murder was simply an act of war? Of course it was genocide you moron! An entire city was wiped off the map!!!

Lets talk about the real truth of what happened during the Isfahan situation. What really happened, was:

1. Timur aimed to conquer Isfahan at 1387 AD.

2. Timur and the Isfahan Regime made an Agreement: "If Isfahan surrenders, no harm will come to anyone". It is a tradition in the Turk Culture that if a population surrenders, no harm will be done to them, they can live their religions and culture forever, and it is a well known fact that foreign people always became rich and had high status jobs in the Turk state.

Most important example is Marco Polo, how could such a foreign person become so famous and so rich, if the Turks(Kubilai Khan) were racists? And look at the dozens of examples with Ogedei Khan, when people surrender to Turk rule, they always got peace an equal rights, genocide was never committed.

Look at the Ottoman state history, you will see that Armenians, Jews and other foreign people had always been very rich with high status jobs.

Look at the people Attila trusted most, you will see they were all foreigners. Look at the sources of Priscus, and you will see that foreigners could become very rich merchants under the Hun-Turk rule because of the equal and non racist laws. Look at how noble the Turks are, and look how disgusting, unhuman and racist the US army is with their 1,5 million of genocide against the Iraqi Muslims during a PEACE PERIOD, just for the purpose of WEAPON TRADING, SLAVE TRADING, HUMAN ORGANS TRADING, OIL TRADING!

3. Isfahan surrendered, they agreed with the terms of Timur.

4. 4.000 Chagatayid soldiers of the Army of Timur settled into Isfahan to rule in there.

5. The Isfahani's BROKE THE AGREEMENT, AND KILLED 3.000 OF THE 4.000 CHAGATAYID SOLDIERS. 1.000 Chagatayid soldiers rescued their life's with luck, sheltering in the city.

6. In reaction to this treason and massacre, Timur responds with the killing of 70.000 Isfahani people who were involved in the massacre of the 3.000 Chagatayid soldiers. So, the numbers of 100.000, 200.000 or 17.000.000 is totally a lie. OF COURSE, the death of even 1 innocent person, is something to be sad about. But there is NO GENOCIDE DONE at the situation in Isfahan, this is a clear WAR, and it is the Middle Age period, a period of constant wars and conquest. Altough the agreement and surrender, the Isfahani's kills 3.000 of the 4.000 Chagatayid soldiers, and Timur reacts to this and kills 70.000 of the Isfahani people, this is clearly a WAR!

Source: Prof. Dr. Cüneyt KANAT

Where did I claim that Tamerlane forced a genocide against the Ottoman Turks? I mentioned Isfahan which was not part of the Ottoman empire. You accuse me of something I never wrote! Tamerlane was indeed a Turk who pretended to be a Mongol. Get used to it.

You are so imcopetent, you either do not want to understand or really have a low IQ and cant understand what i really meant with the Ottoman example. Timur, and Ottoman sultan Yildirim Beyazid, were BOTH TURKS and were BOTH NOT RACISTS and both DID NOT COMMIT ANY GENOCIDE. And Mongols are not a different nation, the term "Mongol" is the name of a Turk confederation of tribes beginning from the 12th century AD.

What i was trying to teach you, was that if Timur was a racist, and if he had goals for genocide, then he would NOT have attacked the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the only goal of Timur was to expand his Empire, and honour, respect and promises were very important to Timur. In fact, the respectless letters of Yildirim Beyazid were the reasons for Timur to attack the Ottoman army, he had no goal for any kind of genocide. During his conquest plans, he gave peace and equal rights to all populations that surrendered, there are clear examples about this.

False definition. The NAZI Germans for example did not attempt to destroy every ethnic group within NAZI Germany. Only the Jews and - partially - the Slavs. According to your definition, they did not commit genocide because they didn't try to exterminate all other non-German groups, like the French in occupied France or the Norwegians in occupied Norway!

No, you are twisting my arguments. "All" or "One" does not matter, i did not imply that it is necessary to destroy ALL foreign ethnic groups, what i meant was that IF a state will have the goal to on purposely "DESTROY" ONE OR MORE OF ALL FOREIGN ETHNIC GROUPS within its borders, then this is GENOCIDE. Actually you understood very good what i meant.

The French and the Germans(Allemagne) are both tribes of ancient "Germanic" origin. Again, you are so incompetent and so ignorant NOT TO KNOW THIS SIMPLE FACT. So, the reason why the Nazi's did not touch the French, is because they are historically of the same ethnic origin.

Of course they have a relationship. Genocides happen usually during wars. Probably only during wars because mass extinctions outside of wars are defined as "genocides".

A war is between TWO ARMIES, civil people are not part of a war. Genocide, is when CIVIL NON MILITARY PEOPLE gets killed by "another state or organization" on purposely with racist reasons, with or without the goal for conquest. During a War, there are many rules, the honourfull Turk history is full with examples of how these rules and ethical traditions are conducted by the Turks during the wars. Look at the historical records of the Battle of Gallipolli during the First World War(1914-1918), ask any present day Australian people, they will confirm "HOW NOBLE THE TURK CULTURE IS". During the Battle of Gallipolli, the Turkish soldiers WERE SUCH NOBLE PEOPLE, they gave treatment(during the battle) to the foreign Australian-British enemy soldiers who were screaming for help because of their wounds and by the way were trying to invade our country(not successful of course).

Genghis Khan - 50 million corpses. Tamerlane - 17 million corpses. Keep blabbering!!!

Not that many, but you massacred hundreds of thousands of people during various rebellions. There was on average a rebellion in Greece every 2.5 years during the Ottoman rule!!!

These are non scientific numbers, and are LIES, and i have proven in the previous examples very hardly how wrong your numbers are. Your statements do not mean anything, and are not reliable, not at all. Your insulting words only give confidence to me, because it shows that i am right

They were. You just admitted above that Tamerlane attacked the Ottoman empire. Didn't you even realize it?

Which historical record shows, that during the peaceful Ottoman rule of Iraq, that only within 12 years there was made a genocide of 1,5 million innocent civil non military Muslims? Dont worry, you will not be able to come up with an example in the Ottoman period, because Muslims lived in peace during the Ottoman rule of Iraq. Again, the situation between Timur and Yildirim Beyazid is a WAR between TWO MILITARY ARMIES. The situation of the US army in Iraq, IS NOT A WAR. The British already conquered Iraq after the 1st WW, then after the 2nd WW the US army took over the Iraqi rule from their brother British army. In 2003, the US again invaded Iraq which was already their own property, and again got control of the country only within a couple of weeks. But after they controlled the situation in Iraq, and after the change of the Iraqi government, after the installation of new US-CIA puppets in the Iraqi government, Iraq was not a country in War anymore. So, between 2003 and 2015, within a peaceful period of time, the US army and their puppet terrorist organizations and their controlled sleeper cells MADE AN OBVIOUSLY CLEAR GENOCIDE ON 1,5 MILLION MUSLIM IRAQIS ONLY WITHIN 12 YEARS, and i dont count the Genocides performed by the UK and US between 1918 and 2003 in Iraq. Also not counting about the Muslim Genocide committed by the US army in Afghanistan.

This was NOT a genocide you moron! A genocide requires physical extinction of a large number of people. Those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were not executed. THEY WERE TORTURED, BUT THEY ARE STILL ALIVE. Grow up you moron!!!

Again, stop it with your denial stress disease. Go see a doctor or something, and get yourself immediately medicated, your health is not going into the good direction

They are not alive, you are making unsubstantiated leaps in logic. Many of the people in the photos are murdered, i dont think you are blind, and the truth stand for itself, you can keep on with your denying process, what happened in there is an UNHUMAN ACT OF THE US ARMY WHICH IS CALLED "THE ABU GHRAIB GENOCIDE". These Muslims were made "Şehit", so they were all killed after the torturing, experimenting and organ trading unhuman business processes were finished.

Additional photos to enlighten your unhuman soul:

[acatziri]

That was not a betrayal. The Ottoman empire was not democratic. If you didn't respect the will of the Armenian people within the Ottoman empire, they didn't betray you!

Believe me, the Ottoman Empire was more democratic and gave more rights to foreign people than to his own Turk people. While the Oghuz Turkmen, Kipchak and Karluk Turks(mostly farmers, Yoruk lifestyle) were living poor lives, the foreign people like the majority of Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Serbs, etc. were all people with high status jobs in the Ottoman state, and the Ottoman state gave them the freedom and even more rights for trading and personal businesses. Read the historical documents, you will see that my arguments are true.

Non Turks were more rich than the Turks, during the Ottoman period, what kind of equal rights and democracy do you want more? You can not provide any kind of non democratic unhuman acts of the Ottoman state against the foreign populations. The Armenians lived 1000 years together in peace with the Turks, then all the sudden beginning with the 1st WW they start rebelling, does this sound logical? No, it is not logical, because Hovannes Kajaznuni itself confirmed they were used and deceived by the British and Tsar Russians!

That was because you didn't allow democracy to flourish in the Ottoman empire, and because you kept massacring them in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres

Wikipedia is such an academic source, isnt it(being sarcastic)?

1. The Tsar Russian Empire and their masters the British Empire builded the Dashnaktsutyun and Hinchak Terrorist Organizations in 1887 and 1890.

2. The goal of the Tsar Russian Empire and the British Empire for building the Dashnaktsutyun and Hinchak was to DIVIDE THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

3. The Dashnaktsutyun and Hinchak terrorists made genocide on hundreds of thousands of Muslim Turks and Kurds starting from 1887 and 1890. At the bottom, i will provide many sources and links, showing clearly what kind of Muslim Genocide the Dashnaktsutyun and Hinchak terrorists made beginning from 1887 and 1890.

4. The Ottoman Empire builded the "Hamidiye Alayları" in 1891 to form a defense against these Dashnaktsutyun and Hinchak terrorists whom were the puppets of the Tsar Russian Empire and the British Empire. The Tsar Russian Empire and the British Empire tried to divide and conquer the Ottoman Empire with military actions, and as a logical reaction the Ottoman Empire defended its independency by reacting with counter military reactions. This is a WAR, NOT A GENOCIDE. It was a preview of the First World War that was coming to start very soon. The Ottoman Empire was tired, and ready fall apart, the [B]Armenians were proudly being used as puppets, and hereby betrayed their Ottoman Turk and Kurd countrymen, with the genocides they performed against the civil non military Muslims in Anatolia, especially in Eastern Anatolian regions.

5. Mutual massacres occurred, Muslim and Christian soldiers, it was a brutal war. But the most important part, during a peace period, the Armenians who were living in the Ottoman territories(were not living in the Russian territories) performed major genocides on the civil non military innocent defenseless Muslim Turks and Kurds in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Van and Erzurum. The unhuman acts of the Armenian terrorist groups were so huge, the number of the Muslim population in the cities like Van and Erzurum were completely erased, because they were mostly murdered by the Armenians. After these Muslim genocides many Eastern Anatolian regions were added to the Tsar Russian Empire. But of course, during the Turk War of Independence, with the fall of the Tsar Russia and the rise of the Soviet Revolution, all these Eastern Anatolian regions were conquered back from the Russians by the Turks.

6. Reading the following Report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia, shows that all my arguments above are completely true:

CONGRESS REPORT TO THE TASHNAK PARTY

Hovhannes Kajaznuni, or Hovhannes Katchaznouni (Armenian: Յովհաննէս Քաջազնունի) (1 February 1868 – 1938) was the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia from May 30, 1918 to May 28, 1919. He was a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

Hovhannes Kajaznuni, has submitted a report to the Congress of the Tashnaksütyun Party which was held in 1923 in Bucharest-Romania. In this report, Hovhannes Kajaznuni bravely tells the truth about what happened during and after the First World War.

The Summary of the Report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni is like this:

"The Tsar Russia, England and France DECEIVED us Armenians. They told us that they would give us a state reaching from a sea to another sea, and hereby they armed us(gave us weapons) and send us to the fire(to risk ourselves, to die for them, to kill innocent people for them, for what they promised us).

The Turks acted in the pupose of defending. Mutual massacres happened. We massacred the Muslim population. Guiltiness(The ones that did wrong) should not be sought outside of the Dashnak Party. In this case, htere is nothing left to do for the Dashnak Pary. The Dashnak Pary should dissolve itself.
"
The remaining other Armenian statesmen did also write reports like this.

MUSLIM MORTALITY IN THE EAST

No one counted the dead of the wars in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia. To estimate their numbers one can only list the differences between the populations of the east before and after the wars. The result is not strictly "war deaths," because births and natural deaths (i.e., deaths that would normally have occurred without war) are included in the figures. Nevertheless, one can assume that births and natural deaths roughly balanced each other out, leaving a fairly accurate estimate of wartime mortality. (Deaths of Muslim soldiers who were native to those areas and thus entered in the population registers are necessarily included in the figures.) More serious complications arise from the effects of migration. The exodus of Muslim refugees from the Caucasus added to the postwar population of Erzurum Vilâyeti by as much as 10,000, for example. There is some evidence of Kurdish migrations into Van, Bitlis, and Erzurum, somewhat replacing the Armenians gone from those provinces. These migrations artificially lowered the number of wartime deaths listed in Table 21. Because the figures in Table 21 are in fact the result of subtracting the population in 1922 from the population in 1912, the inclusion of immigrants in the 1922 figures makes it appear as if there were fewer Muslim deaths than there were. The problem is particularly acute for Trabzon Vilâyeti and, to a lesser extent, for Adana Vilâyeti. The Trabzon region was and is one of the most salubrious and economically important in Anatolia. It would be extremely unlikely that Turks from other areas of Anatolia did not migrate to Trabzon, Rize, and Samsun to take the place of the dead. 228 The mortality for Trabzon, therefore, must have been considerably greater than indicated in the table. The figures in Table 21, then, are actually undercounts of Muslim mortality in the east. Despite that, the catastrophic results of the Muslim-Armenian War speak for themselves: 62 percent of the Muslims of Van Vilâyeti lost, 42 percent of the Muslims of Bitlis, 31 percent of Erzurum.

TABLE 21. MUSLIM POPULATION LOSS IN THE OTTOMAN EASTERN PROVINCES, 1912-22.

Province	Population Loss	Percentage Lost
Van	194,167	0.62
Bitlis	169,248	0.42
Erzurum	248,695	0.31
Diyarbakir	158,043	0.26
Mamuretülaziz	89,310	0.16
Sivas	186,413	0.15
Haleb*	50,838	0.09
Adana	42,511	0.07
Trabzon	49,907	0.04

* The portion that remained in the Turkish Rzepublic. SOURCE: McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities.

TABLE 22. TURKISH AND MUSLIM POPULATION LOSS IN THE TRANSCAUCASIAN REGION.*

	Turks	Muslims
Population in 1914	2,171,000	2,743,000
Population in 1921	1,844,000	2,330,000

* Baku, Elizavetpol, Kutais, Tiflis, Kars, and Erivan Russian provinces.
† Extrapolation from figures for Turks.
SOURCES: Russian and U.S.S.R. Statistics.

Muslim losses in the Caucasus, in which there was less actual warfare, were not as great as those in eastern Anatolia. Yet the mortality was surely significant -- 15 percent of the southern Caucasian Muslims were dead. In some areas, especially Kars, Erivan, Baku City, and western Azerbaijan, the mortality must have been much greater, but the type of statistics available makes it impossible to identify Muslim losses by provinces and districts. As in Anatolia, migration considerably clouds the picture.

The precise numbers of Muslim dead are not in themselves important; their importance lies in their depiction of the enormity of the Muslim loss in the east. In the provinces in which the war was primarily fought -- Van, Bitlis, and Erzurum -- at least 40 percent of the Muslims were dead at war's end. The depth and breadth of the suffering that such figures imply is beyond comprehension. The death rate is well beyond that of most of the great disasters in world history, such as the Thirty Years' War and the Black Death. Of course, Muslims were not the only ones to die. The Armenian death rate was at least as great, and Armenian losses cannot be ignored. But the world has long known of the suffering of the Armenians. It is time for the world to also consider the suffering of the Muslims of the east and the horror that it was. Like the Armenians, Muslims were massacred or died from starvation and disease in stupefying numbers. Like the Armenians, their deaths deserve remembrance.

Source
Book: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Author: Justin McCarthy


Doğu'da Türk ve Müslüman Soykırım Sayıları

KARS

Prior to the war, the city and province of Kars had been part of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, many of the Armenians of Kars Province had emigrated to the southern Caucasus, fleeing the Ottoman advance. Muslims who had earlier fled the province returned. The Muslims of Kars had unquestionably been a majority before the war. 154 Upon the Ottoman defeat, they formed a Muslim National Council (the Shura) in Kars Province. The British, who began a de facto occupation of Kars on 19 April 1919, gave civil and military power in the province to the Armenians, because it was expected that Kars would become part of the new Armenian Republic; 155 the Muslim majority was not consulted on this issue. Muslims were disarmed and their weapons given to Armenians, so that in effect the only armed forces in the province were Armenian bands and some Kurdish tribes.

TABLE 14. POPULATION OF KARS PROVINCE IN 1897, BY RELIGION

Religion	Population	Proportion
Orthodox	49,295	0.17
Armenian*	72,967	0.251
Roman Catholic	4,373	0.015
Other Christian	16,963	0.058
Jewish	1,204	0.004
Muslim	145,852	0.502
Total	290,654

* Gregorian and Armenian Catholic.
SOURCE: 1897 Russian Census.

Muslims began to be massacred even before the British had left Kars. On 19 April, the band of the Armenian "Karch Murat" dragged 7 Muslims from a train on the Kars line and killed them. Because the British were still present, a board of enquiry was set up and Karch Murat and his band convicted, but no one would or could arrest them. The crimes in Kars continued in this vein -plunder, robbery, devastation, and murder. In July 1919, the Armenian army began to attack and destroy the Muslim villages of the Karakurt-Sarikamş region with artillery and machine guns. The village of Büyük Şatak was destroyed and five Muslims were killed. Thirteen villages were devastated in the SaǧlŞk District, and 25 villages in the Horosan District. Large numbers of Muslim-owned sheep and cattle were confiscated.

The slaughter of Muslims in the Kars district was mostly contained in the agricultural areas of the province, the areas inhabited by Turkish speakers. Armenian bands plundered Turkish villages between Kars and Oltu and plundered Akqakale, Babirguend, and other towns and villages. Sixty Muslims of Kaǧzman were killed by Armenians, as were the Muslims of the village Puzant. The Turks of Iǧdir were either led away by armed bands or killed. Ali Riza, the Turkish governor of Kaǧzman, compiled a list of villages pillaged by Armenians after the Muslim National Assembly in Kars was dissolved: Digur 63; Kaǧzman 45; Karakorun 45; Sarikamş 46; and many more. Ali Riza also cited the names of the leaders of the Armenian bands -- 68 names in all. A formal Turkish Commission of Inquiry sent to the areas of Shuregel and Zarshat to investigate Armenian atrocities listed the houses destroyed in each village ("45 in Shurgel, 60 in Agnatch, 70 in Ilanli. . . ."). The crimes reported were sadly typical of what had been seen often in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus -- villages pillaged and burned, flocks and belongings taken, rapes and murders. Nowhere on the Kars plain, or in the Erivan region to its north were Muslim villages safe. Individual murders and pillaging of Turks living on the plain by Armenians and sometimes Greeks were frequent. However, the mountainous areas of the province were defended by Kurdish tribes, who kept the Armenian forces from going too far beyond the plains and the cities. Kurds and Armenians fought what can only be called a blood feud -- each murdering any of the other who fell into their hands. Perhaps the only Western observer to actually see the situation, the British Colonel Rawlinson, reported that caravans of Muslim refugees were constantly leaving the Kars plain. He recorded reports of torture as well as murder, which he investigated and found to be accurate. Kars was also the scene of terrible suffering for Muslim refugees from Erivan Province and other areas designated as Armenian. Twenty-five thousand refugees from those areas were gathered in the Kars region in 1919. Many of these refugees were set upon by Armenian bands and soldiers in Kars province. Many were killed at Sarikamş after they had fled from Armenian massacres and destruction of their villages. In a letter to King George of England the president of the Muslim meclis (assembly) of Kars, Ibrahim, described the situation emotionally, portraying the Armenians as those "who completely destroyed and ruined more than 1,000 Mohammedan villages in the south west of the Caucasus [including the Kars region], who shed the blood of about 100,000 innocent Mohammedan women and children, and who have left neither honour nor property unspoiled and untouched."

Colonel Rawlinson came to the same conclusions regarding Armenian actions and intentions:

I had received further very definite information of horrors that had been committed by the Armenian soldiery in Kars Plain, and as I had been able to judge of their want of discipline by their treatment of my own detached parties, I had wired to Tiflis from Zivin that "in the interests of humanity the Armenians should not be left in independent command of the Moslem population, as, their troops being without discipline and not being under effective control, atrocities were constantly being committed, for which we [the British, who gave Kars to the Armenians] should with justice eventually be held to be morally responsible."

Source
Book: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Author: Justin McCarthy


Kars ve Ermeni Faaliyetleri

THE REPORT OF NILES AND SUTHERLAND

Few outsiders saw the situation in eastern Anatolia immediately after World War I. Of those who did, one group, American missionaries, were almost completely unreliable as witnesses to Muslim suffering. With the Armenians gone from eastern Anatolia, the life work of the missionaries had been destroyed, and their one-sidedness and understandable bitterness made them unreliable observers. While they were capable of documenting in great detail actions against Armenians, they were with few exceptions incapable of mentioning actions against Muslims. Another group, Westerners, were agents of the British and American governments, suffered from some of the same disabilities as the missionaries, and were also prejudiced. Some of them, however, rose above their prejudices to become accurate observers.

Captain Emory Niles and Mr. Arthur Sutherland were Americans ordered by the United States government to investigate the situation in eastern Anatolia. Their report was to be used as the basis for granting of relief aid by the American Committee for Near East Relief (ACNRE, more usually "Near East Relief"). The two men were quite unusual. Like Lt. Dunn, who provided Admiral Bristol with much accurate intelligence, Niles and Sutherland decided simply to ride through the area until they saw what was needed. Also, like Dunn, they did it with a minimum of support and with great courage. Their courage extended to their report, for they set down what they actually saw and heard, not what their prejudices dictated to them. For Americans in Anatolia, this was a rare phenomenon. The remarkable fact is that they were concerned about Muslims, not as Muslims but as human beings who were in need of relief. Perhaps naively, they assumed that their orders covered reporting all those in eastern Anatolia who were in need of relief, not only Christians, and they did so. Most of those in need were Muslims, and the suffering they reported was mainly Muslim suffering. It may be for that reason that their report was never included in the papers of the American Investigation Commissions; only a partial copy of it can be found in the American Archives, well-hidden among documents on very different topics, luckily not destroyed, but only buried. In most cases, Niles and Sutherland simply reported what they saw, without comment.

However, as they began to observe what was actually happening, they also began to change what had been their typical Western opinions about Turks and Armenians:

[Region from Bitlis through Van to Bayazit] In this entire region we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country, and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape, arson and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population. At first we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing, whereas Musulman villages were completely destroyed.

Niles and Sutherland were not pro-Turkish or pro-Muslim observers. On the contrary, they came to eastern Anatolia with all the usual American prejudices in place. Although they had never seen evidence of Muslim massacres of Armenians, they believed them to have taken place and to have been as awful as was commonly believed in the West. They commented, "We believe that it is incontestable that the Armenians were guilty of crimes of the same nature against the Turks as those of which the Turks are guilty against the Armenians." The difference, of course, is that they had seen the evidence of the Armenian crimes, not the Turkish-the one charge is based on evidence, the other on hearsay. However, this makes it more reliable concerning what they actually saw, because, despite their prejudices, they reported the evils perpetrated by Armenians.
The two Americans reported on the condition of eastern Anatolia after the war. The picture they painted was of a desolate place where crops, houses, and human lives had been destroyed. In the area between Erzurum and Bayazit, they found that the surviving Muslims had no milk, meat, or grain. The Muslims lived on wild grain and wild vegetables, "neither of which has much food value."

The Muslims blamed their fate on the Armenians and the Americans agreed:

In this region [Bayazit- Erzurum] the racial situation is intensely aggravated by the proximity to the frontier of Armenia, from which refugees are coming with stories of massacres, cruelty and atrocities carried on by the Armenian Government, Army and people against the Musulman population. Although several hundred Armenians are actually living in the vilayet of Van, it would seem impossible that Armenians could live in the rural regions of the vilayet of Erzerum, since the utmost hatred of them is manifested by all. Here also the Armenians before retiring ruined villages, carried out massacres, and perpetrated every kind of atrocity upon the Musulman population and the doings of the Armenians just over the frontier keep alive and active the hatred of the Armenians, a hatred that seems to be at least smoldering in the region of Van. That there are disorders and crimes in Armenia is confirmed by refugees from Armenia in all parts of the region and by a British officer at Erzerum.

In the region between Erzurum and the Armenian frontier, the destruction had been nearly complete. Retreating Armenians had destroyed every possible village on their line of retreat. Twothirds of the housing had been destroyed, as had most of the Muslim population: "The region 218 has between one-third and one-fourth of its former population, varying in certain districts. Those cities and villages on the line of retreat of the Armenian army suffered most."

"All the villages and towns through which we passed showed the marks of the war. Most of them were completely ruined."

The most eloquent evidence given by Niles and Sutherland was statistical -- enumerations of surviving Muslim villages and houses. In considering Van and Bitlis, for example, they found that in 1919 both cities had 10 percent or less of their pre-war population. The Armenians had destroyed all but a few Muslim houses (Table 19). All the public buildings and Muslim religious structures were gone.

Source
Book: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Author: Justin McCarthy


TABLE 19. DESTRUCTION IN THE CITIES OF VAN AND BITLIS.

		Houses before wars	"August 1919"
Van	Muslim	3,400	3
	Armenian	3,100	1,170
Bitlis	Muslim	6,500	--
	Armenian	1,500	1,000

SOURCE:Niles and Sutherland.

A similar situation was found in other villages. Most Muslim villages were simply gone, whereas Armenian villages had survived. Niles and Sutherland gave examples from the vilxâyet of Van and the sancak of Bayazit ( Table 20 ).

TABLE 20. VILLAGES IN VAN VILÁYETI AND BAYAZIT SANCAǧI, BEFORE AND AFTER THE WAR AND ARMENIAN OCCUPATION

	VAN		BAYAZIT
	Before wars	"August 1919"	Before wars	"August 1919"
Muslim	1,373	350*	448	243
Armenian	112	200†	33	33
Mixed	187
Total	1,672	550	481	276

* Repaired with materials from other villages.
† Both Armenian and mixed villages.
SOURCE: Niles and Sutherland.

Although they did not see the Caucasus nor have first-hand knowledge of the fate of Muslims in the territories that had been Russian, Niles and Sutherland repeatedly heard the same stories of atrocities from refugees and Muslims of the border regions. Judging partly on what they had seen in Anatolia, they believed the tales to be true.

It was at Bayazid that Musulman refugees from the Caucasus made their strongest appeal on account of atrocities committed by Armenians upon them and those Musulmans who remain. The notes taken at the time show what the Armenians are doing now in the Caucasus and what they did at Bayazid during their occupation. There is a most intense bitterness and thirst for revenge against the Armenians here.

Niles and Sutherland accurately summarized the history of the eastern Anatolian Muslims in the conclusion of their report:

Although it does not fall within the exact scope of our investigation one of the most salient facts impressed on us at every point from Bitlis to Trebizond was that in the region which we traversed the Armenians committed upon the Turks all the crimes and outrages which were committed in other regions by Turks upon Armenians. At first we were most incredulous of the stories told us, but the unanimity of the testimony of all witnesses, the apparent eagerness with which they told of wrongs done them, their evident hatred of Armenians, and, strongest of all, the material evidence on the ground itself, have convinced us of the general truth of the facts, first, that Armenians massacred Musulmans on a large scale with many refinements of cruelty, and second that the Armenians are responsible for most of the destruction done to towns and villages. The Russians and Armenians occupied the country for a considerable time together in 1915 and 1916, and during this period there was apparently little disorder, although doubtless there was damage committed by the Russians. In 1917 the Russian Army disbanded and left the Armenians alone in control. At this period bands of Armenian irregulars roamed the country pillaging and murdering the Musulman civilian population. When the Turkish army advanced at Erzindjan, Erzerum, and Van, the Armenian army broke down and all of the soldiers, regular and irregular, turned themselves to destroying Musulman property and committing atrocities upon Musulman inhabitants. The result is a country completely ruined, containing about one-fourth of its former population and one-eighth of its former buildings, and a most bitter hatred of Musulmans for Armenians which makes it impossible for the two races to live together at the present time. The Musulmans protest that if they are forced to live under an Armenian Government, they will fight, and it appears to us that they will probably carry out this threat. This view is shared by Turkish officers, British officers, and Americans whom we have met.

Niles ve Sutherland'ın Raporu

ERİVAN AND NAHCİVAN

[Admiral Bristol] I know from reports of my own officers who served with General Dro that defenseless villages were bombarded and then occupied, and any inhabitants that had not run away were brutally killed, the village pillaged, and all the livestock confiscated, and then the village burned. This was carried out as a regular systematic gettingrid of the Moslems.

Before the war, the Muslims of Erivan Province constituted almost as large a population as the Armenians. They were among those of the Caucasus who most suffered. Evidence from Erivan, however, was fragmentary. Refugees brought out reports of villages burned and massacred, but few first-hand reports by others were available. The Ottoman or Turkish Nationalist armies never entered much of Erivan Province, so the Ottomans made few detailed reports on Erivan's Muslims. The Muslim Council of Kars compiled a list of destroyed Muslim villages in part of Erivan, probably from refugee reports, which detailed by name and mortality the villages destroyed by 1 October 1919 -- 91 villages destroyed in two districts alone. The Turkish government stated that 199 Muslim villages in the Armenian Republic had been destroyed, probably not much of an exaggeration. In March of 1920, the Republic officially protested the massacres in the Armenian Republic, listing by name the villages destroyed and estimating that the Armenian state "had devastated more than 300 villages and massacred the most part of the Mussulmans populating these villages." Even the Persian government, which was not given to complaint because it was largely under the control of occupying British soldiers, spoke out against the slaughter.

However, the most telling criticism came from Armenians, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party of the Armenian Republic:

To the President of the Parliament [of the Armenian Republic].

We beg you to announce to the Minister for Home Affairs the following demand: Is the Minister informed that during the last three weeks on the territory of the Armenian Republic within the boundaries of the Echmiadzin, Erivan and Sourmalin districts a series of Tatar villages, for instance Pashakend, Takiarli, Kouroukh-Giune, Oulalik of the Taishouroukh Society, Agveren, Dalelar, Pourpous, Alibek of the Arzakend Society, Djan-Fida, Kerim-Arch, Agdjar, Igdalou, Karkhoun, Kelani-Aroltkh of the Echmiadzin district as well as a series of other villages have been cleared of the Tatar population and have been exposed to robbery and massacre. That the local police not only did not prevent but even took part in these robberies and massacres, that these events left a very bad impression on the local population which is disgusted with these robberies and disorders and who wish to live in peace with their neighbors and request that the guilty be accordingly judged and punished as they are to this day left unpunished.

The Armenian Socialist Revolutionaries had complained of the massacres both in the Parliament and in their newspaper, The Revolutionary Banner.

Although, as might be expected, their evidence tended to lay blame solely on their political opponents, the Dashnak Party in power, their evidence completely supported the contentions of the Azerbaijan government.

The Nahcivan region, in the south of the Russian Erivan Province, had the misfortune to be the site of the main railroad line that connected Armenia to Iran and further east. The Armenian Republic decided not only that it must hold the railroad line, but that the line would never be secure as long as the region through which it passed was almost totally Turkish in population. Therefore, it was decided to rid the entire line of the railroad of adjacent and nearby Turkish villages, which were destroyed by Armenian regular troops. The Armenians attacked Muslim villages with artillery and machine guns, as they had earlier near Sarikamş. Armenian partisan bands assisted in the attacks on the Turkish villages. For example, a large Armenian band of perhaps 1,200 attacked the villages of Elmah (688 reported dead) and Aǧuşma (516 dead), among others in the Nahcivan region. The villagers were either killed or forced to flee to Azerbaijan or Turkey.

Admiral Bristol summarized the events and laid political blame for the tragedy:

The Armenian government, with its regular forces, attempted to clear the Tatars away from a railroad for twenty-seven miles and this has caused Tatar refugees to the extent of many thousands. This is similar to the Greek operations in the Vilayet of Aydin. It will also be noted that the British, in encouraging the Armenians, did not act according to the principles of humanity or self-determination. They were party to a plan to conquer another race and place the minority to govern a majority when they must have known full well that the minority was not capable of governing itself, not to mention providing government for the majority.

It was the Armenian attacks that actually cemented the resolve of the Azerbaijanis to form an army and defend the Turks. They eventually made a stand and held the Armenians, but not until the "twenty-seven miles" of villages had been lost.

TABLE 15. TURKS IN ERIVAN PROVINCE, 1914 AND 1926

270,000	"Turco-Tatars" in 1914*
89,000	in 1926
181,000	Lost (67%)

*Adjusted to postwar boundaries.
SOURCES: 1915 Russian Statistical Yearbook and 1926 U.S.S.R. Census.

The best evidence on the massacres and forced deportations of the Muslims of Erivan comes from population statistics taken before and after the wars. Table 15 presents figures for the population of Turks (called "Turco-Tatars" in the Russian statistics) in Erivan before and after the wars. All Muslims are not included in the table, because the 1926 U.S.S.R. census did not give population by religion, and Muslim ethnic groups other than Turks were not specifically listed in the 1914 figures. The non-Turkish Muslims in Erivan can be assumed to have suffered as badly as did the Turks.

From the beginning of the First World War until the first postwar census, two-thirds of the Muslims had disappeared from Erivan Province. Many of these were refugees and many of them died. Erivan Province, which had begun as a majority Muslim province in the 1820s, had only a small Muslim minority at the beginning of the 1920s.

Erivan, Nahcivan ve Ermeni Faaliyetleri

AZERBAIJAN, BAKU, AND ELIZAVETPOL

Baku felt the effect of the Russian Revolution of 1917 more quickly and more completely than other areas of the Caucasus. Workers in the oil industry and Armenians of the town were ripe for Bolshevik and Armenian nationalist revolutionary organization. Baku was thus ruled by an uneasy alliance of a Soviet revolutionary committee and Armenian Dashnaks. Such a combination worked against the Azeri Turks (or, in the Russian usage, Tatars) of the city, who were neither Armenian nor Bolshevik sympathizers. From 30 March to 1 April 1918, the Tatars were attacked. Almost half of the Muslim population of Baku was compelled to flee the city.

Between 8,000 and 12,000 Muslims were killed in Baku alone. On the night of 14 September 1918 as the Armenian forces had retreated from the city, local Muslims took their revenge and killed almost 9,000 Armenians. Turkish troops entered the city on 16 September, restored order, and protected the remaining Armesnians.

Armenian troops who entered territory claimed by the Azerbaijan Republic destroyed all Muslim villages in their path.

As Richard Hovannisian has written of one guerrilla leaders, Andranik:

The routes south were blocked by regular Turkish divisions. Backtracking, [the Armenian guerilla leader and general] Andranik then pushed over Nakhichevan into Zangezur, the southernmost uezd of the Elisavetpol guberniia. Remaining there for the duration of the world war, Andranik's forces crushed one Tatar village after another.

The Azerbaijani population was forced to feed and house, when they could, approximately 60,000 refugees who had fled into their territory by the end of 1919. Admiral Bristol, the American plenipotentiary in Istanbul, basing himself on the reports of the American representatives in the Caucasus, stated that the 60,000 refugees had come from 420 Muslim villages destroyed by the Armenians.

American intelligence operatives and diplomatic representatives reported the usual sequence in which Armenian troops attacked Turkish villagers, often killed them, and forced them to flee, in response to which the government of Azerbaijan was sometimes able to respond. The Armenian Prime Minister stated to H. V. Bryan, American Liaison Officer to the Allied High Commission in Armenia, that the Armenian army was busy surrounding Turkish villages and "starving them into submission." The attacks were partly due to the desire of the Armenians for more extensive and secure boundaries and access to the railroad running through primarily Turkish-inhabited lands, and partly due to traditional hatreds that had surfaced in 1905. Whatever the reason, the result was that Turks were forcibly removed from their villages or killed. In London, Curzon told an eminent Armenian delegation of the "foolish and indefensible conduct of their compatriots on north-eastern frontiers of Armenia." Curzon quoted to them lists of outrages committed, which showed the Armenians had been much the worse offenders.

Source
Book: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Author: Justin McCarthy


Azerbaycan, Bakü, Elizavetpol ve Ermeni Faaliyetleri

BAYBURT

The events in Bayburt were similar to those in Erzincan. As in Erzincan, Armenian guerrillas (under their leader, Arshak) ordered the people of the surrounding region into the city. However, the Muslims had heard of the very recent events 93 in Erzincan; they fled to the mountains. Bayburt itself was largely destroyed by Armenians forced to retreat before the Ottoman advance of 1918. Before they could leave, Armenian gangs gathered 250 Muslims into the central prison and murdered them. Approximately 400 buildings in the town were burnt down. When Ottoman troops arrived, they found an additional 200 corpses hastily buried or lying in the streets. More than 600 Muslims may have been killed.

ERZURUM

The position of the Turks in the city of Erzurum had been relatively good, at least when compared to other areas of the Ottoman East, until the breakup of Russian authority in the city. As Russian rule ended, the Turks began to experience at first indignities at the hands of the Armenians, then abduction and theft, and finally rape and murder. Turks were attacked in the streets and were little safer from roving Armenian bands in their homes.

The final massacre of Muslims in Erzurum began on 10 February 1918. On that day, a large number of Muslims were taken under the pretext of corveé labor, then were robbed and killed before the Kars Gate, which led out of the city of Erzurum. In the town itself, houses were broken into, pillaged, and burned, and thousands were killed. Ottoman authorities estimated 8,000 killed in and around the city. They described Erzurum as "a city of ruins."

It is probable that the rapid advance of the Ottoman army saved Erzurum from greater misfortunes. When units of the Ottoman army entered Erzurum, they found thousands of corpses of Muslims murdered by Armenians. Between the retaking of the city, on 12 March 1918 and 20 March, Ottoman soldiers had counted 2,127 male bodies and were continuing the enumeration and search. These were only the male bodies found in the city limits and counted in the first 8 days after the Ottoman entry into the city, only a portion of those killed.

KARS

Prior to the war, the city and province of Kars had been part of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, many of the Armenians of Kars Province had emigrated to the southern Caucasus, fleeing the Ottoman advance. Muslims who had earlier fled the province returned. The Muslims of Kars had unquestionably been a majority before the war. 154 Upon the Ottoman defeat, they formed a Muslim National Council (the Shura) in Kars Province. The British, who began a de facto occupation of Kars on 19 April 1919, gave civil and military power in the province to the Armenians, because it was expected that Kars would become part of the new Armenian Republic; 155 the Muslim majority was not consulted on this issue. Muslims were disarmed and their weapons given to Armenians, so that in effect the only armed forces in the province were Armenian bands and some Kurdish tribes.

TABLE 14. POPULATION OF KARS PROVINCE IN 1897, BY RELIGION

Religion	Population	Proportion
Orthodox	49,295	0.17
Armenian*	72,967	0.251
Roman Catholic	4,373	0.015
Other Christian	16,963	0.058
Jewish	1,204	0.004
Muslim	145,852	0.502
Total	290,654

* Gregorian and Armenian Catholic.
SOURCE: 1897 Russian Census.

Muslims began to be massacred even before the British had left Kars. On 19 April, the band of the Armenian "Karch Murat" dragged 7 Muslims from a train on the Kars line and killed them. Because the British were still present, a board of enquiry was set up and Karch Murat and his band convicted, but no one would or could arrest them. The crimes in Kars continued in this vein -plunder, robbery, devastation, and murder. In July 1919, the Armenian army began to attack and destroy the Muslim villages of the Karakurt-Sarikamş region with artillery and machine guns. The village of Büyük Şatak was destroyed and five Muslims were killed. Thirteen villages were devastated in the SaǧlŞk District, and 25 villages in the Horosan District. Large numbers of Muslim-owned sheep and cattle were confiscated.

The slaughter of Muslims in the Kars district was mostly contained in the agricultural areas of the province, the areas inhabited by Turkish speakers. Armenian bands plundered Turkish villages between Kars and Oltu and plundered Akqakale, Babirguend, and other towns and villages. Sixty Muslims of Kaǧzman were killed by Armenians, as were the Muslims of the village Puzant. The Turks of Iǧdir were either led away by armed bands or killed. Ali Riza, the Turkish governor of Kaǧzman, compiled a list of villages pillaged by Armenians after the Muslim National Assembly in Kars was dissolved: Digur 63; Kaǧzman 45; Karakorun 45; Sarikamş 46; and many more. Ali Riza also cited the names of the leaders of the Armenian bands -- 68 names in all. A formal Turkish Commission of Inquiry sent to the areas of Shuregel and Zarshat to investigate Armenian atrocities listed the houses destroyed in each village ("45 in Shurgel, 60 in Agnatch, 70 in Ilanli. . . ."). The crimes reported were sadly typical of what had been seen often in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus -- villages pillaged and burned, flocks and belongings taken, rapes and murders. Nowhere on the Kars plain, or in the Erivan region to its north were Muslim villages safe. Individual murders and pillaging of Turks living on the plain by Armenians and sometimes Greeks were frequent. However, the mountainous areas of the province were defended by Kurdish tribes, who kept the Armenian forces from going too far beyond the plains and the cities. Kurds and Armenians fought what can only be called a blood feud -- each murdering any of the other who fell into their hands. Perhaps the only Western observer to actually see the situation, the British Colonel Rawlinson, reported that caravans of Muslim refugees were constantly leaving the Kars plain. He recorded reports of torture as well as murder, which he investigated and found to be accurate. Kars was also the scene of terrible suffering for Muslim refugees from Erivan Province and other areas designated as Armenian. Twenty-five thousand refugees from those areas were gathered in the Kars region in 1919. Many of these refugees were set upon by Armenian bands and soldiers in Kars province. Many were killed at Sarikamş after they had fled from Armenian massacres and destruction of their villages. In a letter to King George of England the president of the Muslim meclis (assembly) of Kars, Ibrahim, described the situation emotionally, portraying the Armenians as those "who completely destroyed and ruined more than 1,000 Mohammedan villages in the south west of the Caucasus [including the Kars region], who shed the blood of about 100,000 innocent Mohammedan women and children, and who have left neither honour nor property unspoiled and untouched."

Colonel Rawlinson came to the same conclusions regarding Armenian actions and intentions:

I had received further very definite information of horrors that had been committed by the Armenian soldiery in Kars Plain, and as I had been able to judge of their want of discipline by their treatment of my own detached parties, I had wired to Tiflis from Zivin that "in the interests of humanity the Armenians should not be left in independent command of the Moslem population, as, their troops being without discipline and not being under effective control, atrocities were constantly being committed, for which we [the British, who gave Kars to the Armenians] should with justice eventually be held to be morally responsible."

Source
Book: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Author: Justin McCarthy


Erzurum ve Ermeni Faaliyetleri

Bayburt ve Ermeni Faaliyetleri

Kars ve Ermeni Faaliyetleri

FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUTH REGARDING THE ARMENIAN SLANDER, PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT THE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF:

Ermeni Tehciri ve Terörist Ülke Ermenistan

The Ottoman empire was not a democracy. It was a despotic regime. Even Kemal Ataturk claimed that the Turkish state waged war against the Ottoman empire and liberated Turkey from the Sultans' yoke!!!

My Father Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, seperates two periods of the Ottoman Empire, the rise and the fall periods. During the fall period, the final Ottoman sultans were traitors and were puppets of the British Empire. I never said there was a democracy in the Ottoman Empire system, but the fact is for sure that the Ottoman Empire gave more rights to the PEOPLE OF FOREIGN ETHNIC ORIGIN, than they gave to their OWN PEOPLE WITH TURK ORIGIN. This shows the Ottoman Empire was never RACIST, and they NEVER COMMITTED ANY KIND OF GENOCIDE!

By the way, which Middle Age country or empire was democratic? Not even one, maybe France temporarily with Napoleon Bonaparte, but this is so late in the beginning of the 19th century. Except this, which country or empire was NOT RULED WITH A ROYAL FAMILY? No one, so to only accuse the Ottoman Empire being not democratic is only related with your hate crime feelings against us Turks. The fact is that neither the British Empire, nor the Tsar Russia was democratic, both were ruled by royal families. IN FACT, while the modern Türkiye is being ruled with a democratic system, the UK and the US are still ruled in a non democratic Middle Age monarchy system. Not to forget that a system with only one president, is equal to monarchy. And have a look at the other modern present day Western European countries like the Netherlands, all being ruled with a "king" or a "queen" at the top, is this a democratic system? No, of course not!

There was no direct order from Hitler or anybody else to gas the Jews in the gas chambers. So what?

Are you serious, or joking, i hope you are joking, because i am starting to have the feeling that taking you serious until now, has been a complete waste of time. Altough all of these low quality messages of the Turk hating members on this forum, my arguments obviously have shown what the truth is about the subject. In my next posts, i will not waste my time on such ignorant posts claiming that Hitler did not order directly anyone to the gas chambers, i will just simply skip these simple trolling comments, just to give you guys a warning from the beginning

Even Perincek accepted that there were massacres against the Armenians.

I never did deny there was no massacres committed against the Armenians. In fact, there were mutual massacres committed, but the Armenians and their masters(Tsar Russians and the British) were the one committing the GENOCIDES. In case you did not know, the term "massacre" is not equal to the term "genocide". You obviously did not read my previous messages, read them before you twist my messages. The Ottoman state did not have such a genocide/massacre policy, and the Ottoman state sentenced hundreds of Muslim Turks and Kurds who made personal revenge killings on the Ottoman territories against civil Armenians. I guess you know what revenge killings are, these are the personal killings done by Muslim Turks and Kurds of whom family members where massacred by the Armenians, whom were being used by the British and Tsar Russian Empires. By the way, not to forget the fact that it was the 1st World War, and the Ottoman Empire and the Turks were being invaded by several states and terrorist organizations like the Greek and Armenian terrorist organizations. We Turks were being invaded, and our enemies conducted genocide on our people, and we defended our country, and forced all enemies to flee out of the country, and won our independency with the Turk War of Independence. Only the bad intended people with DENIAL STRESS PROBLEMS do not have the competency to understand these simple facts, i advise those people to see a doctor and medicate yourself, maybe you will find your soul

To make an off topic comment, i hope the members of the European Court of Human Rights associated with this case, will read the arguments used in this topic and the links provided in this topic. After all of these very strong arguments, i am sure they will be 100% convinced about the FACT THAT the Armenian Slander is a bad intended political material being used by the US state to put pressure to the FULLY INDEPENDENT TÜRKİYE OF THE TÜRKS. The US knows they can not beat the Turk Armed Forces with a military battle, therefore they feel the urge, to conduct a psychological warfare against the Turks, about the subjects of which the truth is so obviously clear. But we must accept that the US controls the international media and they spend many budgets for their international online trolls, thats why they have power in the spreading of their simple but bad intended NON SCIENTIFIC LIES. But, the real Atatürkists like myself will battle against this type(or other types) of warfare forever, dont worry about it.

[acatziri]

The international criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of the Khojaly Genocide

Date 27.02.15, 11:08

The sad experience of history shows that international crime invariably accompanies human society. Indigenous interests of states, as well as security and stability on the planet depend on the ability and commitment of the international community to combat international crimes.

Aggression and crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime during the Second World War, the terrible history of the Holocaust and concentration camps, deportations and bombing, in general – massive and flagrant violations of human rights clearly demonstrated the shortcomings and tragic failures of the international community to respond these crimes timely and appropriately.

In response to the horrors of Nazism the United Nations Organization (UNO, UN) was founded in 1945 upon the initiative of the victorious powers of the Second World War. The main objectives of the UN, along with maintaining international peace and security, are to achieve international cooperation, development and human rights, as laid down in article 1 of the UN Charter.


Following this global significant event in order to bring to the justice the individuals who committed the most serious international crimes during the Second World War the Nuremberg and Tokyo international military tribunals were established. It must be noted that this is the first practice in the world history when individuals – Nazi war criminals and the Japanese militarists, were brought to international criminal responsibility.

The jurisdiction of the tribunals included crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Special attention deserves the fact that the official position of defendants was neither considered as a ground for exemption from responsibility or mitigating punishment nor released from liability the fact that the defendant acted according to order of the government or order of the commanders.

These standards have been further developed and consolidated in practice of ad hoc courts established for the purpose to bring individuals to the international criminal responsibility. So, in the mid of 1990th in order to bring individuals to criminal liability the International Criminal Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other international crimes, committed in the territory of neighboring states were established by the UN Security Council.

The fact that in order to justify the decision about creating this international courts the UN Security Council referred to the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, dedicated to the action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression was very remarkable.

Thus, the international community, acting through the UN, particularly through the Security Council, designed to maintain international peace and security, 3 authorized (and, as shown by the above precedents, quite effective) to respond to international crimes, involving the responsibility of the perpetrators of international crimes.

It turns out that the UN Security Council conducts a "differentiation" in the choice of questions "greatest" and "least" important. Ilham Aliyev, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan in his numerous speeches for the international audience has pointed out that while the famous UN resolutions on NagornKarabakh conflict have not been implemented for twenty years, the other resolutions of this organization are implemented in just few hours.

The logical consequence of this indifferent attitude of the international community to the conflict is the fact of impunity Armenian officials who
committed the massacres of Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabakh, violating their natural and guaranteed rights by the aforementioned catalog of international treaties the fundamental right to life.

The 23rd anniversary of the Khojaly Genocide where 613 civilians were killed, including 63 children, 106 women and 70 elderly people is approaching. And again and again, wondering when, finally, this unprecedented in its cruelty international crime in the history of modern Azerbaijan will be given full political and legal assessment by the international community, when the perpetrators of these brutal
acts will be prosecuted and incur the appropriate penalty?

It must be emphasized that at the time when the crime was committed in Khojaly Azerbaijan had recently regained its independence living in the state of political chaos, hadn`t developed and organized patterns of diplomatic and informational presence in the world.

While the Armenian side due to its financial wealth and influential diaspora and with the support of world powers were able to "get away" from the international responsibility and public condemnation. Moreover, the immediate organizers and perpetrators of the Khojaly genocide Robert Kocharian, Serzh Sargsyan, Seyran Ohanyan and others, without judicial sentence and the corresponding penalties, 4 held the positions of presidents and ministers, while not denying their involvement in the crime and appreciating it as "the heroism of the Armenian people".

Today Azerbaijan is a modern, successfully developing, democratic, tolerant state with the highest international authority, the growing foreign policy capabilities and influence in the region.

The chances of our country to be heard in the world incomparably increased. It is enough to mention the fact that parliaments of dozen countries have recognized massacre in Khojaly as an international crime. The initiated by the Vice-President of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation Leyla Aliyeva campaign "Justice for Khojaly", through which the objective information about this tragedy is channeled to the world plays a huge role in this process.

Thus, a strong economic foundation, systematic, diplomatic work, increased international image and public information activities of our country on a global scale are not that other, as finally formed, and a solid foundation to appeal to international bodies with the initiative of establishing the international tribunal.

Note that the Military Prosecutor`s office of the Republic of Azerbaijan collected extensive material on the massacres in Khojaly, which can be represented in the UN Security Council for the establishment of the Khojaly Tribunal. The other question is that whether the international community will express appropriate interest and political will from which the final outcome of this process will depend on.

http://en.azvision.az/The_internatio...252-xeber.html

http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic....p=15649#p15649

[acatziri]

Aydos Sarım(Kazakistan'ın tanınmış siyasi uzmanlarından): "Karabağ’da savaş başlarsa, Kazakistan’dan yüzlerce binlerce gönüllü Azerbaycan’ın tarafında savaşacaktır"

Aydos Sarım(well-known political expert from Kazakhstan): "If a war starts in Karabakh hundreds of thousands of volunteers from Kazakhstan will fight on the side of Azerbaijan"

[acatziri]

European Court of Human Rigths: "Armenia Unlawfully Occupied Azerbaijan Territory"

European Court of Human Rights: "Armenian Deportation Is Not a Genocide"

2015-07-07
Interview by Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia

Question: On 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced its judgment (Merits) on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia. At the outset, could you please provide some general background information on this case?

Elmar Mammadyarov: As you know, the case that you are referring to originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the ECHR on 6 April 2005 by six Azerbaijani nationals, who were forcibly expelled from the occupied Lachin district of Azerbaijan during the Armenian aggression. In essence, the applicants submitted to the Court that they were prevented from returning to their homes in the Lachin district and were thus unable to enjoy their properties located there due to continuing occupation of the district of Lachin by the armed forces of Armenia. They submitted that this amounted to continuing violations of their property rights, guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Convention that protects the right to respect for private and family life. They also submitted that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that no effective remedy was available in respect of the above complaints. Finally, with a view to all complaints set out above, they complained that they were subjected to discrimination by virtue of ethnic origin and religious affiliation in violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

Question: What the general conclusion the Court has arrived at?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The Court ruled in favor of the applicants, recognizing continuing violations by Armenia of a number of their rights under the Convention. However, the importance of this ruling by an authoritative international court as this one goes beyond that.

Question: What is in view of the Republic of Azerbaijan the primary significance of this judgment by ECHR?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The judgment of the Court is indeed significant from a number of angles. First and foremost, ECHR effectively put an end to Armenia’s persistent denial of its responsibility for the unlawful occupation of and military presence in the territories of Azerbaijan. As is known, since the beginning of Armenian aggression and in the course of the Court’s proceedings in this case, in its usual attempts to mislead the international community and distort the root causes and essence of the conflict, the Republic of Armenia alleged that its jurisdiction did not extend to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories; that it did not and could not have effective control of or exercise any public power on those territories; that it had not participated in the military conflict in question; that it had not taken part in the seizure of the Lachin district and in any later military actions; and that it did not have any military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories.

The Court, having examined the evidence presented to it by the applicants and the Government of Azerbaijan rejected all these allegations submitted by Armenia.

Furthermore, in paragraphs 14-18 of the judgment, ECHR noted in particular, that the war had started with calls for the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia and specifically referred in that regard to a joint resolution on the “reunification” adopted in December 1989 by the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh regional council. Essentially, the Court confirmed that Armenia’s territorial claims and its attempts aimed at annexation of a part of the territory of Azerbaijan were the root cause of this armed conflict and triggered a full-fledged war.

In paragraph 180, the Court also confirmed, and I am quoting the judgment here, that “the Republic of Armenia, through its military presence and the provision of military equipment and expertise, has been significantly involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from an early date”, that “[t]his military support has been – and continues to be – decisive for the conquest of and continued control over the territories in issue” and that “…the evidence … convincingly shows that the armed forces of Armenia and the ‘NKR’ are highly integrated”. Based on this and other evidence testifying to the political, financial and other dependence of the separatist entity from Armenia, the Court in paragraph 186 concluded that “… the Republic of Armenia, from the early days of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has had a significant and decisive influence over the ‘NKR’, that the two entities are highly integrated in virtually all important matters and that this situation persists to this day” and that “the ‘NKR’ and its administration survives by virtue of the military, political, financial and other support given to it by Armenia which, consequently, exercises effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin”.

European Court of Human Rigths: "Armenia Unlawfully Occupied Azerbaijan Territory"

European Court of Human Rights: "Armenian Deportation Is Not a Genocide"