Armenian genocide.

[Mosov]

The Ottoman Empire was indeed more tolerant to various religious faiths compared to its contemporaries, but probably not due to inherent altruism (which should generally, if not always, be ruled out as a factor in any serious historical analysis).

For example; Greeks, Armenians and Jews were established urban people and it was in the Ottomans' interest to have them within the empire with their own religious institutions, it helped the commerce flow. And since the Ottomans were a centralized, agrarian society, this policy didn't make these minorities too powerful to control until the rise of European mercantilism and industrialization began to affect the Ottomans.

After that, Ottoman reforms proved fruitless and the minorities sought to break away (again, probably in pursuit of pragmatic interests and not due to inherent devious national traits). In that period, Ottoman minorities closely resembled the Nazi perception of Jews, except their disloyalty was much more blatant and indeed today, you have every Tom, Dick and Harry among former Ottoman subjects unduly flattering themselves as guardians of Europe against Turks.

For argument's sake, let's say there were some elements within Greeks and Armenians that went for separation...would that justify the Genocide and brutal extermination of a whole ancient people from their ancestral lands? would it justify the massacres of women and children, forced islamisation, and ethnic cleansing? Or wouldn't the only justifiable thing be arresting/detaining those elements?

[Armenian Bishop]

How many Kurds were killed?

Kurds got along fine with the Turks, during the days of the Ottoman Empire, because they served as an instrument of oppression and repression for the Turks, against the Armenian and Assyrian Christians in the empire. Also, Kurds, a Muslim People, were members of the dominant religion of the Ottoman Empire.

Being Muslim, the Kurds enjoyed the protection of the Ottoman Rulers.

Kurds were used to oversee the work of Tax Collectors who usually saw to it that they could get a good part of the loot for themselves, when they exploited and robbed Armenians in their principalities. I've heard this first hand, from family stories about my mother's folks who came from a wealthy family in Moush (Muş), northwest of Lake Van, who were periodically robbed by Kurds for the loot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian–Kurdish_relations

For the most part, Kurds helped the Turks murder and kill Armenian men, women and children, during the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923), and in massacres that preceded the genocide, as well; also, many Kurds helped the Turks degrade, rape, Islamicize or enslave Armenian women and children, during those years.

During the last 3 decades, the Turkish Military of the present day Republic of Turkey has killed tens of thousands of Kurdish men, women and children, because of Kurdish resistance to the Turkification of their people. Also, there has been Turkish abuse of Kurds, and destruction of their private property. This is one example of how Muslims can find themselves fighting and killing other Muslims.

Unlike the Republic of Turkey, many Kurds have openly apologized for their part in the killings of the Armenian Genocide.

[Mosov]

The Armenian Genocide. That's all you care about, like the Jewish Holocaust.

Yet I have not heard one single word uttered from you ungrateful Armenians in support of German genocide, etc.

STFU or get out of this thread.

Really? So when it's mentioned in a thread, with some falsehoods we shouldn't respond to it?

And how the hell you know that we don't sympathise with other peoples that suffered Genocide? You know how many Armenians gave their lives in fighting the Fascists? There were also notable Armenians that risked their lives for Jews during Holocaust, and were recognised as "Righteous among Nations". So please, stop with your generalisations, without proper knowledge. It's quite annoying.

[adsız]

Copied from my post in ABF since it is not up always. Everyone who wants to know what really happened can check these sources.

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html

Prof. Justine McCarthy's speech

part-1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS65RvEGEh8
part-2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r917rWj8cgA
part-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsyI8Lr9T4
part-4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2NA8K9c_os
part-5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkA8q23ol4
part-6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bg2n_4rRbE
part-7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNZ8JMKlRKY

And a documentary of Armenian Revolt : 1894-1920

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXHea26RDAY

Another Documentary about Armenian Genocide Allegrations .
It has diverse view points that help us to understand this common conflict between Turks and Armenian :
Part-1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmg7AdM1tU
Part-2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6YJwHR8aXw
Part-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Q77jAaIhk
Part-4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr0kWla0UFs
Part-5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_p7lh2m8Vw
Part-6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBOCDvIVMpE
Part-7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdW7cOknKmk

Some other:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-..._b_211408.html
http://www.ataa.org/reference/
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/DISPOLITI...resRevised.pdf

[Baluarte]

I don't like Turks, so I will not listen to anything you have to say.

All I can see related to Turkey is one filthy mutty barking dog that needs to be put down, and left for the crows to eat.

[adsız]

I don't like Turks, so I will not listen to anything you have to say.


Learn the truths... and you still can go on hating me.

[riverman]

I don't like Turks, so I will not listen to anything you have to say.



That's no way towards intellectual honesty.

[Scholarios]

this is pretty low, in general. generally speaking, YouTube videos are the most despicable form of propaganda. If you wanted to be taken seriously, there is no way this would be on a YouTube account. It would be published in a serious historical journal not on blogspot etc. This is despicable propaganda that basically amounts to Turks saying: well, they deserved it. because they revolted during WWI.

[Loki]

Thanks for the information adsiz! :) I generally like propaganda-busting facts.

[Partizan]

this is pretty low, in general. generally speaking, YouTube videos are the most despicable form of propaganda. If you wanted to be taken seriously, there is no way this would be on a YouTube account. It would be published in a serious historical journal not on blogspot etc.

Several articles of Justin McCarthy was posted here I believe. Also confessions of Hovhannes Katchaznouni should be posted if they were not posted yet.


This is despicable propaganda that basically amounts to Turks saying: well, they deserved it. because they revolted during WWI.

Nope, we say, "it was just a security based deportation, not something like Holocaust which aimed to exterminate a society.

[Scholarios]

Several articles of Justin McCarthy was posted here I believe. Also confessions of Hovhannes Katchaznouni should be posted if they were not posted yet.



Nope, we say, "it was just a security based deportation, not something like Holocaust which aimed to exterminate a society.

Partizan, with all due respect, I think no mainstreamers would ever say it was on the mechanical level of the Jewish Holocaust. It was a genocide that happened during a civil war, for sure.

I'm sure you are already familiar with these; but


1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Did Turkey attempt to do any of the above? Did they attempt to destroy or eliminate the Armenian ethnic element in Anatolia? If Turkey and Greece go to war, and Muslims in Thrace are accused of helping gain sensitive information for Turkish Invasion, and Golden Dawn takes power and forces all of the Thracian Muslims over the border at gunpoint, would it be genocide? You and I know the answer to this...It would be 100% genocide.

This isn't even about nationalism, this is just about being decent.

[adsız]

Thanks for the information adsiz! :) I generally like propaganda-busting facts.

They , i must admit , are good at black propaganda. And Turkey was so late for re-acting to tell the world about truths.

Ermenians always use the religion tool. They say " we are Christian, so are right"". Actually it was themselves who killed 530.000 Ottomans before relocation.

[gregorius]

They , i must admit , are good at black propaganda. And Turkey was so late for re-acting to tell the world about truths.

Ermenians always use the religion tool. They say " we are Christian, so are right"". Actually it was themselves who killed 530.000 Ottomans before relocation.
:picard2:

Turkey
http://oi47.tinypic.com/6o0r6a.jpg



So desperate trying to prove its our own fault blabla we killed turks and stuff. And than 100-600 azeris died and you are whinning about a genocide and giving populistic youtube speeches of that MCarthy. Ive seen his book which contains 270 pages and just 2 pages of notes.


Anyway this kind of attention seeking is very low because there is already a thread about this so seeee yaaaaaaaa

[riverman]

I have to say, in all honesty, I was reading about the Armenian genocide a while back and there was something fishy about it, I can't remember what specifically but I remember thinking the narrative didn't seem to add up in some ways, anyways just rambling here.

[Loki]

Moved to Armenian section.

[Onur]

There is a memorial place in Armenia for the so-called genocide and Armenians gather in there not for commemorating their dead but to spew their hatred against Turks, whether Azerbaijani or Turkish.

There are Turkish flags on the ground, so people walks in there by stepping on it;

http://www.bizkackisiyiz.com/resimler/Haber/2008-04-25-594_1.jpg
http://www18.gazetevatan.com/fotogaleri/act/3124_9332_24042008_2.jpg


And this is a tv channel in Armenia, showing live scenes from their so-called commemoration;

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9130/liveimages5cfoto20haberot2.jpg
http://www.ressim.net/upload/850d9cc6.jpg

These Turkish flags are not the original ones because it`s disproportioned. It`s obvious that Armenians specifically manufacture these flags just to burn in there. I think this summarizes how these people are mentally ill as a whole society.

Btw, while they are doing that in Armenia, over 100.000 Armenians illegally migrated and currently lives in Turkey.

[Loki]

Only 21 countries recognize the Armenian genocide, and only 43 states in the US.

Compare that to 98 countries who have recognized the independence of Kosovo.

[Scholarios]

Justin McCarthy's thesis: Because I believe that the stuff that happened 30 years before 1915 is exaggerated, thus the events of 1915 are also fabricated. By the way, look at these orientalist cartoons. He has a lot of "Since not A, then C" style fallacy.

I do feel bad for the guy, he doesn't really have the balls or the facts to roll with a controversial issue and it really shows during the questioning portion of the lecture. He reminds me of a "poor mans" David Irving who actually sounds much better in his published sources, but falls apart in a similar manner when faced with questions. They are both masters of the "splitting of hairs" view of history.

[Scholarios]

There is a memorial place in Armenia for the so-called genocide and Armenians gather in there not for commemorating their dead but to spew their hatred against Turks, whether Azerbaijani or Turkish.

There are Turkish flags on the ground, so people walks in there by stepping on it;


These Turkish flags are not the original ones because it`s disproportioned. It`s obvious that Armenians specifically manufacture these flags just to burn in there. I think this summarizes how these people are mentally ill as a whole society.

I think it's uncivilized to attack another person's flag, physically. it makes you look bad. But you can see the same thing in China when Japan revises their official role in Nanjing. Actually, you can see much much worse.

[Onur]

I think it's uncivilized to attack another person's flag, physically. it makes you look bad.
It might be uncivilized to burn some other country`s flag but purposely manufacture flags just to burn, is an indication of mentally ill society. I told you this is not a proper Turkish flag, the star and crescent looks disfigured, so it`s obvious that they stitched these flags in there, to be delivered to the people and let them burn it.

These people are sick because that how they get raised in there by the Armenian state. The very first thing for an Armenian kid to learn in schools, is to hate from Turks and create their mythical Armenian kingdom in eastern Anatolia.

[curiousman]

Armenian section full of shittish turkish propaganda and no Armenian to counteract , very fair ...

[Loki]

Armenian section full of shittish turkish propaganda and no Armenian to counteract , very fair ...

It used to be the other way around last year ... until I had to ban a few Armenians. It was virtually impossible for me to talk about Turks in history without about 4 or 5 of them trolling my threads ... in any section of this forum. It was intolerable. This is nothing.

[riverman]

Armenian section full of shittish turkish propaganda and no Armenian to counteract , very fair ...

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I could be biased towards the Armenian story, being raised Christian, you're basically calling the rest of us stupid and prone to believe propaganda.

[Hoca]

Armenian genocide is offensive towards Turks. Europe wants to remember so called genocide of Armenians that never happened. They were deported not systemitcally annihilated.

What they forget is what happened to Turks in the Balkans, they were driven out, property lost and a lot of horrible things. Turkey is full with people from the Balkans that is why the Balkan is empty and nomans land. This happened before 1915. So I find it very selective of Europeans to only remeber what they want to remember. This also counts for other muslim genocides aswell.

Armenians weren't innocent as Muslims in the Balkans. There were Armenian gangs murdering village after village and their goal was to ethnically cleanse east-Turkey to create great-Armenia. The disgusting thing is they accuse Turks of what they tried to do themselves.

After Turks having lost European territories it could not afford loosing more territory which would mean deportation and annihilatioin of Turks in that region too. So Turks did the right thing to deport Armenians without causing to much causalties. Although I admit things could have been organized better, it is not the fault of the Turks but the Russians and European powers at that time who initiated the Armenian revolt against the Turks, which basically means ethnic cleaning of Muslims to create greater-Armenia.

Now what happens in Armenia is even more disgusting, they are indoctrinating their youth to hate and commit genocides against Muslims. I wouldn't be surprised Armenia wll try something similar in the future but their military is weak. If a war brakes out, between Azerbijan and Armenia, I won't leave a tear for Armenians. And I don't say that often.

[Zmey Gorynych]

It used to be the other way around last year ... until I had to ban a few Armenians. It was virtually impossible for me to talk about Turks in history without about 4 or 5 of them trolling my threads ... in any section of this forum. It was intolerable. This is nothing.
and you want to say that turks trolling every thread is tolerable !? at least be honest and admit the fact that their bans had nothing to do with them "trolling" your threads but everything to do with them disagreeing with you. your turkophilia is a well known fact. the quality of armenian members was heads above to that of the turkish members, ar-man worth more than all turks bound together.


What they forget is what happened to Turks in the Balkans, they were driven out, property lost and a lot of horrible things. Turkey is full with people from the Balkans that is why the Balkan is empty and nomans land. This happened before 1915. So I find it very selective of Europeans to only remeber what they want to remember. This also counts for other muslim genocides aswell.
balkans wasn't yours to begin with, I see nothing wrong with driving out expansionist ass, so what are you complaining about exactly!?

[Azalea]

^Look them up, those threads. Besides the fact that Armenians were trolling every thread that involved Turks or Turkish history, they were also attacking Turks in random threads not involving Turks or Turkish history. I for example remember that I was attacked by an entire Armenian gang for posting a not so clear picture where I - according to the Armenian terror gang - looked a bit 'whiter' than in the previous pictures I had posted. :confused:

Seriously though, the way they were acting here was absolutely ridiculous in any way. One of the reasons for their behaviour was Loki (and the rest of the members) spoiling the Armenians too much rather than him having Turkophilia. An example: some of the Armenian members here were also active other anthro boards, but their behaviour there was suprisingly very different then their behaviour here. The Armenians here were so used to spreading shit about Turks without being challenged to discuss or prove anything, that when the Turks arrived and they did have to do those things (actually discussing and proving their claims), they start tripping. Like little spoiled children who start flipping out when their parents don't give them what they want.

[Proto-Shaman]

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/bullied-historians.htm

[Scholarios]

Yeah some " free inquiry" going on here. Like everyone is so " biased" against Turks on this issue or something. And in Turkey everyone is free to find the truth on their own about the Armenians?

How about Orhan Pamuk And Taner Akcam and Hrant Dink? What was there crime? " insulting Turkishness"!!!! For claiming it was a genocide. If it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

[Scholarios]

and you want to say that turks trolling every thread is tolerable !? at least be honest and admit the fact that their bans had nothing to do with them "trolling" your threads but everything to do with them disagreeing with you. your turkophilia is a well known fact. the quality of armenian members was heads above to that of the turkish members, ar-man worth more than all turks bound together.



balkans wasn't yours to begin with, I see nothing wrong with driving out expansionist ass, so what are you complaining about exactly!?



Hoca can't understand the difference in that Turks had someplace to go to. This is key.

[Loki]

and you want to say that turks trolling every thread is tolerable !? at least be honest and admit the fact that their bans had nothing to do with them "trolling" your threads but everything to do with them disagreeing with you. your turkophilia is a well known fact. the quality of armenian members was heads above to that of the turkish members, ar-man worth more than all turks bound together.


Read Ashina's post - it sums up quite well what happened.

Listen to me Mr Gorynych - respect is earned. Instead you blabber your mouth about things you know nothing.

Ar-Man was an idiot and a troll who could not handle freedom of expression. Him and a few others were on Apricity for the sole purpose to spread their propaganda, even disrespecting and disregarding me. They are in no way welcome on my forum any longer.

The vast majority of the Turks we have on here are not trolls. They present their arguments respectfully.

[Loki]

Seriously though, the way they were acting here was absolutely ridiculous in any way. One of the reasons for their behaviour was Loki (and the rest of the members) spoiling the Armenians too much rather than him having Turkophilia.

Quoted for the truth.

[Proto-Shaman]

:picard2:
Turkey
http://oi47.tinypic.com/6o0r6a.jpg

So desperate trying to prove its our own fault blabla we killed turks and stuff. And than 100-600 azeris died and you are whinning about a genocide and giving populistic youtube speeches of that MCarthy. Ive seen his book which contains 270 pages and just 2 pages of notes.

Anyway this kind of attention seeking is very low because there is already a thread about this so seeee yaaaaaaaa

LIST OF THE TURKISH GENOCIDE DONE BY ARMENIANS
(MASSACRES BETWEEN 1906 AND 1922 IN CAUCASUS AND ANATOLIA) (http://lexikon.passion-reisen.de/Von_den_Armeniern_verwirklichte_Massaker#ZWISCHEN_ 1906_UND_1922_IM_KAUKASUS_UND_IN_ANATOLIEN)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29156&d=1362069225
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29157&d=1362069228
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29158&d=1362069230
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29159&d=1362069233
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29160&d=1362069234
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29161&d=1362069236

291562915729158291592916029161

yaa

[Zmey Gorynych]

Ar-Man was an idiot and a troll who could not handle freedom of expression. Him and a few others were on Apricity for the sole purpose to spread their propaganda, even disrespecting and disregarding me. They are in no way welcome on my forum any longer.
I think I'll quote you Mr. Loki - "respect is earned".

[Loki]

I think I'll quote you Mr. Loki - "respect is earned".

As Ashina said - I spoiled the Armenians wayyy too much. They totally took advantage of my kindness towards them. I have never met such ungrateful people in my life ...

[gregorius]

LIST OF THE TURKISH GENOCIDE DONE BY ARMENIANS
(MASSACRES BETWEEN 1906 AND 1922 IN CAUCASUS AND ANATOLIA) (http://lexikon.passion-reisen.de/Von_den_Armeniern_verwirklichte_Massaker#ZWISCHEN_ 1906_UND_1922_IM_KAUKASUS_UND_IN_ANATOLIEN)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29156&d=1362069225
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29157&d=1362069228
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29158&d=1362069230
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29159&d=1362069233
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29160&d=1362069234
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29161&d=1362069236

291562915729158291592916029161






yaa

Nice sources, Highly reliable
Devlet Başbakanlık Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1995.
Arsiv Belge Lerine brat Kafkaslar'da heb Anadolu'da Ermeni Mezalimi (Türkçe ve English) verlaten, 4 CILT, Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1995,1995,1997.1998.
De Turkse Republiek Eerste Ministerie Algemene Directie van het Rijksarchief Publicatie, 1995.

Btw even if they were true the dates are years after the massacre of hamidian( 300 000) armenians died, Massacre in erzerum 60 000 massacre dyarbacir 25 000 and massacre adana 15 000++, and at the same time where another 1 million armenians where deported and killed. What do you think that the armenians should do ? Just sit and be slaughtered as ducks like in the massacres I mentioned above ?

The province's Armenian population was devastated during World War I by Ottoman troops in the opening phases of the Armenian Genocide.[19] The regional administrator, Jevdet Bey, was reported to have said that "We have cleansed the Armenians and Syriac [Christian]s from Azerbaijan, and we will do the same in Van.[20] Numerous reports from Ottoman officials, such as a parliament deputy, the governor of Allepo as well as the German consul in Van, suggested that deliberate provocations against the Armenians were being orchestrated by the local government.[20] In Mid-April 1915, Jevdet Bey ordered the execution of four Armenian leaders,[21][22] which drove the Armenians to take up arms in self-defense.[23] On the other hand, writer and genocide scholar Taner Akçam acknowledges that in the case of Van, the deportations may have been driven by military necessity[24] and states the resistance in Van should be examined as a separate case.[25]
While scholars in Turkey allege that the Armenians launched a rebellion in Van in 1915, most historians agree that the Armenian residents, hoping to avoid the slaughter being inflicted on the rural populations surrounding Van, defended themselves in the Armenian quarters of the city against the Turks.[26] The Russians finally relieved the Armenian defenders of Van in late May 1915. In August, a victory over the Russian army allowed the Ottoman army to retake Van. In September 1915, the Russians forced the Turks out of Van for the second time. Russian forces began to leave the area after the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, and by April 1918, it was recaptured by the Ottoman army. According to Taner Akçam, citing the Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler 1915–1920 (Armenians in Ottoman Documents, 1915–1920), after the Turks took back the city from the Russians, they killed all Armenians in the city.[27] The end of World War I forced the Ottoman army to surrender its claim to Van, although it stayed in Turkish hands following the Turkish War of Independence

[Permafrost]

Well, all the accusations against the Ottoman Empire keep getting systematically denied by modern day Turks, I have come to the conclusion that the Ottomans must have been the biggest humanist history has ever seen.

Another thing though, what about people like Orhan Pamuk who had the guts to speak against their own? How do Turks generally percieve him?

[adsız]

Well, all the accusations against the Ottoman Empire keep getting systematically denied by modern day Turks, I have come to the conclusion that the Ottomans must have been the biggest humanist history has ever seen.

Another thing though, what about people like Orhan Pamuk who had the guts to speak against their own? How do Turks generally percieve him?

Orhan Pamuk was a (proven) plagiarist and The Nobel Prize was an award given to him for his anti-Turk speeches.

[Lena]

This is despicable propaganda that basically amounts to Turks saying: well, they deserved it. because they revolted during WWI.

I totally agree with you. The thread is despicable on it's own, especially being named 'so-called' which suggests to posters something fishy regarding Armenian ppl and their suffering.

EDIT: off topic- why there's not a single sticky thread on this Armenian section? Mods?

[Loki]

I totally agree with you. The thread is despicable on it's own, especially being named 'so-called' which suggests to posters something fishy regarding Armenian ppl and their suffering.

It is "so-called" because only a minority of people recognize the events as a true genocide. As I mentioned earlier, only 21 countries have so far recognized it ...

[Permafrost]

Orhan Pamuk was a (proven) plagiarist and The Nobel Prize was an award given to him for his anti-Turk speeches.

So admitting that other people suffered equates with being anti-Turkish?

[adsız]

I totally agree with you. The thread is despicable on it's own, especially being named 'so-called' which suggests to posters something fishy regarding Armenian ppl and their suffering.

We are not saying "well, they deserved it" . We say : It never happenned..!

[Loki]

EDIT: off topic- why there's not a single sticky thread on this Armenian section? Mods?

We can make this one sticky, along with the beautiful Armenian women threads :)

:p

[Lena]

We are not saying "well, they deserved it" . We say : It never happenned..!

I oppose it and not only that, but due to your activities I started to see Turks, which I respected once at least as honorable enemies, as a trouble makers and destructive elements. I never read this section, but seeing all of your behavior here I feel there's something terribly wrong going on...

[Baluarte]

Here's my take: Nobody likes Turks

Armenian genocide is a good excuse to ostracise the cunts.
I don't really mind Armenians, but I might have a positive look of them.

Why the hell not?

[Lena]

We can make this one sticky, along with the beautiful Armenian women threads :)

:p

Loki, you know my position well... you can do what ever you wish to, it's your forums, however it is my duty to protest...

[Lena]

Here's my take: Nobody likes Turks

Armenian genocide is a good excuse to ostracise the cunts.
I don't really mind Armenians, but I might have a positive look of them.

Why the hell not?

I met few Armenians in my life (RL of course) and they were all kind and friendly human beings.

[Loki]

Loki, you know my position well... you can do what ever you wish to, it's your forums, however it is my duty to protest...

I've stuck 4 threads now ... take a look. About Armenian people, women, etc. And also this one since it is very relative and something that should be discussed. I believe in freedom of expression as opposed to blindly believing pressure lobbies and being afraid of them.

I think there is another thread along these lines, started by Armenians. I can merge it with this one for a more balanced read if I can find it.

[Baluarte]

Then it's settled.
If Armenians are nice and I despise Turks, why shouldn't I side with the genocide even if it did not happen exactly as it said? Good excuse to bash Ottomans

Everyone believes in the Holocaust even though there are gross lies about it. Then why not return with the same payment to our enemies?

[Hoca]

Loki, you know my position well... you can do what ever you wish to, it's your forums, however it is my duty to protest...

You can always protest

But I'm not sure what it is you are protesting for?

[adsız]

due to your activities ..
Which "activities" ?

[Lena]

You can always protest

But I'm not sure what it is you are protesting for?

Think before banging a keyboard next time... Thanks

[Lena]

Which "activities" ?

I don't wish to further dilute this thread. We'll see each other... no worries.

[Gospodine]

Only 21 countries recognize the Armenian genocide, and only 43 states in the US.

Compare that to 98 countries who have recognized the independence of Kosovo.

?

What does the Armenian Genocide have to do with the West Balkanizing the Former Yugoslavia in typical "divide and conquer" fashion?

You could just come out and tell us that you have an agenda; nobody's going to really claim the higher moral ground here since almost everyone has an agenda anyway.


I believe in freedom of expression as opposed to blindly believing pressure lobbies and being afraid of them.

Powerful, special interest lobbies that bully the rest of the world into accepting an illogical point of view, huh?

You mean like, I don't know... NATO?

Freedom of Expression and The Apricity is an oxymoron when placed in the same sentence. Come on.

[Hoca]

Lena, maybe next time you should be more creative when protesting and try this

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GQrNR2iABwc/SwRafyQhBvI/AAAAAAAAKP8/_d42axZ_UpI/s1600/femen_02.jpg

[adsız]

why shouldn't I side with the genocide even if it did not happen exactly as it said? Good excuse to bash Ottomans

Everyone believes in the Holocaust even though there are gross lies about it. Then why not return with the same payment to our enemies?

What this little boy says is actually what some countries think before recognizing a falsifed genocide...

Thank you son..!

[Loki]

?

What does the Armenian Genocide have to do with the West Balkanizing the Former Yugoslavia in typical "divide and conquer" fashion?



Nothing that comes to mind. Why?



You could just come out and tell us that you have an agenda; nobody's going to really claim the higher moral ground here since almost everyone has an agenda anyway.


I don't have an agenda. I'm one of the most neutral and considerate people you could wish to meet.





Freedom of Expression and The Apricity is an oxymoron when placed in the same sentence. Come on.

How is it? Even you are allowed to express your views. We allow all views, except for personal insults.

[Lena]

Lena, maybe next time you should be more creative when protesting and try this


Oh, come on... I am sure you can sink lower than that :wink

Cheers! lol

[Loki]

By the way my dear Lena ... :) since you are such a staunch supporter of genocide recognition ... what are your views on Ratko Mladić?

You don't have to answer in this thread, it's merely a rhetorical question. :coffee:

[Loki]

Threads merged

[adsız]

By the way my dear Lena ... :) since you are such a staunch supporter of genocide recognition ... what are your views on Ratko Mladić?

You don't have to answer in this thread, it's merely a rhetorical question. :coffee:

Ratko Mladić massacred the f*cking muslims, so no problem..!

[Gospodine]

Nothing that comes to mind. Why?

Well, your comparison between the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and international recognition of Kosovo is disingenuous for a number of reasons; mainly the time difference separating the two events, the vastly different strategic importance of the two countries and the powerful entities that support Kosovo.

Regardless, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441; declaring that Iraq actually had WMD's.

So you're logic of infallible majorities holds little water in today's political game.


We allow all views,

Merely allowing and giving equal recognition and space to, are two entirely different things.


I'm one of the most neutral and considerate people you could wish to meet.

So am I. Whoop-di-doo.

You have bias. We're not blind.

[Lena]

By the way my dear Lena ... :) since you are such a staunch supporter of genocide recognition ... what are your views on Ratko Mladić?

You don't have to answer in this thread, it's merely a rhetorical question. :coffee:

I can do it here, no probs Loki. I see already some parallels made by Turk, I think in OP or few posts later... Two can't be compared at all, not by scale, nor by gender involved. I believe Serbs fought for the right cause, the way all military plans/actions are executed are maybe not to my taste-military strategist I am not; but what I know well is that war ain't fun.

[Loki]

You have bias. We're not blind.

Every man on this planet has bias, but I don't force mine on others. That's the difference. You, on the other hand, seem to want to disallow me to have a viewpoint contrary to yours. :p In that regard I will have to disappoint you, I'm afraid.

[Hoca]

Pfff, Lena I can't believe you said that. You just hit a new low for me. Hating Turks is one thing, but you are just a whole new level.

[Anthropologique]

Every man on this planet has bias, but I don't force mine on others. That's the difference. You, on the other hand, seem to want to disallow me to have a viewpoint contrary to yours. :p In that regard I will have to disappoint you, I'm afraid.

The hyper-insecure Armenians on the attack, again... Good grief!

[Loki]

Well, your comparison between the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and international recognition of Kosovo is disingenuous for a number of reasons; mainly the time difference separating the two events, the vastly different strategic importance of the two countries and the powerful entities that support Kosovo.

Regardless, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441; declaring that Iraq actually had WMD's.

So you're logic of infallible majorities holds little water in today's political game.



Let's compare apples with apples then. Which of the following do you think enjoys the strongest international recognition?

1) Armenian genocide
2) Bosnian genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

[Gospodine]

but what I know well is that war ain't fun.

Well that's a piss-poor reasoning you just demonstrated.

Look, both Serbs and Turks make gross double standards when it comes to the issue of genocide. They vocally support the recognition of one and the vehement denial of another.

It's clear the support of any genocide recognition on the behalf of Serbia or Turkey is not done out of sympathetic, humanitarian reasons but instead done purely to spite its enemies.

To me, both states are actually a lot closer politically than they care to think.


the way all military plans/actions are executed are maybe not to my taste

You talk about this stuff like you're discussing your favourite music albums. Hard to see any sincerity in what you said but regardless; professional militaries don't plan the murder of unarmed combatants on their religious basis. You're kind of using very specific terms very loosely there.

[Proto-Shaman]

Nice sources, Highly reliable
Devlet Başbakanlık Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1995.
Arsiv Belge Lerine brat Kafkaslar'da heb Anadolu'da Ermeni Mezalimi (Türkçe ve English) verlaten, 4 CILT, Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1995,1995,1997.1998.
De Turkse Republiek Eerste Ministerie Algemene Directie van het Rijksarchief Publicatie, 1995.

Btw even if they were true the dates are years after the massacre of hamidian( 300 000) armenians died, Massacre in erzerum 60 000 massacre dyarbacir 25 000 and massacre adana 15 000++, and at the same time where another 1 million armenians where deported and killed. What do you think that the armenians should do ? Just sit and be slaughtered as ducks like in the massacres I mentioned above ?

The province's Armenian population was devastated during World War I by Ottoman troops in the opening phases of the Armenian Genocide.[19] The regional administrator, Jevdet Bey, was reported to have said that "We have cleansed the Armenians and Syriac [Christian]s from Azerbaijan, and we will do the same in Van.[20] Numerous reports from Ottoman officials, such as a parliament deputy, the governor of Allepo as well as the German consul in Van, suggested that deliberate provocations against the Armenians were being orchestrated by the local government.[20] In Mid-April 1915, Jevdet Bey ordered the execution of four Armenian leaders,[21][22] which drove the Armenians to take up arms in self-defense.[23] On the other hand, writer and genocide scholar Taner Akçam acknowledges that in the case of Van, the deportations may have been driven by military necessity[24] and states the resistance in Van should be examined as a separate case.[25]
While scholars in Turkey allege that the Armenians launched a rebellion in Van in 1915, most historians agree that the Armenian residents, hoping to avoid the slaughter being inflicted on the rural populations surrounding Van, defended themselves in the Armenian quarters of the city against the Turks.[26] The Russians finally relieved the Armenian defenders of Van in late May 1915. In August, a victory over the Russian army allowed the Ottoman army to retake Van. In September 1915, the Russians forced the Turks out of Van for the second time. Russian forces began to leave the area after the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, and by April 1918, it was recaptured by the Ottoman army. According to Taner Akçam, citing the Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler 1915–1920 (Armenians in Ottoman Documents, 1915–1920), after the Turks took back the city from the Russians, they killed all Armenians in the city.[27] The end of World War I forced the Ottoman army to surrender its claim to Van, although it stayed in Turkish hands following the Turkish War of Independence

Yes the fully RLIABLE SOURCES, forget to add them.

BTW The "Blue Book (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/toynbee-documents.htm)" concerning the so called Armenian Genocide = EXPOSED FAKE!

[Gospodine]

Every man on this planet has bias, but I don't force mine on others. That's the difference. You, on the other hand, seem to want to disallow me to have a viewpoint contrary to yours. :p In that regard I will have to disappoint you, I'm afraid.

Empty words my friend. Empty words.

I challenge viewpoints, I don't see how it's possible for me to "disallow them". I've never made any bones about categorically stating that most Westerners know fuck all about the Yugoslav Wars or Kosovo; because that's a demonstrable fact.

In any case, I have bias, but I state it quite openly; then I defend it. You have a facetious pretense of being impartial but flagrantly disregard it whenever someone upsets your site's agenda or delicate ethnic balance.


The hyper-insecure Armenians on the attack, again... Good grief!

No this is something I've been meaning to bring up with Loki for a while now; just never got around to it.

I don't need to be Armenian to see that this site doesn't believe in "Freedom of Expression".

[Hoca]

I think Gospodine is another hidden Armenian. He fits all the symptoms.
1. Obsessed with Turks
2. Obsessed with Karabakh
3. Turk hater
4. Agrresive and hyperactive

[Loki]

Empty words my friend. Empty words.

I challenge viewpoints, I don't see how it's possible for me to "disallow them". I've never made any bones about categorically stating that most Westerners know fuck all about the Yugoslav Wars or Kosovo; because that's a demonstrable fact.

In any case, I have bias, but I state it quite openly; then I defend it. You have a facetious pretense of being impartial but flagrantly disregard it whenever someone upsets your site's agenda or delicate ethnic balance.



It's all good then.





I don't need to be Armenian to see that this site doesn't believe in "Freedom of Expression".

Please substantiate your claim with evidence that I censor some viewpoints.

[Gospodine]

1. Obsessed with Turks
2. Obsessed with Karabakh

A 1 minute scroll through my posting history will prove you wrong. Please do find some examples of my "obsession" with Turks/Karabakh.


3. Turk hater

Hardly.


4. Agrresive and hyperactive

Stop projecting your flaws onto others. You joined in January and already you're a firmly established troll who does nothing but create "X vs Y" threads and bait simpletons into ethnic flame-wars.

[riverman]

I don't need to be Armenian to see that this site doesn't believe in "Freedom of Expression".

This is the only forum yet that allows opposing viewpoints in my experience, you must not have tried other forums.

[Gospodine]

This is the only forum yet that allows opposing viewpoints in my experience, you must not have tried other forums.

What I said before; allowing something =/= being impartial and free of an agenda. TA was a good forum, but even back then, it still had an overall agenda. Now that it's met that goal, it's worse for it and you can see that clearly.

It's also hard to claim this atmosphere of transparency and open-mindedness exists, when your site is flooded by members who don't necessarily come from nations that have true freedom of speech and little exposure to non-state-controlled mediums of information; i.e. see Hoca for example and his "waaahh Armenians everywhere!" defense mechanism when he's presented with something outside of his comfort zone.

[Musso]

Let's compare apples with apples then. Which of the following do you think enjoys the strongest international recognition?

1) Armenian genocide
2) Bosnian genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

Armenian Genocide has been confirmed by wide range of international legal scholars specializing in Genocide law. From the Justice Councils that were summoned by Turkish-Armenian reconciliation committee, to UN Justices that have specialized in Genocide Law, to organisation of Genocide scholars. Tell me, if all this Armenian Genocide was a hoax, would all these structures, scholars, people be such idiots in widely confirming the fact of Genocide? The Bosnian Genocide has also similarly been confirmed by Genocide Scholars. I know you have a fascination with Turks and have some good Turkish buddies here, but take your head out of the sand, and look at this in a scholarly perspective or else there's really no point in debating, because from what I see, I am assuming you reject the authority of all these scholars and councils and judges, but you accept the account given by the Turkish State and Turkish Nationalists. That just doesn't make sense and is a very naive approach honestly.

[Musso]

In terms of affirmation by other people/organizations:


Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
The fact of the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman government has been documented, recognized, and affirmed in the form of media and eyewitness reports, laws, resolutions, and statements by many historians, states and international organizations. The complete catalogue of all documents categorizing the 1915 wholesale massacre of the Armenian population in Ottoman Empire as a premeditated and thoroughly executed act of genocide, is extensive.

• 126 HOLOCAUST SCHOLARS
affirm the incontestable fact of the armenian genocide and urge western democrates to officially recognize it.
(Source) (View New York Times article)

• 150 DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS & WRITERS
commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and condemn the Turkish government’s denial of this crime against humanity.
(Source)

• TURKISH HISTORIANS RECOGNIZING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE:
Halil Berktay • Taner Akçam • Murat Belge • Ahmet Insel • Bulent Peker • Salim Deringil • Ercin Kursat Ahler • Ali Ertem • Murat Peker • Fatma Muge Gocek • Engin Akarli • Koray Caliskan • Dilek Kurban • Yunus Tuncel • Ugur Ümit Üngör

• OVER 30.000 TURKS APOLOGIZE:
My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize to them.


Brief list of those organizations which have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide:

• Mercosur Parliament, Resolution – November, 2007
• Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – August, 2007
• The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity – April 9, 2007
• Human Rights Association of Turkey, Istanbul Branch – April 24, 2006
• International Center for Transitional Justice Report Prepared for TARC – February 10, 2003
• European Alliance of YMCAs – July 20, 2002
• Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Declaration – April 24, 2001
• Le Ligue des Droits de l’Homme – May 16, 1998
• Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Declaration – April 24, 1998
• The Association of Genocide Scholars – June 13, 1997
• Parlamenta Kurdistane Li Derveyi Welat – April 24, 1996
• Union of American Hebrew Congregations – November 7, 1989
• Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Verdict of the Tribunal – April 16, 1984
• World Council of Churches – August 10, 1983
• UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities – July 2, 1985
• UN War Crimes Commission Report – May 28, 1948
• UN General Assembly Resolution – December 9, 1948


The official transcript of the verdict of the court martial conducted by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1919 against the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. It was first published in the Official Gazette (Takvim-i-Vekayi), No. 3604.

“Prime Minister Talat Pasha and Minister of War Enver Effendi, now expelled from his military career; Djemal Effendi, Minister of the Navy, likewise expelled from the service; Dr. Nazim, Minister of Education-these were the principal criminals (fayili asli) and their guilt has been determined by a unanimous vote.

In accordance therefore with the abovementioned paragraphs in the law code, Talat, Enver, Djemal and Dr. Nazim are sentenced to death.”

July 5, 1919 (1335); Military Court: NAZIM; Head of the Secretariat empowered to Record the Minutes of this Military Tribunal: Abidin Daver; Official organ: No. 3604. Published in the Official Gazette of Turkey (Takvimi Vekayi), no. 3604 (supplement), July 22, 1919


....but, ah yes all of this is evil Armenian propaganda......:picard2:

[SKYNET]

Armenian genocide https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=armenian%20genocide&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.d2k&biw=1920&bih=908&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=sbIvUbH0BKmw0QX3_YGgBg


only cowards are be able to do such a crime.

[Loki]

What I said before; allowing something =/= being impartial and free of an agenda. TA was a good forum, but even back then, it still had an overall agenda. Now that it's met that goal, it's worse for it and you can see that clearly.


I really don't know what you're going on about ... you've lost me.

I don't have an agenda, but even though I allow others to express themselves freely, I have my own opinions also. You should be thankful that I'm not like other admins who prohibit those who think different from them.

I also fail to understand why you choose to hang around here if you dislike it so much. If TA is not your cup of tea, I accept that. But most regular members on here like the site, that's why they're here virtually every day. And this is not a small community at all. We have very good representation from virtually every corner of Europe - The Balkans, Southern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe. And we accommodate some fringe areas like Armenia and Turkey.

[Pecheneg]

only cowards are be able to do such a crime.

And only idiots believe everything they read online.

[Proto-Shaman]

Armenian genocide https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=armenian%20genocide&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.d2k&biw=1920&bih=908&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=sbIvUbH0BKmw0QX3_YGgBg
only cowards are be able to do such a crime.

Coward! look here https://www.google.de/search?um=1&hl=de&client=firefox-beta&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&biw=1029&bih=575&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Hocali+massacres&oq=Hocali+massacres&gs_l=img.3...19419.26793.0.26975.16.15.0.0.0.0.143 7.6504.2j2j2j1j6-3j2.12.0...0.0...1c.1.5.img.PI9Yx5XrzR4


In terms of affirmation by other people/organizations:
....but, ah yes all of this is evil Armenian propaganda......:picard2:

What is with this Armenian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SELkc3r__tY

[Musso]

Shut the fuck up! https://www.google.de/search?um=1&hl=de&client=firefox-beta&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&biw=1029&bih=575&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Hocali+massacres&oq=Hocali+massacres&gs_l=img.3...19419.26793.0.26975.16.15.0.0.0.0.143 7.6504.2j2j2j1j6-3j2.12.0...0.0...1c.1.5.img.PI9Yx5XrzR4



What is with this Armenian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SELkc3r__tY

what are you 2 years old? :picard2:

I give you a listing of the wide ranging affirmation of the Armenian Genocide by a variety of authorities and you give me a youtube video? Try harder. Turkish state spends a lot of money on denial, I thought at least it would be better.

[Proto-Shaman]

what are you 2 years old? :picard2:
24 :bored:


I give you a listing of the wide ranging affirmation of the Armenian Genocide by a variety of authorities and you give me a youtube video? Try harder. Turkish state spends a lot of money on denial, I thought at least it would be better.
Armenian Money, Armenian Lobbyism.

[Musso]

24 :bored:


Armenian Money, Armenian Lobbyism.

you seriously think Armenian Lobby has more money than Turkish state?

[Hayalet]

you seriously think Armenian Lobby has more money than Turkish state?
But then the recognition of the Armenian version of this event is what the Armenian lobby is all about, whereas Turkey is a pretty multipurpose entity.

[Pecheneg]

^Look them up, those threads. Besides the fact that Armenians were trolling every thread that involved Turks or Turkish history, they were also attacking Turks in random threads not involving Turks or Turkish history.
TA was a unique paradise for armenians when there were more than enough armenians to attack few female Turkish posters.




I for example remember that I was attacked by an entire Armenian gang for posting a not so clear picture where I - according to the Armenian terror gang - looked a bit 'whiter' than in the previous pictures I had posted. :confused:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2930/e7wcb.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/e7wcb.gif/)


Their sad, sick obsession with "whiteness" makes me want to leave this planet, seriously.

[Artavazt]

But then the recognition of the Armenian version of this event is what the Armenian lobby is all about, whereas Turkey is a pretty multipurpose entity.

Thats not true,Armenian lobby is also pretty multipurpose. One of its goals is to gain world's recognition of Nagorno karabagh reublic,solving various problems of Armenia,improve Armenia's economy...etc
IMO Karabagh's independence recognition is a lot more important then recieving an apology from turkey for genocide.

[Hayalet]

One of its goals is to gain world's recognition of Nagorno karabagh reublic
No, it isn't, because Armenia itself doesn't recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. You should familiarize yourself with "your country" before having discussions about it with others.

[Musso]

But then the recognition of the Armenian version of this event is what the Armenian lobby is all about, whereas Turkey is a pretty multipurpose entity.

Not true. Armenian Lobby petitions for recognition and most importantly spreads awareness. But Armenian Lobby also works to improve relations between their host country and Armenia, organize cultural events, advocate for rights, and so forth. The Turkish Lobby is much more influential and powerful. Armenian Lobby is more grassroots.

[Proto-Shaman]

...
If we include those deaths that were not included in the enumeration, but may be assigned due to the events in time and place, so the number reached nearly 2 million Turkish victims.

[Musso]

TA was a unique paradise for armenians when there were more than enough armenians to attack few female Turkish posters.




http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2930/e7wcb.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/e7wcb.gif/)


Their sad, sick obsession with "whiteness" makes me want to leave this planet, seriously.

sad, sick obsession with "whiteness"? Don't confuse a few "Aryanist Armenians" that roam the internet with all Armenians of the world please.

[Onur]

The Turkish Lobby is much more influential and powerful. Armenian Lobby is more grassroots.
Are you kidding me?

Armenian lobby is the 2nd strongest lobby in the world after the jewish one. There are even more Armenians abroad than the Armenian state. Armenians controls most of the French press and they have many people in key positions in judiciary and politics. They are also quite powerful in USA, having so many representatives in the US senate.

They are everywhere in Europe and Americas, even including south America.

[Scholarios]

Just let these guys sit in their Turko-centric world, where Ancient Turks founded civilization and benevolent angelic Turks helped Balkanians and humanely deported Armenians into the Syrian desert in 1915.

You can never convince them and the reasonable Turks cannot listen to another opinion in Turkey or he's going to end up like Hrent Dink- shot 3 times in the back of the head while he is in the process of his 3rd charge for "insulting turkishness". Can you see this is not the environment for Turks to be telling the rest of the world what did or did not happen to Armenians??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Hrant_Dink

and people like Onur and Hoca have the nerve to come and post about Golden Dawn, who are like little lambs compared to Grey Wolves.

[iNird]

Just let these guys sit in their Turko-centric world, where Ancient Turks founded civilization and benevolent angelic Turks helped Balkanians and humanely deported Armenians into the Syrian desert in 1915.

You can never convince them and the reasonable Turks cannot listen to another opinion in Turkey or he's going to end up like Hrent Dink- shot 3 times in the back of the head while he is in the process of his 3rd charge for "insulting turkishness". Can you see this is not the environment for Turks to be telling the rest of the world what did or did not happen to Armenians??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Hrant_Dink

and people like Onur and Hoca have the nerve to come and post about Golden Dawn, who are like little lambs compared to Grey Wolves.

There is something wrong with the Turkish psyche and it's prevalent amongst most of the board members on the apricity. Anyone that dares question Turkey and its' accomplishment is attacked by the Turkish hordes. There's a few of them here that are reasonable but the vast majority are just brainwashed and drink their urine as if it's the fountain of glory. No wonder they come out with laws against denigrating Turkish nation or insulting Ataturk because these Turks don't know how to handle criticism. Don't insult Turkey, don't insult our allah Ataturk, no such thing as Armenian genoicide, there is no Kurdish minority rights and so forth.

[Gospodine]

Armenian lobby is the 2nd strongest lobby in the world after the jewish one.

No it's not. BigPharma/HMO's/NRA/MPAA/RIAA/Saudis/Gulf Arabs/CIA Front Organizations all come well before the Armenians.

America still hasn't officially recognized the Armenian deportations/massacres as a genocide (despite certain US states passing proclamations of recognition; and those motions passed VERY narrowly). So regardless of what their political clout maybe, it's obvious they haven't met their aims, for one reason or another.

The US needs Incirlik, supply routes through Turkey and Turkish support for intervention in Syria (and in the past Iraq) so it's clear that you guys do have leverage over them, just like the Armenians do, and you use that to YOUR advantage.

Besides that, millions are spent annually on Turkey's behalf in the US via various lobbyists and lobbying groups:


Former Representative Robert Livingston (Bob Livingston) has been the main lobbyist for Turkey in blocking congressional efforts to pass an Armenian genocide resolution.


Records filed at the Justice Department show Turkish expenditures since August 2006 of about $3.2 million for lobbyists and public relations firms.


Gephardt, a senior counsel at the law firm of DLA Piper who retired from Congress in 2005, began working for Turkey in March under a yearlong contract worth $1.2 million.


Records show that Armenia has spent far less money on lobbying. Its largest expenditure went to the public relations firm of Burson-Marsteller, which earned about $300,000 from August 2006 to April 2007.


"The Turks have done everything they possibly could," said former Representative Stephen Solarz, whose firm got $165,000 this summer lobbying for Turkey under an arrangement with Livingston. Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, a resolution sponsor, called Turkey's lobbying "the most intense I've ever seen."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/world/americas/17iht-lobby.4.7932191.html?_r=0


The resolution has prompted an aggressive push by the government of Turkey and its lobbying firm led by former House majority leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who had urged recognition of the Armenian genocide when he was in Congress. Public-relations firm Fleishman-Hillard also has a contract with Turkey worth more than $100,000 a month, records show.


The Turkish government has spent millions on Washington lobbying over the past decade, much of it focused on the Armenian genocide issue. The country's current lobbyist, the Gephardt Group, collects about $70,000 a month for lobbying services from the government in Ankara, according to federal disclosure records.


Another group, the Turkish Coalition of America, has targeted the districts of committee members who are considered potential swing votes, including submitting op-eds to local newspapers from the group's president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303786.html


Turkey, which shares some interests with the Middle East countries, spent nearly $1.7 million in 2009 to lobby American officials on Turkish and Middle Eastern policy through the firms of Richard A. Gephardt, a former House leader, Mr. Livingston and other prominent lobbyists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/middleeast/02lobby.html?scp=1&sq=arab%20lobby&st=cse

According to this source Turkey spent $3.5 million on lobbying in 2007 and 2008 alone, and not only that, but they have the most congressional contacts (even more than the Emiratis and Canadians):
http://www.propublica.org/article/adding-it-up-the-top-players-in-foreign-agent-lobbying-718


The Turkish government has consistently lavished millions each year on well-connected Washington lobbying firms--including those employing former House leaders--which contacted offices of the lower chamber 1,468 times, according to an analysis of data from Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker of disclosures filed in 2008 by firms under the Foreign Agent Registration Actnearly twice that of the second-highest country, Libya.


Those programs include the Institute for Turkish Studies at Georgetown University, which received an initial $3 million disbursement from Turkey in 1982 and continues to draw annual financial support from the government, and is chaired by Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to the United States. In 2006, a board member, Donald Quataert, resigned from the institute, claiming that after he acknowledged in an academic review that the Armenian killings met the definition of genocide, Sensoy told him Turkish authorities had threatened to revoke the Institute's funding. Sensoy disputed the allegations.

The Turkish American Legal Defense Fund, financed by TCA, aggressively pursues those who threaten the country's reputation, including suing the Southern Poverty Law Center and David Holthouse, a journalist who prepared a report for the nonprofit, for upwards of $8 million on behalf of an academic. In that case, the Foreign Agents Registration Act is at issue. Holthouse suggested that, as part of a group of professors who have enjoyed endowed positions at universities financed directly by the government of Turkey and who have expressed views on the killings outside of the academic mainstream, he was acting as a foreign agent. If true, the academic would be required to file detailed disclosures with the U.S. Justice Department.


Few members have been as vocal as opposing the resolution as Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., who sits on the House Foreign Affairs committee and is a top recipient of Turkish Coalition USA PAC money.

More quietly, U.S. companies with interests in Turkey have lobbied on the resolution. For U.S. defense contractors, the Turkish armed forces are a multi-billion dollar market--Lockheed Martin and Raytheon would benefit from to latest proposed missile sale. Chevron is constructing a pipeline that passes through Turkey. CitiGroup, which has funded development projects in Turkey since 1975, acquired a twenty percent stake in the country's largest private bank in 2006, and acquired an investment brokerage in 2007.

By itself, Turkey boasts a formidable army of Washington lobbyists. The government has employed the Livingston Group, which boasts Bob Livingston, who'd served as chair of the House Appropriations Committee in the 1990s; Dickstein Shapiro LLP, which has former House Speaker Dennis Hastert on its payroll; DLA Piper, which employed former House majority leader Dick Armey, and the Gephardt Group, led by former House minority leader and Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt. With the addition of corporate interests and its network of domestic supporters, it has built a formidable influence operation--one that can prevent legislation from coming to a vote.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/defense-contractors-join-turkish-lobbying-effort-in-pursuit-of-/

[Teyrn]

There is something wrong with the Turkish psyche and it's prevalent amongst most of the board members on the apricity. Anyone that dares question Turkey and its' accomplishment is attacked by the Turkish hordes. There's a few of them here that are reasonable but the vast majority are just brainwashed and drink their urine as if it's the fountain of glory. No wonder they come out with laws against denigrating Turkish nation or insulting Ataturk because these Turks don't know how to handle criticism. Don't insult Turkey, don't insult our allah Ataturk, no such thing as Armenian genoicide, there is no Kurdish minority rights and so forth.

I don't think it's anything other than nationalistic spirit that causes Turkish outbursts. Our Spanish friends on the forum are similarly passionate in defending their patrimony. However, I understand the irritation that exists between Greece and Turkey and, etc.

However in this barbarous era of human history it's common to insult and denigrate people- especially the "other." The superior person, even if he or she is horrified by the other person, will never stoop to insults. :)

[legolasbozo]

Just let these guys sit in their Turko-centric world, where Ancient Turks founded civilization and benevolent angelic Turks helped Balkanians and humanely deported Armenians into the Syrian desert in 1915.

You can never convince them and the reasonable Turks cannot listen to another opinion in Turkey or he's going to end up like Hrent Dink- shot 3 times in the back of the head while he is in the process of his 3rd charge for "insulting turkishness". Can you see this is not the environment for Turks to be telling the rest of the world what did or did not happen to Armenians??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Hrant_Dink

and people like Onur and Hoca have the nerve to come and post about Golden Dawn, who are like little lambs compared to Grey Wolves.

İn the past something happened, i'm not well educated about that so i don't want to say my opinions. But armenians deported that's true. 6-7 september issues etc. i m'not looking in one perspective. But western peoples always meddle in issues to divide ottomans,arabian lawrence is a proof for that. So i quite believe they scratch greeks and armenians to started a mass, and after Ottomans, deep states manipulated Turks. There were several pains, sorrow and missery. But Hrant Dink case is different, it was Turkish Gladio, that's for sure.

[Loki]

America still hasn't officially recognized the Armenian deportations/massacres as a genocide (despite certain US states passing proclamations of recognition; and those motions passed VERY narrowly). So regardless of what their political clout maybe, it's obvious they haven't met their aims, for one reason or another.


I'll tell you for what reason: because not all war/civil war casualties can be considered genocides, and most people with more of an indepth knowledge of history know that. If Turks wanted to wipe out the entire Armenian ethnos they would have killed them all instead of deporting them.

Other nationalities have suffered FAR more than Armenians - even after WW1 - yet they do not claim genocide status. I include Poles, Russians, Belorussians and Germans.

[Scholarios]

I'll tell you for what reason: because not all war/civil war casualties can be considered genocides, and most people with more of an indepth knowledge of history know that. If Turks wanted to wipe out the entire Armenian ethnos they would have killed them all instead of deporting them.

Other nationalities have suffered FAR more than Armenians - even after WW1 - yet they do not claim genocide status. I include Poles, Russians, Belorussians and Germans.

Please, Loki, with all due respect. Pushing a landless people out of their homes into the desert is Murder. There are plenty of well-respected, non-Armenian academics who say this was an act of genocide. Just because you had some personal problems with Armenians, it doesn't make any difference. I don't agree with everything Israelis do, but I know the holocaust was a terrible case of mass-murder. Who cares about the numbers? Armenians were wiped from Anatolia with no place to go to. This is a genocide whether they want to admit it or not. It is different than the case of the Greeks in Anatolia and it is different than the Turks in the Balkans.

Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.

Mustafa Arif, Ottoman Minister of Interior after Mehmed Talat Pasha (13 December 1918)

[Hoca]

Please, Loki, with all due respect. Pushing a landless people out of their homes into the desert is Murder.

This also happened with Turks in Greece during Balkan wars. Balkan Turks lost their home, property and life, some got killed, some fled. Are you willing to accept this also as Murder. ?

Read this:

It is estimated that at the turn of the 20th century there were 4,4 million Muslims living in the Balkan zone of Ottoman control.[29] More than one million Muslims left the Balkans in the last three decades of the 19th century.[30] Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey. (This is why Greece is empty)

This happened before 1915, I know you are all up in arms and protecting of justice, but you live in a glass house. So please don't throw stones. Loki is doing the right thing with protecting Turks. They had to endure a lot of suffering and media has been ignoring them because of double standard. This forum is helping Turks and some of you, you will know who you are, are getting stomach cramps because of this.

[Scholarios]

This also happened with Turks in Greece during Balkan wars. Balkan Turks lost their home, property and life, some got killed, some fled. Are you willing to accept this also as Murder. ?

Read this:

It is estimated that at the turn of the 20th century there were 4,4 million Muslims living in the Balkan zone of Ottoman control.[29] More than one million Muslims left the Balkans in the last three decades of the 19th century.[30] Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey. (This is why Greece is empty)

This happened before 1915, I know you are all up in arms and protecting of justice, but you live in a glass house. So please don't throw stones. Loki is doing the right thing with protecting Turks. They had to endure a lot of suffering and media has been ignoring them because of double standard. This forum is helping Turks and some of you, you will know who you are, are getting stomach cramps because of this.

You do understand that Turkey and Greece exchanged populations? And as the little propagandist that you are, you conveniently left out that I mentioned your Balkan Turks AND Asia Minor Greeks in the same sentence as not genocide with the goal that Turks go back to Turkey and Greeks go back to Greece? Where the %#$! were Armenians going to go?


I know you are young and only interested in make a bullshit sentence, but even you must know and understand this, right?


Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey. (This is why Greece is empty)

and 500,000 thousand of those Turks came from Greece with 2,000,000 million Greeks from Turkey. So what is your point? It's shitty life and history, but it's not the same and you know why...

[Hoca]

You do understand that Turkey and Greece exchanged populations? And as the little propagandist that you are, you conveniently left out that I mentioned your Balkan Turks AND Asia Minor Greeks in the same sentence as not genocide
[/U]

Before calling me propagandist and other things. First get your facts straight. I was not talking about the population exchange which happend during WW1 but BEFORE. This is about the BALKAN WAR, which happened before. This is basic history. You should have known this.

Greeks did those ugly things in Balkan wars and there is no excuse for it.If you don't know what the Balkan war was for I suggest you read up on it. Again this is about the Balkan war, this was before the things you are talking about.

Your doulbe-standard has no grounds. You are throwing rocks but you live in a glass house. The Balkan attrocities may have been forgotten in the world but they are not forgotten in Turkey.

[Scholarios]

Before calling me propagandist and other things. First get your facts straight. I was not talking about the population exchange which happend during WW1. This is about the BALKAN WAR, which happened before.

Greeks did those ugly things and there is no excuse for it. More than 2.9 Turks were killed in Balkan war. If you don't know what the Balkan war was for I suggest you read up on it. Again this is about the Balkan war, this was before the things you are talking about.

Your doulbe-standard has no grounds. You are throwing rocks but you live in a glass house. The Balkan attrocities may have been forgotten in the world but they are not forgotten in Turkey.

Well, you are either a propagandist or a fool, because your quote says this:



Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey. (This is why Greece is empty)

Greco-Turkish population exchange occurred at that time..... 1923-1924. So please, at least read the shit you copy and paste. The statistics you cite consider the 1923-1924 exchanges. This is too easy. Balkan Wars included there as well, but tiny Greece's 500,000 Turks left as agreement between the two countries and signed by your Ataturk.

[Hoca]

Well, you are either a propagandist or a fool, because your quote says this:



You call me a fool and a propagandist? It was you that was throwing rocks while living in a glass house. I'm only pointing out your doulbe standard. Balkan war has nothing to do with WW1 and population exchange. Greek atrocities done in Balkan war has not excuse. You ignore your own history and come here on this forum and start throwing rocks. I have the right to correct you.

Read this:

British historian W. Alison Phillips, who wrote the history of the Greek revolution, noted in 1897:

Everywhere, as though at a preconcerted signal, the peasantry rose, and massacred all the Turks—men, women and children—on whom they could lay hands. In the Morea shall no Turk be left. Nor in the whole wide world. Thus rang the song which, from mouth to mouth, announced the beginning of a war of extermination... Within three weeks of the outbreak of the revolt, not a Muslim was left, save those who had succeeded in escaping into the towns.[4]

For three days the miserable inhabitants were given over to lust and cruelty of a mob of savages. Neither sex nor age was spared. Women and children were tortured before being put to death. So great was the slaughter that Kolokotronis himself says that, from the gate to the citadel his horse’s hoofs never touched the ground. His path of triumph was carpeted with corpses. At the end of two days, the wretched remnant of the Mussulmans were deliberately collected, to the number of some two thousand souls, of every age and sex, but principally women and children, were led out to a ravine in the neighboring mountains and there butchered like cattle

This all happened before Greco/Turkish war. It says 1897. This is long before anything.

[Scholarios]

Your quote says during the PERIOD 1912-1926 2.9 MILLION TURKS WERE KILLED OR FORCED TO EMIGRATE. It doesn't say shit about Balkan Wars. And why? Balkan Wars were not happening in 1922-1926. Greco-Turkish War and Population Exchanges happened. Balkan Wars happened 1912- and 1913.

[Onur]

This also happened with Turks in Greece during Balkan wars. Balkan Turks lost their home, property and life, some got killed, some fled. Are you willing to accept this also as Murder. ?

Read this:

It is estimated that at the turn of the 20th century there were 4,4 million Muslims living in the Balkan zone of Ottoman control.[29] More than one million Muslims left the Balkans in the last three decades of the 19th century.[30] Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey. (This is why Greece is empty)
2,9 million is only between 1912-1926 but a total of 5,5 million Turks forcefully expelled out from Balkans between 1877-1926 and only 550.000 of them is from the population exchange. Also, more than a million of them has been massacred.

You can read from here;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?44779-Forced-Migration-and-Mortality-in-the-Ottoman-Empire


And these threads too;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?52559-The-untold-story-of-the-island-of-Crete-The-extermination-of-15-000-Greek-amp-Turkish-muslims

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?52515-The-untold-story-of-the-independance-of-Greece-The-extermination-of-50-000-Turks-amp-Albanians

[Scholarios]

You call me a fool and a propagandist? It was you that was throwing rocks while living in a glass house. I'm only pointing out your doulbe standard. Balkan war has nothing to do with WW1 and population exchange. Greek atrocities done in Balkan war has not excuse. You ignore your own history and come here on this forum and start throwing rocks. I have the right to correct you.

Read this:

British historian W. Alison Phillips, who wrote the history of the Greek revolution, noted in 1897:

Everywhere, as though at a preconcerted signal, the peasantry rose, and massacred all the Turks—men, women and children—on whom they could lay hands. In the Morea shall no Turk be left. Nor in the whole wide world. Thus rang the song which, from mouth to mouth, announced the beginning of a war of extermination... Within three weeks of the outbreak of the revolt, not a Muslim was left, save those who had succeeded in escaping into the towns.[4]

For three days the miserable inhabitants were given over to lust and cruelty of a mob of savages. Neither sex nor age was spared. Women and children were tortured before being put to death. So great was the slaughter that Kolokotronis himself says that, from the gate to the citadel his horse’s hoofs never touched the ground. His path of triumph was carpeted with corpses. At the end of two days, the wretched remnant of the Mussulmans were deliberately collected, to the number of some two thousand souls, of every age and sex, but principally women and children, were led out to a ravine in the neighboring mountains and there butchered like cattle

This all happened before Greco/Turkish war. It says 1897. This is long before anything.

If you wan to take it back 200 years, we can go back even further. What happened to Muslims in Morea is no secret. Most of them converted by the sword, to be sure (which is surely a crime by modern standards) but it's no genocide. Again, it's scale is not even close to what happened to Armenians, and it's goal was also not the same. Furthermore, You are so completely ignorant of history that you supposedly care about, that you don't even know that it didn't happen in 1897 but in period of 1821- during the Greek War of Independence. You can't even find one single fact about the Balkan Wars. and your quote has nothing to do with this particular incident.

You are just googling now but you can't keep up.

[Hayalet]

This map shows the populations movements in the period known as the "Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire":

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tIy-068xs3Q/TS4FrG-_BwI/AAAAAAAABbw/SYcsRBNuTEs/s1600/anadolu_gocleri2.jpg

[Musso]

I'll tell you for what reason: because not all war/civil war casualties can be considered genocides, and most people with more of an indepth knowledge of history know that. If Turks wanted to wipe out the entire Armenian ethnos they would have killed them all instead of deporting them.

Other nationalities have suffered FAR more than Armenians - even after WW1 - yet they do not claim genocide status. I include Poles, Russians, Belorussians and Germans.

Loki, the issue here is not who suffered more. I'm sure other people have suffered as well. The question here is purely a legal one, as Genocide law is a legal sphere. We leave that to the experts in Genocide Law and such related fields. And the overall consensus of these Genocide scholars is that Genocide happened. If you are telling me that you or some Turkish nationalists have better knowledge of what constitutes genocide than UN judges and career scholars in Genocide studies, then let me know.

[Loki]

And the overall consensus of these Genocide scholars is that Genocide happened. If you are telling me that you or some Turkish nationalists have better knowledge of what constitutes genocide than UN judges and career scholars in Genocide studies, then let me know.

It is not an overall consensus, though. Only 21 countries recognize it - a clear minority. Whether I believe in it or not doesn't matter, but besides Armenian opinion it does not seem to have a lot of credibility, and is full of exaggeration.

[Musso]

It is not an overall consensus, though. Only 21 countries recognize it - I clear minority. Whether I believe in it or not doesn't matter, but besides Armenian opinion it does not seem to have a lot of credibility, and is full of exaggeration.

Countries =/= legal scholars. Countries recognize/don't recognize based on pure politics. I'm talking about actual legal scholars that have studied the Armenian Genocide, Holocaust scholars, UN Genocide Judges, Transnational Judicial Councils, and so forth. Their opinion means nothing to you? They are all talking out of their a*s? What makes you more qualified to deem if what happened was Genocide or not than these people?

[Artavazt]

German Quotes:

Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim: 6/17/1915 – Deportation of the Armenians from their homes in the vilayets of Eastern Anatolia, and their resettlement in other regions is implemented cruelly... it becomes obvious that deportation of the Armenians arises not only from military necessity, the internal minister Talat Bey told about it honestly to Doctor Mortsman, who is employed at the Empire Embassy now. Talat said: “The Sublime Porte intends to make use of the world war for cleaning the whole country from internal enemies, the local Christians, so that foreign countries won’t hinder doing it by their diplomatic interference. This measure will serve to the interests of all allies of Turkey, especially the Germans...”

Count Wolff-Metternich: 7/10/1916 – “In its attempt to carry out its purpose to resolve the Armenian question by the destruction of the Armenian race, the Turkish government has refused to be deterred neither by our representations, nor by those of the American Embassy, nor by the delegate of the Pope, nor by the threats of the Allied Powers, nor in deference to the public opinion of the West representing one-half of the world.”

Adolf Hitler: 8/2/1939 – “I have placed my death-head formations in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

[Loki]

Adolf Hitler: 8/2/1939 – “I have placed my death-head formations in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

Hitler did, in fact, do that to the Polish people and Slavs further east ... so I guess we can also call it a genocide.

[SILNI]

Other nationalities have suffered FAR more than Armenians - even after WW1 - yet they do not claim genocide status. I include Poles, Russians, Belorussians and Germans.
We claim also but nobody give a damn.
Only in WW1 we lost 1/4 of the population mostly civilians. Balkan wars as well , not to mention WW2 and centuries of wars against turks starting with 14th century.

Germans lost a lot also , especially russians but percent of lost population should be takken into acount here.
For example 6 millions killed germans have smaller impact on its population than 1 million of killed armenians in armenian genocide , because armenian population was no more than 4 millions back then (total)

So from that perspective armenians indeed suffered the most.

[Hoca]

We claim also but nobody give a damn.
Only in WW1 we lost 1/4 of the population mostly civilians. Balkan wars as well , not to mention WW2 and centuries of wars against turks starting with 14th century.

Germans lost a lot also , especially russians but percent of lost population should be takken into acount here.
For example 6 millions killed germans have smaller impact on its population than 1 million of killed armenians in armenian genocide , because armenian population was no more than 4 millions back then (total)

So from that perspective armenians indeed suffered the most.

Seriously, don't talk about subjects you don't know anything about.

Total Armenian population was 1.1 million in 1915. This is official statistics. Where did you get 4 million from

Today Armenians claim 1.5 million Armenians got killed but they were not more than 1.1 million Armenians alive during that time. Armenian genocide is a myth created by European powers. Their numbers are totally made up from thin air. How can Turks kill more Armenians than there are? And why are there a shit load of Armenians everywhere from America to Anatolia if we killed every last one of them. There are 8 million Armenians today.

There are millions of them. Let's say we killed 90%, why are there 8 millions today?

So please stop your sympathetic talk about Armenians suffered the most. They didn't suffer more than other people during the war. As aSerbian you are the last one to talk about these things, the first change you guys got, you slaughtered every Muslim.

If Turks did that from the first moment, there wouldn't be any Serbian or Armenian left anywhere near us. You would be just the same as Native Americans.

[SILNI]

If Turks did that from the first moment, there wouldn't be any Serbian or Armenian left anywhere near us. You would be just the same as Native Americans.
Chill out Hoca , this forum is starting to affect badly on you. Maybe you are starting to wake up from your chauvinistic dream you were in whole your life.
Fact 1 - you (as a nation) were invaders on balkan and mostly in all regions surrounding turkey. You were the ones which commited first crimes , and of course that triggered retaliations all around , so I admit turks had some bad times also.

[Hoca]

Chill out Hoca , this forum is starting to affect badly on you. Maybe you are starting to wake up from your chauvinistic dream you were in whole your life.
Fact 1 - you (as a nation) were invaders on balkan and mostly in all regions surrounding turkey. You were the ones which commited first crimes , and of course that triggered retaliations all around , so I admit turks had some bad times also.

Slav were also invaders of Balkans. You see, I can also play this game. Any way. You only responded to the least important part of my message. I hope you got my point about Armenian claims. I think you are a good guy but If you weren't that indoctrinated by your nationalism, you wouldn't be that negative.

[SILNI]

Numbers of killed armenians vary depending of source , but neutral observer get impression that genocide indeed happened but only thing which stop recognition of it is because USA want to maintain good relation with turkey

[Musso]

Numbers of killed armenians vary depending of source , but neutral observer get impression that genocide indeed happened but only thing which stop recognition of it is because USA want to maintain good relation with turkey

Of course the recognition of the USA means sh*t. What's important is that Genocide and Holocaust scholars, legal councils, and people specializing in the legal study of Genocide have affirmed the fact of Genocide of the Armenians.

[Hoca]

Numbers of killed armenians vary depending of source , but neutral observer get impression that genocide indeed happened but only thing which stop recognition of it is because USA want to maintain good relation with turkey

I already asked for a source that said Armenians numbered 4 million. Where is it?

The official Ottoman statistics say they are not more than 1.1 million during 1915 period.

So how can you still say there was an Armenian genocide of 1.5 million when they were not that populous? Did I just explained you that story for nothing? As I said, Armenian genocide is not recognized by most countries. It is highly disputed. Turkey invited Armenia to go to International Court but they don't have the guts.

So please don't talk about something you are not completely informed on.

[SILNI]

Of course the recognition of the USA means sh*t. What's important is that Genocide and Holocaust scholars, legal councils, and people specializing in the legal study of Genocide have affirmed the fact of Genocide of the Armenians.
Yes I understand that , but it would be much better if oficial USA stand by it.
This way turkey have no any sanctions for denying it

[SILNI]

so armenian population in both turkey and armenia was under 1 million in the beggining of 20th century?
there is no precise statistic , that is the reason why I ask

[adsız]

The recognation of a fake genocide by politicians has no meaning. The only authority who has the right and power to make conclusion of the issue is the International Court of Justice in Lahey

[Musso]

Yes I understand that , but it would be much better if oficial USA stand by it.
This way turkey have no any sanctions for denying it

The thing is US will recognize it not in a moral sense, but because they want to "punish" Turkey for something. For example, if Iran had committed the Genocide, US would have recognized such a Genocide a while ago.

[SILNI]

The thing is US will recognize it not in a moral sense, but because they want to "punish" Turkey for something. For example, if Iran had committed the Genocide, US would have recognized such a Genocide a while ago.
Yes , but it say enough about how much international policy is shameful.
Instead to recognize a genocide because of justice reasons they will do that maybe because of current politic situation

[Musso]

Yes , but it say enough about how much international policy is shameful.
Instead to recognize a genocide because of justice reasons they will do that maybe because of current politic situation

Yes it is shameful. In the end of the day though, politicians are politicians....they just don't change.

[Onur]

so armenian population in both turkey and armenia was under 1 million in the beggining of 20th century?
there is no precise statistic , that is the reason why I ask
Yes there was precise statistics and these statistics has been defined by the ethnic Armenian authorities of the Ottoman empire.

There was less than a million Armenians in Anatolia and around 830.000 of them has been expelled out from Anatolia to today`s Syria, Iraq, Armenia. Ofc these territories was part of Ottoman empire back then, so we relocated them to another place in the empire. The expulsion is not even a correct term to define the situation.

The Armenians of Istanbul remained in Turkey. They weren't subjected to forced migration because they had no role in the Armenian uprising and the massacre of Turks&Kurds in eastern Anatolia.



The thing is US will recognize it not in a moral sense, but because they want to "punish" Turkey for something. For example, if Iran had committed the Genocide, US would have recognized such a Genocide a while ago.
So, you basically admit that this genocide business is just a political game, doesn't reflect an historical reality.

[Hoca]

Yes there was precise statistics and these statistics has been defined by the ethnic Armenian authorities of the Ottoman empire.

There was less than a million Armenians in Anatolia and around 830.000 of them has been expelled out from Anatolia to today`s Syria, Iraq, Armenia. Ofc these territories was part of Ottoman empire back then, so we relocated them to another place in the empire. The expulsion is not even a correct term to define the situation.

The Armenians of Istanbul remained in Turkey. They weren't subjected to forced migration because they had no role in the Armenian uprising and the massacre of Turks&Kurds in eastern Anatolia.



So, you basically admit that this genocide business is just a political game, doesn't reflect an historical reality.
Exactly, but there are tens of countries that recognized the Armenian genocide of 1.5 million, when Armenian population was under 1 million in Anatolia. This tells you how much "recognition" is worth from western countries.

[Musso]

So, you basically admit that this genocide business is just a political game, doesn't reflect an historical reality.

I'm saying that politicians often use genocide recognition for political purposes. For example, Georgia recognized some Genocide done by the Russians on the Circassians, I believe, but this happened during the worsening of relations. Genocide recognition is a good way to spread awareness and put pressure, but just because US recognizes it or not, doesn't make the fact of Genocide more true or less true.

[Scholarios]

Can someone provide a detailed map (with sources) for Armenian-speaking villages of Anatolia in the 19th Century?? I'm in the process of making a sourced map of linguistically Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Assyrian, etc villages in Anatolia prior to the national awakenings and the subsequent pogroms and exiles that took place afterwards.

[Hoca]

Can someone provide a detailed map (with sources) for Armenian-speaking villages of Anatolia in the 19th Century?? I'm in the process of making a sourced map of linguistically Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Assyrian, etc villages in Anatolia prior to the national awakenings and the subsequent pogroms and exiles that took place afterwards.

Statistics are better than maps. Maps are deceiving. Armenians weren't majority anywhere. They rebelled also in places where they were minority and attacked locals.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Arnold_J._Toynbee_Armenian_statistics_1912.png

http://www.agiasofia.com/horton/table.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Prorportions_des_populations_musulmanes_grecques_e t_armeniennes_en_AsieMineure_d%27apres_la_statisti que_du_livreJaune.png

As said earlier by Onur. Armenians in western Turkey had no role in the uprising and are still living there. Secondly if you look at how much Armenians lived in Turkey (around 1 million), how much was allegedly killed (1.5 million) and how much live today on earth (8million), anybody with two brain cells would know something fishy is going on

[gregorius]

The first table shows the Armenians in 5 cities/province(excluded other other villages as stated below your source) where there were already 1 million. The second table shows other cities which arent included in the first table(only sivas). that makes 1,6 million. It doesnt include Armenians in other parts of the ottoman empire so there where def more than 1 million. Armenians back than already lived in big groups in Lebanon,Iran,Massachusets,South America,Russian Empire and so on, there is nothing fishy about it.

How many turks are there today more than 90 million. Your stats are showing that there were 5-6 millions muslims in turkey/ottoman empire. Lets say all of these muslims are turks (which isnt true ofcourse) and as I recall someone here said that more han 2 million Turks were massacred after.

doesnt that sound fishy to you?

[Onur]

How many turks are there today more than 90 million. Your stats are showing that there were 5-6 millions muslims in turkey/ottoman empire. Lets say all of these muslims are turks (which isnt true ofcourse) and as I recall someone here said that more han 2 million Turks were massacred after.

doesnt that sound fishy to you?
There are about 65 million Turks in Turkey today, not 90 million.

Also, these censuses and maps are from 1890s. That is before the Cretan war, Balkan wars and WW-1. About 4 million people migrated to Anatolia from Balkans after 1912.

[gregorius]

There are about 65 million Turks in Turkey today, not 90 million.

Also, these censuses and maps are from 1890s. That is before the Cretan war, Balkan wars and WW-1. About 4 million people migrated to Anatolia from Balkans after 1912.

I was taking the same perspective as he did, Turks all over the world are roughly 90 million.
Anyway Im not saying it is fishy or not, who am I or Hoca to say it is true or not.

[Pecheneg]

http://www.agiasofia.com/horton/table.jpg







Sanjak of Sivas alone had 170.000 Armenians?? No way. There were only 36 Armenian villages in the "Sanjak of Sivas" before 1915.
"Sivas" means "Sivas Vilayet" in that chart, "Sivas Vilayet" comprised today's Sivas, Tokat, Amasya and Karahisar-ı Şarki (now part of Giresun).

Sivas Vilayet
http://i47.tinypic.com/15dq2wz.png



Armenian population in "Sivas Vilayet";

http://i46.tinypic.com/264m2vl.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/35db0cz.jpg





Yerevan and the area around lake Van were the only places where Armenians formed a majority (+50%).

[Hoca]

Pecheneg, so what is the population number of Armenians according to you?

[adsız]

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE PROVES THERE WAS NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

By SAMUEL A. WEEMS

Today, Armenians claim they were victims of an Ottoman genocide committed in 1915. The Armenians blame Turkey even though Turkey didn't become a republic until 8 years after the "fake" Armenian claims. The real historical truth is that there was no Armenian genocide and the following historical facts are absolute proof that the self-claimed Armenian genocide is nothing more than the figment of their rich and vivid imaginations to try to get something for nothing. The Armenians have created a "genocide industry" for one very simple and basic reason--to deceive, fleece and scam the Christian world out of billions of dollars. Examine the actual historical truth:

The word "genocide" was invented and first used to describe the Nazi German attempted extermination of the entire Jewish race during the World War II years starting in the mid 1930s and lasting until 1945. Rafael Lemkin of Poland coined the phrase and invented the world "genocide" in 1944 to describe the Nazis annihilation of specific groups of people by both direct and indirect murder during World War II. The Nazis efforts to destroy the entire Jewish race first began in Germany and thereafter in every country they invaded and conquered. This Nazi planned and carried out terror became known as the Holocaust Genocide. The Nazi horror campaigns against Jews became the basis for creation of an international crime in 1951. The 1915 Armenian fake "massacre" claim of 1915 had nothing to do with the adoption of the 1951 international law as Armenians also falsely claim today.

There is no historical doubt but that the German Nazis carried out a genocide of Jews and they carried out a ten year series of on-going campaigns to murder every Jew they could get their hands on. Adolph Hitler was the evil genius who concocted the theory that the Aryan race was the master race of people and that all non-Aryan races were inferior.

The Armenians claim their ancestors suffered from the first "genocide" of the 20th century even though what they claim took place 29 years before the word "genocide" was even invented. In addition, there is no way to compare the Nazi World War II acts of ten long unending years throughout Europe to one event during World War I in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. What the Armenians complain of today is the fact that the Ottoman government removed disloyal Armenians who were committing many acts of treason from behind the Ottoman army in just one place within their legal country. Let us look at the historical evidence that caused the word "genocide" to be invented and compare the Armenian 1915 experience to what the Nazis did
between 1935-1945 to determine if the Armenian's treason can be called a genocide as compared to the Jewish experiences of World War II.

April 15, 1924: Hitler began writing his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) while he was in prison for committing treason against Germany. Hitler writes that the Jews must be eliminated from society.

July 18, 1925: The first phase of Mein Kampf is published. Hitler begins his personal public hate campaign against the entire Jewish race. This is Hitler's beginning to destroy the Jews. This 8 year campaign continued throughout Germany until Hitler came to power in 1933. No Ottoman leader wrote such a book condemning the Armenians and there was no long or short campaign to exterminate the entire Armenian race by any Ottoman leader. There is no comparison on this point between the Nazis and Ottomans.

January 30, 1933: Hitler comes to power as the unelected Chancellor of Germany.

February 22, 1933 some 40,00 members of Hitler's private army are appointed auxiliary policemen.

March 21, 1933: Hitler and his Nazis create special courts to persecute political enemies. No such court was ever established within the Ottoman Empire.

April 1, 1933 marks the date Hitler and his Nazis began their "official" persecution of the Jews. This is the date there was a national boycott in Germany of Jewish business and professional people. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

April 26, 1933: Hitler organized the infamous Gestapo, this "above the law" police force would lead in the Jewish extermination campaigns. The Ottomans never had such a special police force to terrorize the Armenians.

May 2, 1933: Hitler dissolved all labor unions. The Ottomans never did such a thing. However, in Armenia today, labor unions like in Nazi Germany are not permitted. Between 50% and 60% of all Armenian businessmen do not pay any taxes. This is why the Armenian number one import is foreign aid from the Christian nations of the world. In Armenia today the privileged few, just as in Nazi Germany, get richer while the working people of this tiny state remain in poverty and are forced to live a life of squalor.

May 10, 1933; The Nazis burnt all books written by Jewish authors in Berlin and throughout Germany. The Ottomans never burned books written by Armenian authors.

September 15, 1935: The Nazi controlled German parliament passed what became known as the "Nuremberg Laws." The Nazis disenfranchised all Jews. The Ottomans never did such a thing to Armenians.

March 12, 1938: Germany invaded Austria. This was the beginning of Nazi conquest of European countries and total extermination of Jews. The Ottomans did not invade other nations during World War I that the Armenians complain about.

October 28, 1938: the first Jews were deported just because they were Jews. The Ottomans never deported anyone because of race. What the Ottomans did was deport Armenians from only one part of their empire for being disloyal citizens who were actively helping the invading Russians. The Jews never helped anyone invade Germany. There is no way anyone can compare the Jews to Armenians!

However, in 1938 when the first Jews were deported, Armenians were voluntarily joining the Nazis to help them create the real genocide of the 20th century. The evidence is absolute that more than 100,000 Armenians joined Hitler. The evidence is also absolute that Armenian politicians took part in Hitler's racial purity campaigns.

November 9, 1938: This is the date that became known as the "Crystal Night" because Nazi mobs throughout Germany attacked Jewish synagogues and stores. The Muslim Ottoman government never attacked "Christian" Armenian churches and stores. There is no way to compare this German action to the Ottomans. Today, in modern day Turkey, there are more Armenian churches operating that in Armenia.

November 12, 1938; German Jews were fined 1 billion marks solely because of their race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

November 15, 1938: All Jewish students were expelled from all German schools for the sole reason of their race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

December 3, 1938: Hitler issued a decree for compulsory Aryan ownership of all Jewish enterprises and shops throughout Germany and the occupied countries. The Ottomans never did such a thing--ever!

July 4, 1939; Hitler decreed that German Jews were prohibited from holding government jobs. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

July 21, 1939: Adolph Eichmann was appointed head of the Prague office of Jewish Emigration. The Ottomans never set up such a system in their lands or anywhere else as the Nazis did.

September 1, 1939: Hitler issued a decree that Jews in Germany were forbidden to be outdoors after 8 P.M. in winter and 9 P.M in summer. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

September 23, 1939; German Jews were forbidden to own wireless radios. The Ottomans never did such things to the Armenians

October 6, 1939; Hitler issues a proclamation for the isolation of Jews from the German population. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

October 12, 1939: Jews were removed from Vienna, Austria for the sole reason they were Jews. The reason the Ottomans removed Armenians from eastern Anatolia was because they were disloyal and were helping the invading Russians. The Nazi acts do not compare to the Ottoman actions. For anyone to compare Nazi Germany to the Ottoman Empire is to compare an apple to a fence post.

February 12, 1940: The Nazis deported the first Jews from Germany just because they were Jews. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

August 15, 1940; Adoplh Eichmann presented what became known as the Madagascar Plan for the removal of the entire Jewish race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

November 15, 1940: The Nazis sealed off the Jewish "ghetto" in Warsaw, Poland.

March 7, 1941: Jews were compelled to provide forced (slave) labor for the Nazis. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

July 31, 1941: The Nazis issued the order to remove all Jews from German occupied territory in Europe. The Ottomans did not attack nor occupy any other nations' land during World War I and there is no way to compare the Nazi action to that taken by the Ottomans against disloyal Armenians. The Nazis were on the offense capturing other people's lands while the Ottomans were defending their empire from the invading Russians who were being helped by Ottoman citizen Armenians.

September 1, 1941: This is the date Nazis decreed that all Jews must wear a yellow star. The Ottomans never required the Armenians to wear the Christian cross as contrasted to the yellow star of David the Germans forced the Jews to wear.

September 17, 1941 marks the date the Nazis began the general deportation of all German Jews. The Ottomans never attempted to deport all Armenians. There is no way to compare the German acts to the Ottomans'.

September 23, 1941: The Nazis began tests for gassing Jews at Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

January 20, 1942: This is the date of the Wannsee Conference where the decision for the "Final Solution" to mass murder the entire Jewish population was made. The Ottomans never had such a conference and there never was an Ottoman "Final Solution" for all Armenians.

March 29, 1942; The Nazis sent the fist train filled with Jews from Paris, France to Auschwitz.

April 20, 1942: The Nazis issued a decree to ban all Jews from using public transportation. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

September 18, 1942: The Nazis reduced food rations of Jews in Germany. The Ottomans never did such a thing to Armenians throughout their empire.

October 4, 1942: All Jews in German concentration camps were ordered to be sent to Auschwitz. The Ottomans did not have concentration camps nor did they use gas chambers to murder Armenians as the Nazis did to the Jews.

December 15, 1942: The Armenian National Council was given official Nazi recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German minister of Nazi occupied areas. The Armenians had made a consecrated effort to prove to Hitler that they were Aryans like he was and they were so accepted. The proof is the Armenians were never persecuted in any Nazi occupied lands because they were Armenians.

The Armenians made radio broadcasts from Berlin supporting Hitler's Aryan and racially pure beliefs. Several Armenian newspapers also supported Hitler's ethnic/racial pure beliefs during World War II. The Ottomans never did such things. The actual proof is that during World War II the Turks opposed Hitler while the Armenians within Turkey supported first Hitler and then switched sides to the Russians when they saw Germany losing the war.

February 27, 1943: Jews who were forced to work in the German armaments industry were sent to Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

March 13, 1943: The Nazis opened their first new crematorium at Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

April 14, 1943: The Nazis began transporting Jews from Athens, Greece to Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

April 30, 1945: Approximately 33,000 inmates were freed from Nazi concentration camps by American troops. The United States was never at war with the Ottoman government in 1915 or ever. There were no concentration camps used by the Ottomans.

November 20, 1945: The Nuremberg International Tribunal began to try Nazi leaders for war crimes. There was no such international tribunal who tried the Ottomans for war crimes after World War I. The truth is the British and French did arrest a number of Ottoman citizens after World War I ended. After holding these men in prison for some two years each and every Ottoman citizen was released as the British could find no evidence that they had committed any war crimes.

After World War I the Paris Peace Conference was held. The Armenians presented their massacre claims to this conference who heard them out and considered the evidence presented by the Armenians. The Peace Conference rejected the Armenians massacre claims and gave them nothing for damages. The Armenians refused to accept the Peace Conference "NO" answer and again asked to be heard and to present more evidence. The Paris Peace Conference agreed to allow the Armenians to present their massacre claims a second time and again--for a second time the Paris Peace Conference rejected the Armenians claim against the Ottoman Empire and gave them nothing.

The Armenians have had their day in court not once, but twice, and they offered their self-called proof twice and each time they received nothing. Today the Armenians want land and reparations from Turkey, which didn't even come into existence until 1923--8 years after the self anointed Armenian genocide bogus claim. The Armenian government demands today that the Turkish government admit to this fake genocide claim. The question cries out to be answered: Why should the Turks admit to any such thing? When will the Armenians work for peace in their region of the world rather than starting war after war and making false demands upon its neighbors?

The rest of the story is simply this:

(1) The Armenians have had their false claims of a massacre against the Ottoman Empire heard in a friendly court not once but twice. The Armenians have twice had their day in the proper courts. Each time the friendly court rejected the Armenians own evidence. In plain language the Armenians presented their claims. The losing World War I Ottoman government did not appear to contest the Armenian claims. The truth is the Armenians, not once, but twice lost their uncontested day in court.

(2) Today, the Armenians dare to compare their self-anointed bogus "genocide" claim to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the World War II era. The above listed examples are but a few of the many that are in the history books to contrast and prove (as proof certain) there is no real world way to compare the Nazis to the Ottomans as the Armenians try to do.

(3) The rest of the story, based on actual historical evidence, proves than more than 100,000 Armenians voluntarily joined the Nazis beginning in 1935 to help create an ethnic/racial pure state. Today in Armenia, the Armenian government honors one of its Nazi Armenian generals of World War II fame. There is a youth leadership Institute bearing his name. The question must be asked just what are the Armenians teaching their children in the name of this Nazi who helped exterminate so may Jews?

(4) Armenians produced a weekly radio program in Berlin titled "Armenia. This Armenian radio program supported Hitler's Aryan ethnic/racial pure state. Armenian newspapers also supported Hitler and his Nazis.

(5) Armenian leadership conspired with Hitler's top lieutenants and the end result was that Armenians were labeled by the Nazis as "racially pure." After Hitler and his Nazis lost the war Armenians switched sides and forged a document to falsely claim Hitler said at one time "Who remembers the Armenians?" The truth is that Hitler and his Nazis remembered the Armenians and they were so recognized by him as fellow
Aryans and together they committed a genocide of the Jews.

(6) The Paris Peace Conference, at the time, immediately after World War I heard all the evidence and made decisions about what was right and wrong. Since the Paris Peace Conference at the time rejected Armenian claims--what right does any nation or group now have to reopen this historical period of time to give Armenians damages from a country that wasn't even in existence until 8 years after the false claim was first made? To grant the Armenian "wish" of condemning modern day Turkey of committing a genocide is just not justice in today's world.

[adsız]

Fein: US Investigation Revealed That “Armenian Genocide” Claims Are Groundless
http://www.historyoftruth.com/images/stories19/950313-fein.jpg

The White House has conducted an investigation on the events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, said Bruce Fein, former legal affairs advisor to the former US president Ronald Reagan, APA reports quoting “Caucasus Online”.

He said that the investigation found out that the claims on “Armenian genocide” are groundless and the number of Turks killed in 1915 was more: “Under Ronal Reagan’s instruction, we conducted an investigation then. The documents kept in the military archives of European countries and Ottoman archives were found. The investigation revealed that the number of Turks killed at that time was more than Armenians. The tales on “Armenian genocide” are imagination of Armenian historians. Armenian gangs killed more than 2 million Turks in Anatolia.”

Fein also added that all religious and ethnic minorities in the Ottoman Empire had the same rights with Turks: “Greeks, Kurds, Circassians, Arabs and Armenians living in Turkey at that time held high positions. During the First World War, Armenians betrayed their homeland and joined the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. Armenians fought together with Russians on the Caucasus front. They looted Turkish and Georgian villages and killed people. During our inspections, Turks allowed using their archives, but the Armenian side refused to show their archives. I think that if these archives are opened, all the truth will be revealed. Then the Armenians have to apologize to the world, especially to Turks for the historical lie.”

http://www.historyoftruth.com/

[Scholarios]

Fein: US Investigation Revealed That “Armenian Genocide” Claims Are Groundless
http://www.historyoftruth.com/images/stories19/950313-fein.jpg

The White House has conducted an investigation on the events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, said Bruce Fein, former legal affairs advisor to the former US president Ronald Reagan, APA reports quoting “Caucasus Online”.

He said that the investigation found out that the claims on “Armenian genocide” are groundless and the number of Turks killed in 1915 was more: “Under Ronal Reagan’s instruction, we conducted an investigation then. The documents kept in the military archives of European countries and Ottoman archives were found. The investigation revealed that the number of Turks killed at that time was more than Armenians. The tales on “Armenian genocide” are imagination of Armenian historians. Armenian gangs killed more than 2 million Turks in Anatolia.”

Fein also added that all religious and ethnic minorities in the Ottoman Empire had the same rights with Turks: “Greeks, Kurds, Circassians, Arabs and Armenians living in Turkey at that time held high positions. During the First World War, Armenians betrayed their homeland and joined the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. Armenians fought together with Russians on the Caucasus front. They looted Turkish and Georgian villages and killed people. During our inspections, Turks allowed using their archives, but the Armenian side refused to show their archives. I think that if these archives are opened, all the truth will be revealed. Then the Armenians have to apologize to the world, especially to Turks for the historical lie.”

http://www.historyoftruth.com/

completely irrelevant though. it's not a matter of who died in greater numbers. of course, greater number of germans died at the same time as well. but WWI was not a genocide against Germans...

[adsız]

it's not a matter of who died in greater numbers.


Then, it is Turkish genocide commited by ermenians. But we never cry .

[wvwvw]

Fein: US Investigation Revealed That “Armenian Genocide” Claims Are Groundless
http://www.historyoftruth.com/images/stories19/950313-fein.jpg

The White House has conducted an investigation on the events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, said Bruce Fein, former legal affairs advisor to the former US president Ronald Reagan, APA reports quoting “Caucasus Online”.

He said that the investigation found out that the claims on “Armenian genocide” are groundless and the number of Turks killed in 1915 was more: “Under Ronal Reagan’s instruction, we conducted an investigation then. The documents kept in the military archives of European countries and Ottoman archives were found. The investigation revealed that the number of Turks killed at that time was more than Armenians. The tales on “Armenian genocide” are imagination of Armenian historians. Armenian gangs killed more than 2 million Turks in Anatolia.”

Fein also added that all religious and ethnic minorities in the Ottoman Empire had the same rights with Turks: “Greeks, Kurds, Circassians, Arabs and Armenians living in Turkey at that time held high positions. During the First World War, Armenians betrayed their homeland and joined the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. Armenians fought together with Russians on the Caucasus front. They looted Turkish and Georgian villages and killed people. During our inspections, Turks allowed using their archives, but the Armenian side refused to show their archives. I think that if these archives are opened, all the truth will be revealed. Then the Armenians have to apologize to the world, especially to Turks for the historical lie.”

http://www.historyoftruth.com/

There were at most around two million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, most of them old men, women, and children, and they can hardly be blamed for the death of 'two million turks'. That is absurd.

It is highly doubtful that two million Turks died and if they did it's because their own government led them into world war against the European allies. Many Turks also died fighting arabs who were seeking their freedom from Ottoman oppression. All this blood is then on the head of turkish government. what that has got to do with the Armenian genocide?

[Scholarios]

Then, it is Turkish genocide commited by ermenians. But we never cry .

This really isn't a concept that is extremely difficult to understand. The intention of the deaths and the overall affect are important in determining if it was "genocide". The fact that Turks outnumbered alone determines that their deaths will be greater. (it's WWI for god's sake).

[wvwvw]

2 million Armenians most of them children and women vs an armed government of 25 million Turks.
The Turkish government had a bureaucracy, tax money, an army, irregular troops, the local police, and special killing squads to carry out its mission. What did the Armenians have?

Turkish writer calls on Turkey to admit Armenian genocide: "My generation knew what happened and tried to conceal it"


“My generation knew what happened and tried to conceal it. However, the younger generation had to believe this lie under certain conditions, which is even worse. Koran says ‘Give up telling lies first and always speak the truth,’” the Turkish publisher said. According to him, Turkey has gone blind and deaf.

“My country has turned into a cemetery of the dumb,” the Turkish intellectual stated. Zarakolu added that as the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide approaches, Turkey must come to understand that recognizing and apologizing fro it has become a precondition for establishment of democratic society in the country.

“Turkey must accept the historic truth. This is the only way for Turkey to restore the trust in itself. Recognition, apology and reimbursement – these will never bring back what has been lost,” he noted.
http://www.interpals.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=66926&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180&sid=b9151da6a23af44d394c4d23ab869bb5

[zezar]

2 million Armenians most of them children and women vs an armed government of 25 million Turks.
The Turkish government had a bureaucracy, tax money, an army, irregular troops, the local police, and special killing squads to carry out its mission. What did the Armenians have?

Turkish writer calls on Turkey to admit Armenian genocide: "My generation knew what happened and tried to conceal it"


http://www.interpals.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=66926&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180&sid=b9151da6a23af44d394c4d23ab869bb5

Indeed, there is a serious issue in Turkey today surrounding the genocide. There are younger Turks that are open to dialogue surrounding the genocide, but in my experience these are not true "Turks"... they are Tatars, Kurds, Greeks and other assimilated people that stuck around after the War of Independence --- their families experienced discrimination after the war and had no choice but to conceal their true identities (both religious and ethnic).

For the many years I lived throughout Turkey (in Istanbul and Antep), I only met one "Turk" who had an open mind regarding the genocide, and he proposed an intriguing mechanism that would benefit Turkey in this regard... in the United States white people champion abolitionists and those who fought against the injustice of slavery. Perhaps if Turks could take pride in their countrymen that sacrificed their lives to protect their Armenian friends and neighborhoods, some real progress could be made. All perpetrators of the genocide are long dead, so why not celebrate those Turks that fought injustice and use this as a means towards national reconciliation?

[Loki]

Poll added

[Hayalet]

2 million Armenians most of them children and women vs an armed government of 25 million Turks.
Eh? According to the census of 1914, the whole Ottoman Muslim population numbered around 13 million.


The Turkish government had a bureaucracy, tax money, an army, irregular troops, the local police, and special killing squads to carry out its mission. What did the Armenians have?
Turkey was considered the sick man of Europe since the mid 19th century. The state had been in a long period decline; its territories were getting smaller at a fast rate, the army had just greatly underperformed in the Balkan Wars, the politics were incredibly unstable with all sorts of coups and countercoups, the finances of the state was under foreign control since 1872.

While it's true that Armenians didn't have much by themselves, they actively cooperated with the two great powers of the time, France and Russia, which were enemies to Turkey.

[Pecheneg]

For the many years I lived throughout Turkey (in Istanbul and Antep)


Oh really? Can you speak Turkish please? Remove "Turkish" from your ethnicity section btw, you armenian filth.

[Musso]

you armenian filth.

the Turk shows his true face.

[zezar]

Oh really? Can you speak Turkish please? Remove "Turkish" from your ethnicity section btw, you armenian filth.

lol. masanin altina bak.

Please remove 'turkish' and replace with 'turanist shitfag', and apologize to your sandy orifices on my behalf that you can't stand having countrymen that are less retarded than yourself. masallah!

[wvwvw]

Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview
By JOHN KIFNER
The New York Times

On the eve of World War I, there were two million Armenians in the declining Ottoman Empire. By 1922, there were fewer than 400,000. The others — some 1.5 million — were killed in what historians consider a genocide.

As David Fromkin put it in his widely praised history of World War I and its aftermath, “A Peace to End All Peace”: “Rape and beating were commonplace. Those who were not killed at once were driven through mountains and deserts without food, drink or shelter. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians eventually succumbed or were killed .”

The man who invented the word “genocide”— Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish-Jewish origin — was moved to investigate the attempt to eliminate an entire people by accounts of the massacres of Armenians. He did not, however, coin the word until 1943, applying it to Nazi Germany and the Jews in a book published a year later, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.”

But to Turks, what happened in 1915 was, at most, just one more messy piece of a very messy war that spelled the end of a once-powerful empire. They reject the conclusions of historians and the term genocide, saying there was no premeditation in the deaths, no systematic attempt to destroy a people. Indeed, in Turkey today it remains a crime — “insulting Turkishness” — to even raise the issue of what happened to the Armenians.

In the United States, a powerful Armenian community centered in Los Angeles has been pressing for years for Congress to condemn the Armenian genocide. Turkey, which cut military ties to France over a similar action, has reacted with angry threats. A bill to that effect nearly passed in the fall of 2007, gaining a majority of co-sponsors and passing a committee vote. But the Bush administration, noting that Turkey is a critical ally — more than 70 per cent of the military air supplies for Iraq go through the Incirlik airbase there — pressed for the bill to be withdrawn, and it was.

The roots of the genocide lie in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The empire’s ruler was also the caliph, or leader of the Islamic community. Minority religious communities, like the Christian Armenians, were allowed to maintain their religious, social and legal structures, but were often subject to extra taxes or other measures.

Concentrated largely in eastern Anatolia, many of them merchants and industrialists, Armenians, historians say, appeared markedly better off in many ways than their Turkish neighbors, largely small peasants or ill-paid government functionaries and soldiers.

At the turn of the 20th Century, the once far-flung Ottoman empire was crumbling at the edges, beset by revolts among Christian subjects to the north — vast swaths of territory were lost in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 — and the subject of coffee house grumbling among Arab nationalist intellectuals in Damascus and elsewhere.

The Young Turk movement of ambitious, discontented junior army officers seized power in 1908, determined to modernize, strengthen and “Turkify” the empire. They were led by what became an all-powerful triumvirate sometimes referred to as the Three Pashas.

In March of 1914, the Young Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. They attacked to the east, hoping to capture the city of Baku in what would be a disastrous campaign against Russian forces in the Caucuses. They were soundly defeated at the battle of Sarikemish.

Armenians in the area were blamed for siding with the Russians and the Young Turks began a campaign to portray the Armenians as a kind of fifth column, a threat to the state. Indeed, there were Armenian nationalists who acted as guerrillas and cooperated with the Russians. They briefly seized the city of Van in the spring of 1915.

Armenians mark the date April 24, 1915, when several hundred Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, arrested and later executed as the start of the Armenian genocide and it is generally said to have extended to 1917. However, there were also massacres of Armenians in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1909, and a reprise between 1920 and 1923.

The University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies has compiled figures by province and district that show there were 2,133,190 Armenians in the empire in 1914 and only about 387,800 by 1922.

Writing at the time of the early series of massacres, The New York Times suggested there was already a “policy of extermination directed against the Christians of Asia Minor.”

The Young Turks, who called themselves the Committee of Unity and Progress, launched a set of measures against the Armenians, including a law authorizing the military and government to deport anyone they “sensed” was a security threat.

A later law allowed the confiscation of abandoned Armenian property. Armenians were ordered to turn in any weapons that they owned to the authorities. Those in the army were disarmed and transferred into labor battalions where they were either killed or worked to death.

There were executions into mass graves, and death marches of men, women and children across the Syrian desert to concentration camps with many dying along the way of exhaustion, exposure and starvation.

Much of this was quite well documented at the time by Western diplomats, missionaries and others, creating widespread wartime outrage against the Turks in the West. Although its ally, Germany, was silent at the time, in later years documents have surfaced from ranking German diplomats and military officers expressing horror at what was going on.

Some historians, however, while acknowledging the widespread deaths, say what happened does not technically fit the definition of genocide largely because they do not feel there is evidence that it was well-planned in advance.

The New York Times covered the issue extensively — 145 articles in 1915 alone by one count — with headlines like “Appeal to Turkey to Stop Massacres.” The Times described the actions against the Armenians as “systematic,” “authorized, and “organized by the government.”

The American ambassador, Henry Morganthau Sr., was also outspoken. In his memoirs, the ambassador would write: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.”

Following the surrender of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the Three Pashas fled to Germany, where they were given protection. But the Armenian underground formed a group called Operation Nemesis to hunt them down. On March 15, 1921, one of the pashas was shot dead on a street in Berlin in broad daylight in front of witnesses. The gunman pled temporary insanity brought on by the mass killings and a jury took only a little over an hour to acquit him. It was the defense evidence at this trial that drew the interest of Mr. Lemkin, the coiner of “genocide.”
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopics/topics_armeniangenocide.html

[Pecheneg]

lol. masanin altina bak.
Fake.





Please remove 'turkish' and replace with 'turanist shitfag', and apologize to your sandy orifices on my behalf that you can't stand having countrymen that are less retarded than yourself. masallah!

You are not my countryman Tannis. :D

[wvwvw]

.....

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Evetkesinlikleuydurmakimlikegeröyledegilsebunaceva pversindegörelim:D

[gregorius]

WHy are we talking turkish in the armenian section?

[Musso]

WHy are we talking turkish in the armenian section?

Get this foreign Altaic language out of our section...!

[Pecheneg]

Get this foreign Altaic language out of our section...!

Stop making a fuss over a few Turkish words, it has nothing to do with you anway.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

These were magic words magically will Turkyfy you while you are sleeping..you guys will understand what I wrote there tomorrow ,do not worry..

Thats how my ancestors Turkified masses in history..just whispered them some Altaic words and next day they all became Turks.:cool:

[gregorius]

These were magic words magically will Turkyfy you while you are sleeping..you guys will understand what I wrote there tomorrow ,do not worry..

Thats how my ancestors Turkified masses in history..just whispered them some Altaic words and next day they all became Turks.:cool:

I will fight against turkification ;), I wont sleep

[Musso]

These were magic words magically will Turkyfy you while you are sleeping..you guys will understand what I wrote there tomorrow ,do not worry..

Thats how my ancestors Turkified masses in history..just whispered them some Altaic words and next day they all became Turks.:cool:

haha, not gonna happen.

[Loki]

I will fight against turkification ;), I wont sleep

She'll whisper nice words in your ear that you cannot resist ;)

[Hoca]

These were magic words magically will Turkyfy you while you are sleeping..you guys will understand what I wrote there tomorrow ,do not worry..

Thats how my ancestors Turkified masses in history..just whispered them some Altaic words and next day they all became Turks.:cool:

The Armenians still don't know the meaning of Kardasian xD

[gregorius]

The Armenians still don't know the meaning of Kardasian xD

I know so much you dont know :thumb001:

[Musso]

The Armenians still don't know the meaning of Kardasian xD

where's the joke?

[Musso]

She'll whisper nice words in your ear that you cannot resist ;)

Yeah but Females can't resist the soft and elegant sound of Armenian.....trust me. Especially if we are comparing with Turkish.

[gregorius]

Yeah but Females can't resist the soft and elegant sound of Armenian.....trust me. Especially if we are comparing with Turkish.

There isnt anything soft about the armo language imo,:whistle:

[Musso]

There isnt anything soft about the armo language imo,:whistle:

compared to Turkish/Semitic languages? it's rather soft imo.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

She'll whisper nice words in your ear that you cannot resist ;)

According to some eurocentric thesis ,we have IE Y-DNA and Asian MTDNA and we were initially a mix of IE males and Siberian females that later got diluted by additional Asian admix and these people got Turkified by Turkic females..

and thinking Shamanism is related with female energy ,you guys got to be very careful ,anytime we can absorbe power from Mother Earth and convert people.;)
http://i.imgur.com/fs9IKaV.jpg

[Musso]

According to some eurocentric thesis ,we have IE Y-DNA and Asian MTDNA and we were initially a mix of IE males and Siberian females that later got diluted by additional Asian admix and these people got Turkified by Turkic females..

and thinking Shamanism is related with female energy ,you guys got to be very careful ,anytime we can absorbe power from Mother Earth and convert people.;)
http://i.imgur.com/fs9IKaV.jpg

Shamanism vs

http://www.americapictures.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Statue-of-Jesus-Christ-the-Redeemer-Rio-de-Janeiro-Brazil-Background.jpg


sorry but no competition.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Wholistic ,unifying, naturalistic Shamanism compared to dualist / patriarchal Middleastern/Semitic religion ?

http://i.imgur.com/sYU64Rd.jpg

Three group of people fighting over same Male God about who are favorite ones and later being divided into gazllion of sects to fight more?
I 'd pass that.

[Musso]

Wholistic ,unifying, naturalistic Shamanism compared to dualist / patriarchal Middleastern/Semitic religion ?

http://i.imgur.com/sYU64Rd.jpg

Three group of people fighting over same Male God about who are favorite ones and later being divided into gazllion of sects to fight more?
I 'd pass that.

You can use all the adjectives you want. Shamanism doesn't stand a chance next to Christianity which is world's biggest, fastest growing, and most influential religion in the world. How many Shamanist people are there in the world? What influence it has brought to the world? There are pagan religions all over the world.

[Hoca]

You can use all the adjectives you want. Shamanism doesn't stand a chance next to Christianity which is world's biggest, fastest growing, and most influential religion in the world. How many Shamanist people are there in the world? What influence it has brought to the world? There are pagan religions all over the world.

Christianity is declining the fastest while other religions are growing. From where did you get Christianity is growing?

[riverman]

Christianity is declining the fastest while other religions are growing. From where did you get Christianity is growing?

Hmm no its growing I think, islam is also growing, albeit by force in Africa & asia

[riverman]

'conversion' to islam in Africa often involves forced adult circumcision

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

You can use all the adjectives you want. Shamanism doesn't stand a chance next to Christianity which is world's biggest, fastest growing, and most influential religion in the world. How many Shamanist people are there in the world? What influence it has brought to the world? There are pagan religions all over the world.

And therefore our poor planet is at the verge of a new disaster ,because mankind won against nature ..
Next generation will barely have water to drink..but they can always drink the blood of Holy Jesus and eat his flesh ..good influence ..


http://i.imgur.com/Y5DCQmE.jpg

[Musso]

Christianity is declining the fastest while other religions are growing. From where did you get Christianity is growing?

http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

[Hoca]

Hmm no its growing I think, islam is also growing, albeit by force in Africa & asia
You think? I heard that it was declining everywhere. Christianity is steeply declining in Europe, to a less extent in America(they are more religious there) and also in Australia and other Christian countries. Only place Christianity is growing is exclusively in Africa and that is not much.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/8481655/Are-we-losing-our-religion-to-modern-life


http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

That is a fake website. Looks very amateurish and I have never seen that site. Please use well known sources. Every credible big news site says Christianity is steeply declining.

News:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/11/census-religion-decline-rise-born-abroad

Even Christian sites:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/09/why-is-christianity-on-the-decline-in-america/

Another article:
http://www.eurweb.com/2013/04/america-declining-support-of-christian-state/

Christianity has dropped considerably if you compare it to the last 50 years. The projections are that it is going to decline even further. I have a Christian friend who says that almost no people are coming to Churches and Armenian old classmate who said that he was shocked when he went to a Church in Europe and it was empty.

[Scholarios]

You think? I heard that it was declining everywhere. Christianity is steeply declining in Europe, to a less extent in America(they are more religious there) and also in Australia and other Christian countries. Only place Christianity is growing is exclusively in Africa and that is not much.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/8481655/Are-we-losing-our-religion-to-modern-life

Christianity is growing in Korea. At least 29% of the population adheres to it and growing. In Mongolia, Christians grew from 4 in 1989 to 40,000 today. Christianity also increased in Vietnam, Malaysia, India, etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#South_Korea

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Yet I don't see any European taking Korean Vietnamese or Chinese names as Christian names..They are invited into Christianity intitution as believers / followers but they are still outside of core Christian culture and their contribution to Christianity is limited by being a follower .
Christianity still a white religion and a part of assimilation tool..

[Musso]

You think? I heard that it was declining everywhere. Christianity is steeply declining in Europe, to a less extent in America(they are more religious there) and also in Australia and other Christian countries. Only place Christianity is growing is exclusively in Africa and that is not much.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/8481655/Are-we-losing-our-religion-to-modern-life



That is a fake website. Looks very amateurish and I have never seen that site. Please use well known sources. Every credible big news site says Christianity is steeply declining.

News:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/11/census-religion-decline-rise-born-abroad

Even Christian sites:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/09/why-is-christianity-on-the-decline-in-america/

Another article:
http://www.eurweb.com/2013/04/america-declining-support-of-christian-state/

Christianity has dropped considerably if you compare it to the last 50 years. The projections are that it is going to decline even further. I have a Christian friend who says that almost no people are coming to Churches and Armenian old classmate who said that he was shocked when he went to a Church in Europe and it was empty.

The guardian article is about UK. I'm talking about on the world stage where Christian conversions and missionary work is still strong, esp in 3rd world countries. I don't see how that website is 'fake'.

[Hoca]

The guardian article is about UK. I'm talking about on the world stage where Christian conversions and missionary work is still strong, esp in 3rd world countries. I don't see how that website is 'fake'.

It is fake. There are no sources. Just numbers and the site seems old. Why not post reliable sources instead to convince us?

And the articles I posted are not only about UK but about Europe and America too. I can also find articles in Australia and other white countries where Christianity is declining.

The point being is that Christianity is only growing in 3rd world countries, countries who are non-white and Alien to Europeans. But even if we count those, Christianity is still declining as a whole.

[riverman]

Christianity is steeply declining in Europe, to a less extent in America(they are more religious there) and also in Australia and other Christian countries.

Well you're going to have less religious people in general, in America and europe, Europe probably to a greater degree, however America is still basically, traditionally Christian, and the non-religious or atheist componemt in Europe would have to be increasing exponentially to counteract new Christian converts, unlikely IMO.

[Scholarios]

Yet I don't see any European taking Korean Vietnamese or Chinese names as Christian names..They are invited into Christianity intitution as believers / followers but they are still outside of core Christian culture and their contribution to Christianity is limited by being a follower .
Christianity still a white religion and a part of assimilation tool..

a kind of unfair reply, Siberian, you ignore the special place Christianity has attained in Korea due to the Korean character. Every case is different, but Koreans accepted Christianity willingly and put their own spin on it- although influenced by Protesantism and Catholic thought (Confucianism is reconciled with Catholic belief in Korea). Of course, even Christianity is heavily influenced by Eastern Mysticism. The Marxist answer is not always the correct answer. Peoples and cultures are all different. There is no "white" like there is no "Asian" monolith.

[Musso]

It is fake. There are no sources. Just numbers and the site seems old. Why not post reliable sources instead to convince us?

And the articles I posted are not only about UK but about Europe and America too. I can also find articles in Australia and other white countries where Christianity is declining.

The point being is that Christianity is only growing in 3rd world countries, countries who are non-white and Alien to Europeans. But even if we count those, Christianity is still declining as a whole.

There are sources under each of the tables. Look closely.


Christianity is the fastest growing religion in absolute growth, meaning the fastest growing religion in the annual increase of new adherents. The absolute growth number is calculated as the annual number of new Christian converts subtracted the number of ex-Christians + number of births subtracted number of deaths (new converts - former Christians + births - deaths).

Christianity is the fastest growing religion at both parameters, both in absolute number of new converts and absolute number of new Christians due to population growth. In all, this sums up to an additional approximately 25.2 million new Christians annually(Table J). 22.7 million due to population growth and 2.5 million due to conversions(Table J).

Sources:


Sources

(see also the Further reading section)
Term 19. The World Christian Encyclopedia
The to date most reliable and scholarly accepted source of statistically information on religious trends is the World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE), which is an comprehensive statistically reference work by Dr. David B. Barrett first published in 1982 and revised and updated in 2001 (2nd edition by Barrett, George Thomas Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson). The data incorporated into the World Christian Encyclopedia and combined with other source have been made available online at the World Christian Database (WCD). WCE has been criticized as being slightly overestimating Christian, and especially protestant Christian, populations, but nevertheless being on the whole dependable and reliable (see: Estimating the religious composition of all nations: An empirical assessment of the World Christian Database, Becky Hsu, Amy Reynolds, Conrad Hackett, James Gibbon, Princeton University, 2008).

The WCD contains information specific to religious adherence and resources, including the percentage and count of adherents belonging to major and minor religious groups in 238 countries. Major religions represented are (alphabetically): Bahais, Buddhists, Chinese Universists, Christians, Confucianists, Ethnoreligionists, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, Sikhs, Spiritists, Taoists, Zoroastrians as well as Other Religionists, Neoreligionists, Nonreligious and Atheists.
Term 20. The CIA World Factbook
The CIA World Factbook (ISSN 1553-8133; also known simply as the World Factbook) is a reference resource produced by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States with almanac-style information about the countries of the world. It provides a two- to three-page summary of the demographics and religious statistics as well as many other important statistics for U.S.-recognized countries, dependencies, and other areas in the world.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

So Korean names are also Christian names now..Would any of you choose a Korean name for your children or do Koreans change their name after being good Christians ..I see lots of asian with "Christian names " but I haven't seen any Christian with Asian names...

[riverman]

So Korean names are also Christian names now..Would any of you choose a Korean name for your children or do Koreans change their name after being good Christians ..I see lots of asian with "Christian names " but I haven't seen any Christian with Asian names...

'Christian' names are dependant on the culture/group, this varies with whites/Europeans also, it doesn't have to do with white or asian

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Christianity is growing in Korea. At least 29% of the population adheres to it and growing. In Mongolia, Christians grew from 4 in 1989 to 40,000 today. Christianity also increased in Vietnam, Malaysia, India, etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#South_Korea

For Mongolia


Animal husbandry in Mongolia ..

In 1985 there were 22,485,500 head of livestock, of which 58.9 percent were sheep; 19.1 percent, goats; 10.7 percent, cattle; 8.8 percent, horses; and 2.5 percent, camels. In addition, pigs, poultry, and bees were raised.


But according to "Assemblies of God" -God wants more pigs in Mongolia :confused2:

QUOTE]“Pig Farming in Mongolia!” For weeks I kept asking the Lord “Am I hearing
you right?” Besides, I had given up the Iowa family farm when God called me into
ministry at North Central Bible College over twenty years ago. Since then all my
farming knowledge just made great sermon illustrations as my wife and I faithfully
served the Lord in active pastoral ministry.
As we prayed for further confirmation, the Lord kept revealing His plan.
“Agriculture in Asia wasn’t quite as “crazy” as I had initially thought. God has a
creative plan to combine both my ministry experience and agricultural background to
helps spread His Gospel in Mongolia.Part of that plan is training Mongolian pastors at the Assemblies of God Bible
School in Ulaanbaatar. First and foremost, we will be discipling these new believers.
Secondly, we will be equipping them with practical agricultural and carpentry skills that
will sustain their families and ministries when they start churches in the remote areas of
Mongolia.
We invite you to partner with us to reach Mongolia for Christ. Although the
National church in Mongolia is growing, there is still less than 1% that know Jesus as
their Lord and Savior. Since Christianity is not a recognized religion, it is illegal for us
as Americans to publicly evangelize. Through avenues of agriculture and education, we
will have opportunities to minister Christ’s compassion and witness. No doubt the task is
great …yet, with God’s help and your support will be able to accomplish that which He
has called us to do for Him in Mongolia.
Please prayerfully consider this opportunity to reach to “the ends of the Earth.”
We would love be your Assemblies of God Missionaries to Mongolia.
Compelled by Christ’s Compassion,
Paul, Sharon, Joshua, Jerilyn and Jenette Ellis
Missionaries to Mongolia

When Jesus…saw a large crowd, He had compassion on them, because they were like
sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” Mark 6:34




But when there are crazy people like him thinking God told them to build pig farms in Mongolia to serve him,the food of enemy "(Chinese) I don't think most Mongols like the idea of changing food habits and why should they eat pork when they have more sheep than human,on a vast country ?
Who needs porks?

quote from a Mongol

Chicken is just as bad as pig, they eat anything and can live in dirty condition and also Chickens eat Chicken.
Or there is probably another religous belief to it.

Many Mongolians don't eat fish, well they didn't until the russians/chinese came along and we started travelling.


quote from a Mongol

Yes, Now Mongols eat pork. Domesticated pig is rare in Mongolia, they are mostly in city areas. I think before Manchu rule there was no pigs, chinese brought pigs.There was old food rules "Some food is not for U" Mongols were non-fish eaters, maybe Turks were non-pig eaters. .. ;D

What a weird God really..very obsessed with pigs ,banning pork meat one group of people, meanwhile he connects some others to raise pigs to serve him ..:confused:

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

'Christian' names are dependant on the culture/group, this varies with whites/Europeans also, it doesn't have to do with white or asian

You don't expect me to believe this do you? How Samuel becomes an Asian name? Why Tony becomes a Thai /Burmese name ?
These missionary schools ..pls pls..

[riverman]

You don't expect me to believe this do you? How Samuel becomes an Asian name? Why Tony becomes a Thai /Burmese name ?
These missionary schools ..pls pls..

Well, those are Christian names so what.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Trung will never become a Christian name..

Do you think it is fair giving this people foreign names ? Do they really need these foreign names to go heaven? Or it is a assimilation tool rather than "road to salvation" ,a subtle and evil soul slavery and cultural genoside even decides what to eat ,what to wear , undermining their cultural identities and their contribution to world cultures?

[Scholarios]

So Korean names are also Christian names now..Would any of you choose a Korean name for your children or do Koreans change their name after being good Christians ..I see lots of asian with "Christian names " but I haven't seen any Christian with Asian names...

Korean " Christian " names are Chinese origin like all othe names in Korea. They don't change their names. A small minority might take a Catholic name that happens to also be Korean - like " Yuna" or " Bia"- but it's not common.

[Xyresic]

Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East

by Joseph Brewda

Chorus: It is clear that the B'nai B'rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members. The one peculiarity of B'nai B'rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B'nai B'rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B'nai B'rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.

At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B'nai B'rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call "the sick man of Europe." Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.

In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.


In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.

Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.

When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.

Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.

The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.

But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.

The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.

This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt's family later patronized the British KGB spy "Kim" Philby.

While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.

For example, the British supported the idea of carving a "Greater Armenia" out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This "Greater Armenia" had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn't want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.

At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of "Greater Kurdistan." As the map shows, the proposed territories of "Greater Kurdistan" and "Greater Armenia" were almost identical.

In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.

In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B'nai B'rith and the Young Turks

But who were these "Young Turks," who so efficiently destroyed the empire?

The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B'nai B'rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called "Macedonia Resurrected." The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.

The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B'nai B'rith's European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.

During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.

Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including The Young Turk, whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy. He later described Mazzini's ideas as the basis for the Zionist movement.

Jabotinsky arrived in Turkey shortly after the Young Turks seized power, to take over the paper. The paper was owned by a member of the Turkish cabinet, but it was funded by the Russian Zionist federation, and managed by B'nai B'rith. The editorial policy of the paper was overseen by a Dutch Zionist named Jacob Kann, who was the personal banker of the king and queen of the Netherlands.

Jabotinsky later created the most anti-Arab of all the Zionist organizations, the Irgun. His followers in Israel today are the ones most violently opposed to the Peres-Arafat peace accords.

Another associate of Carasso was Alexander Helphand, better known as Parvus, the financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. Shortly after 1905, Parvus moved to Turkey, where he became the economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper called The Turkish Homeland. Parvus became a business partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and an arms supplier to the Turkish army during the Balkan wars. He later returned to Europe, to arrange the secret train that took Lenin back to Russia, in 1917.

Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World War I. He had been a member of Carasso's Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite.

But who founded the Scottish Rite in Turkey? One of the founders was the grand master of the Scottish Rite in France, Adolph Cremieux, who also happened to be the head of the B'nai B'rith's European affiliate. Cremieux had been a leader of Mazzini's Young France, and helped put the British stooge Napoleon III into power.

The British controller: Aubrey Herbert

You can find the story of the Young Turks in the B'nai B'rith and Scottish Rite archives, but you cannot find it in history books. The best public account is found in the novel Greenmantle, whose hero is a British spy who led the Young Turks. Carasso appears in the novel under the name Carusso. The author, John Buchan, who was a British intelligence official in World War I, later identified the novel's hero as Aubrey Herbert.

In real life, Herbert was from one of the most powerful noble families in England. The family held no fewer than four earldoms. His repeated contact with Carasso and other Young Turk leaders is a matter of public record. Herbert's grandfather had been a patron of Mazzini and died leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. His father was in charge of British Masonry in the 1880s and 1890s. His uncle was the British ambassador to the United States. During World War I, Herbert was the top British spymaster in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia later identified Herbert as having been, at one time, the head of the Young Turks.

The U.S. State Department also played a role in the conspiracy. From 1890 through World War I, there were three U.S. ambassadors to Turkey: Oscar Straus, Abraham Elkin, and Henry Morgenthau. All three were friends of Simon Wolf. And all three were officials of B'nai B'rith.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/1990s/conf_feb_1994_brewda.html#brewda

One thing about this article that I would like to point out is that Talaat Pasha was rumoured to be a Donme - i.e. he was really a Balkan Jew who posed as a Muslim.

[Scholarios]

Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East

by Joseph Brewda

Chorus: It is clear that the B'nai B'rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members. The one peculiarity of B'nai B'rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B'nai B'rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B'nai B'rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.

At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B'nai B'rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call "the sick man of Europe." Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.

In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.


In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.

Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.

When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.

Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.

The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.

But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.

The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.

This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt's family later patronized the British KGB spy "Kim" Philby.

While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.

For example, the British supported the idea of carving a "Greater Armenia" out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This "Greater Armenia" had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn't want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.

At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of "Greater Kurdistan." As the map shows, the proposed territories of "Greater Kurdistan" and "Greater Armenia" were almost identical.

In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.

In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B'nai B'rith and the Young Turks

But who were these "Young Turks," who so efficiently destroyed the empire?

The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B'nai B'rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called "Macedonia Resurrected." The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.

The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B'nai B'rith's European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.

During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.

Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including The Young Turk, whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy. He later described Mazzini's ideas as the basis for the Zionist movement.

Jabotinsky arrived in Turkey shortly after the Young Turks seized power, to take over the paper. The paper was owned by a member of the Turkish cabinet, but it was funded by the Russian Zionist federation, and managed by B'nai B'rith. The editorial policy of the paper was overseen by a Dutch Zionist named Jacob Kann, who was the personal banker of the king and queen of the Netherlands.

Jabotinsky later created the most anti-Arab of all the Zionist organizations, the Irgun. His followers in Israel today are the ones most violently opposed to the Peres-Arafat peace accords.

Another associate of Carasso was Alexander Helphand, better known as Parvus, the financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. Shortly after 1905, Parvus moved to Turkey, where he became the economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper called The Turkish Homeland. Parvus became a business partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and an arms supplier to the Turkish army during the Balkan wars. He later returned to Europe, to arrange the secret train that took Lenin back to Russia, in 1917.

Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World War I. He had been a member of Carasso's Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite.

But who founded the Scottish Rite in Turkey? One of the founders was the grand master of the Scottish Rite in France, Adolph Cremieux, who also happened to be the head of the B'nai B'rith's European affiliate. Cremieux had been a leader of Mazzini's Young France, and helped put the British stooge Napoleon III into power.

The British controller: Aubrey Herbert

You can find the story of the Young Turks in the B'nai B'rith and Scottish Rite archives, but you cannot find it in history books. The best public account is found in the novel Greenmantle, whose hero is a British spy who led the Young Turks. Carasso appears in the novel under the name Carusso. The author, John Buchan, who was a British intelligence official in World War I, later identified the novel's hero as Aubrey Herbert.

In real life, Herbert was from one of the most powerful noble families in England. The family held no fewer than four earldoms. His repeated contact with Carasso and other Young Turk leaders is a matter of public record. Herbert's grandfather had been a patron of Mazzini and died leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. His father was in charge of British Masonry in the 1880s and 1890s. His uncle was the British ambassador to the United States. During World War I, Herbert was the top British spymaster in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia later identified Herbert as having been, at one time, the head of the Young Turks.

The U.S. State Department also played a role in the conspiracy. From 1890 through World War I, there were three U.S. ambassadors to Turkey: Oscar Straus, Abraham Elkin, and Henry Morgenthau. All three were friends of Simon Wolf. And all three were officials of B'nai B'rith.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/1990s/conf_feb_1994_brewda.html#brewda

One thing about this article that I would like to point out is that Talaat Pasha was rumoured to be a Donme - i.e. he was really a Balkan Jew who posed as a Muslim.

From a Lyndon LaRouche website! the guys at the airport giving out literature! classic!

[Onur]

From a Lyndon LaRouche website! the guys at the airport giving out literature! classic!
So, according to this controversial article, all the nationalistic movements, including the Turkish one has been created by the British and the zionists to destroy Ottoman empire?!

It`s true that the nationalistic separatist movements created by them in former Ottoman lands but Turkish nationalism was the latest one and it was a natural result of all that mess. All the Ottoman subjects did that and eventually Turks did the same but they had to because they had no other choice.

[xajapa]

From a Lyndon LaRouche website! the guys at the airport giving out literature! classic!
He is generally considered crazy over here.

[Scholarios]

He is generally considered crazy over here.

yeah.. and Turks here are citing him as a credible source. He's grouped slightly above UFOLogy in the U.S.

[Herr Abubu]

Speaking of Turkish usage of sources, I remember one of them, Partizan, citing a few Western historians as objective sources, as they were of course non-Turkish. However, they all happened to either have gone to Turkish universities or teach in them or both.

As far as I'm concerned, all the evidence points towards the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. The Turks dastardly deny any of it though, usually through red herrings. I think the Armenians should shed light on the Syrian and Greek genocide too, among others.

I've seen a lot of funny things throughout the years from their side. One Turkish woman claimed Genghis Khan was a Turk. Why? She cited some British historian who claimed that Genghis Khan had red hair and blue eyes, which of course made him a Turk.

I, of course, thank all silly folks for being such silly folks. Their insipidity is my titillation. :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash: :Cash:

[Loki]

I think the Armenians should shed light on the Syrian and Greek genocide too, among others.


They wouldn't want that, because it would diminish the uniqueness of their claim.

[Musso]

They wouldn't want that, because it would diminish the uniqueness of their claim.

Why do you falsely accuse without knowing? Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians often cooperate in the Diaspora in advocating Genocide rememberence and recognition.

[Herr Abubu]

They wouldn't want that, because it would diminish the uniqueness of their claim.

I can't claim to know much about their lobbying, but it would indeed be wrong if it were true.

[Musso]

I can't claim to know much about their lobbying, but it would indeed be wrong if it were true.

It would be wrong, but matter of the fact is Greeks/Armenians/Assyrians cooperate often in advocating their Genocide.

[Herr Abubu]

"By claiming the sole right, so to speak, of having been genocided" - why the f are you talking out of your ass? Maybe you should do more research before opening your mouth and making ridicolous statements.

Relax, tough guy, it was meant to be hypothetical. As you can see, I edited it, since it would obviously cause a misunderstanding.

Btw, why is it that I get insulting rep. comments from Turks immediately as I make comments that do not sit well with them?

[Hoca]

Greek, Italian and Armenian patting each other on the back for all hating Turks. We all know where this butt-hurtism comes from. The most funny part is that they pretend to hold some objectivity and tell "all evidence leads to Armenian genocide"

If that is true, why don't Armenia go to international court and lay out the evidence for the case? No they rather choose for political recognition, which is worth nothing. Politicians are not Historians. They don't know history. There is no evidence for Genocide.

I have studied this topic as hobby and the real reason why European countries support political recognition is because French, Italian and Russians gave military support to Armenian terorrist who massacred Muslim villages.

Turkey is gathering information from foreign government archives but it won't be good politcally for Turkey to humiliate all those countries. It is better to wait until our economy get's stronger. The east get's more stronger so we can build ties with the east and then go ape shit on those hypocrites.

[Musso]

Relax, tough guy, it was meant to be hypothetical. As you can see, I edited it, since it would obviously cause a misunderstanding.

Btw, why is it that I get insulting rep. comments from Turks immediately as I make comments that do not sit well with them?

Ah I see, I will amend my post accordingly.

[xajapa]

They wouldn't want that, because it would diminish the uniqueness of their claim.
I don't think this is the case. The simple fact is, many don't even acknowledge their claim, including you apparently. So, their energy has to be directed, first and foremost, to this endeavor.

[Loki]

I don't think this is the case. The simple fact is, many don't even acknowledge their claim, including you apparently. So, their energy has to be directed, first and foremost, to this endeavor.

Once it gets international recognition I will be less reluctant to accept it. There are lots of counterarguments, it is confusing.

[wvwvw]

Once it gets international recognition I will be less reluctant to accept it. There are lots of counterarguments, it is confusing.

I haven't seen you show the same reluctance for accepting the Chamerian "genocide" or the Kosovo "genocide", which by the way Turkey was one of the first country to recognise.

On the other hand you show reluctance to accept something that is not disputed by any serious and objective Historian or Scholar. The armenian genocide has been recognised by numerous countries around the world.


International Association of Genocide Scholars
In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution unanimously recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide.[19][20]
That this assembly of the Association of Genocide Scholars in its conference held in Montreal, June 11–13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of over a million Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters.

— Among the prominent scholars who supported the resolution were: Roger W. Smith (College of William & Mary; President of AGS); Israel Charny (Hebrew University, Jerusalem); Helen Fein (Past President AGS); Frank Chalk (Concordia University, Montreal); Ben Kiernan (Yale University); Anthony Oberschall (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill); Mark Levene (Warwick University, UK); Rhoda Howard (McMaster University, Canada), Michael Freeman (Essex University, UK), Gunnar Heinsohn (Bremen University, Germany)

The IAGS has recognized the 1915 genocide in three different resolutions, the latest (October 5, 2007) extending the recognition to also include the Assyrians, Syrians, and Anatolian and Pontic Greeks among the affected minorities:
WHEREAS the denial of genocide is widely recognised as the final stage of genocide, enshrining impunity for the perpetrators of genocide, and demonstrably paving the way for future genocides;
WHEREAS the Ottoman genocide against minority populations during and following the First World War is usually depicted as a genocide against Armenians alone, with little recognition of the qualitatively similar genocides against other Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire;
BE IT RESOLVED that it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Association calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution.[21]
The IAGS has repeatedly asserted that the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide. For example, on March 7, 2009, in an open letter to President Obama, Gregory Stanton, President IAGS stated "we urge you to 'refer to the mass slaughter of Armenians as genocide in your commemorative statement,' as you urged President George W. Bush to do in a letter dated March 18, 2005".[22]
In February 2002 an independent legal opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice, concluded that the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1918 "include[d] all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the [Genocide] Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them".[23] From page 2 of the report:
This memorandum was drafted by independent legal counsel based on a request made to the International Center for Transitional Justice ("ICTJ"), on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") entered into by The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission ("TARC") on July 12, 2002 and presentations by members of TARC on September 10, 2002.

From page 18, D. Conclusion:
... Because the other three elements identified above have been definitively established, the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them.

In 2007, the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity wrote a letter signed by 53 Nobel Laureates re-affirming the Genocide Scholars' conclusion that the 1915 killings of Armenians constituted genocide.[24] Wiesel's organization also asserted that Turkish acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide would create no legal "basis for reparations or territorial claims", anticipating Turkish anxieties that it could prompt financial or territorial claims.[25]
In 2007, the Anti-Defamation League declared that the killing of Armenians (which it had always previously described as an "atrocity") was tantamount to genocide.[26]
[edit]Parliaments and governments

[Loki]

I haven't seen you show the same reluctance for accepting the Chamerian "genocide" or the Kosovo "genocide", which by the way Turkey was one of the first country to recognise.

On the other hand you show reluctance to accept something that is not disputed by any serious and objective Historian or Scholar. The armenian genocide has been recognised by numerous countries around the world.

I do not regard the Cham incidents/massacres, nor Kosovo problems genocides. But I think genocide has been prevented in Kosovo. I give full recognition to the Bosnian genocide.

As for the Armenians ... only 20 countries have officially accepted those events as a genocide. I will reserve judgement until there is more clarity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_recognition

[Musso]

I do not regard the Cham incidents/massacres, nor Kosovo problems genocides. But I think genocide has been prevented in Kosovo. I give full recognition to the Bosnian genocide.

As for the Armenians ... only 20 countries have officially accepted those events as a genocide. I will reserve judgement until there is more clarity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_recognition

You base your affirmation of a historical event on what parliaments of foreign countries decide? You believe that parliaments of foreign countries are better to say if Genocide happen then actual legal and Genocide scholars that overwhemingly say that Genocide occured? It seems kind of ridicolous and unacademic to me, your approach to this. On top of that, you do know that because of Turkey's lobbying/political position, so it's a no brainer to not recognize the Genocide and maintain good ties with Turkey, rather than recognize and ruin ties with an important economic or political partner that blackmails you if you recognize the Genocide.

[Loki]

You base your affirmation of a historical event on what parliaments of foreign countries decide? You believe that parliaments of foreign countries are better to say if Genocide happen then actual legal and Genocide scholars that overwhemingly say that Genocide occured? It seems kind of ridicolous and unacademic to me, your approach to this. On top of that, you do know that because of Turkey's lobbying/political position, so it's a no brainer to not recognize the Genocide and maintain good ties with Turkey, rather than recognize and ruin ties with an important economic or political partner that blackmails you if you recognize the Genocide.

How am I different from parliaments then of foreign countries? I'll have to study the claim up for myself, looking both at pro and skeptical sources. It's the work of historians, and all historians are not in agreement even on it.

[Musso]

How am I different from parliaments then of foreign countries? I'll have to study the claim up for myself, looking both at pro and skeptical sources. It's the work of historians, and all historians are not in agreement even on it.

Uhm, no, it's the work of Genocide and legal scholars. The issue here is whether what happened can be labelled a Genocide or not. That's a legal debate. It's pretty accepted what happened during this time, the question that Turks debate is whether it deserves the legal term of Genocide. That's the issue.

You rely on prositute politicians that cater to foreign interests and foreign lobbying to tell you about history? Since when have politicians been a source of authority on historic events? Are they legally qualified to give such decisions?

[The Lawspeaker]

They wouldn't want that, because it would diminish the uniqueness of their claim.
I agree. They are probably trying to Jew the Turks err con the Turks out of a lot of money. The Armenian lobby in particularly France and the United States is strong and they tend to use the same tactics as the Jewish lobby uses. So I am not sure whether a genocide has or has not taken place and it should be left to neutral historians and archaeologists. Just look at how Jewish organisations have sucked and have continued to suck huge amounts of money out of Europe (particularly Germany) and the United States and are wielding their influence (playing the German/Western guilt card) and then you see what is actually taking place and what the Armenians probably try to achieve too.

Now unless I have seen some convincing evidence that the Armenian genocide has taken place I will take the story with a truck load of salt. And tear-jerking horror stories are no evidence.

[Musso]

I agree. They are probably trying to Jew the Turks err con the Turks out of a lot of money. The Armenian lobby in particularly France and the United States is strong and they tend to use the same tactics as the Jewish lobby uses. So I am not sure whether a genocide has or has not taken place and it should be left to neutral historians and archaeologists. Just look at how Jewish organisations have sucked and have continued to suck huge amounts of money out of Europe (particularly Germany) and the United States and are wielding their influence (playing the German/Western guilt card) and then you see what is actually taking place and what the Armenians probably try to achieve too.

Turkish lobby and influence is much more stronger. Let's not fool ourselves. Turkey pays a lot of money to deny Genocide and push their version of events.

As I said before, this is a legal question. Genocide is a legal term. Legal and Genocide scholars have overwhelmingly agreed with the label of Genocide to be attributed to the Armenian Genocide. But it seems you let your personal biases blind you to this fact.

[wvwvw]

I agree. They are probably trying to Jew the Turks err con the Turks out of a lot of money. The Armenian lobby in particularly France and the United States is strong and they tend to use the same tactics as the Jewish lobby uses. So I am not sure whether a genocide has or has not taken place and it should be left to neutral historians and archaeologists.

It has already been left to neutral historians and they unanimously concluded it was genocide. And no Armenia is not asking for any money. It seeks moral rectification and justice, so that it can close that chapter of it's history.Armenia owes it to the 1,500,000 victims of the genocide.

[The Lawspeaker]

Turkish lobby and influence is much more stronger. Let's not fool ourselves. Turkey pays a lot of money to deny Genocide and push their version of events.

As I said before, this is a legal question. Genocide is a legal term. Legal and Genocide scholars have overwhelmingly agreed with the label of Genocide to be attributed to the Armenian Genocide. But it seems you let your personal biases blind you to this fact.
I don't think they were neutral. Not with all the lobbying taking place and I take those stories with a huge truck load of salt: why because there is too much money at stake and the genocide claim has become too popular.


It has already been left to neutral historians and they unanimously concluded it was genocide. And no Armenia is not asking for any money. It seeks moral rectification and justice, so that it can close that chapter of it's history.Armenia owes it to the 1,500,000 victims of the genocide.
What particular court ruling ? Name a neutral court and a neutral country, please.

[Musso]

I don't think they were neutral. Not with all the lobbying taking place and I take those stories with a huge truck load of salt: why because there is too much money at stake and the genocide claim has become too popular.

Lobbying? No one was lobbying legal scholars. When the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation group advised a legal council to give a ruling regarding Armenian Genocide (they affirmed the label of genocide), they too were not neutral? So I guess this means all those legal scholars/councils that say Genocide occurred are biased and not neutral? Sorry but that's a load of bs. You can do better.

[The Lawspeaker]

Lobbying? No one was lobbying legal scholars. When the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation group advised a legal council to give a ruling regarding Armenian Genocide (they affirmed the label of genocide), they too were not neutral? So I guess this means all those legal scholars/councils that say Genocide occurred are biased and not neutral? Sorry but that's a load of bs. You can do better.
I don't think they were neutral at all. Money would have talked and realising that the Armenians are the Jews of the Caucasus (same tactics) I think that bribery is what has actually happened.

[Musso]

I don't think they were neutral at all. Money would have talked and realising that the Armenians are the Jews of the Caucasus (same tactics) I think that bribery is what has actually happened.

Do you have evidence that all these legal scholars and legal councils were bribed and given money by Armenians? If not, then stfu.

[The Lawspeaker]

Do you have evidence that all these legal scholars and legal councils were bribed and given money by Armenians? If not, then stfu.
Do you have actual evidence of the genocide taking place ? If not - likewise.

[wvwvw]

So I am not sure whether a genocide has or has not taken place and it should be left to neutral historians and archaeologists.

Imagine the stir it would cause if Germans said too that they were not so sure whether the Jewish Holocaust has taken place or not. Can you imagine Germany denying the Holocaust? denial is the last stage of genocide in genocide itself.


This is the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) definition of ‘genocide’:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Did the Ottoman Turks do this to the Armenians in 1915-17?

Note that the following things are entirely irrelevant to this question:

-If the Armenians living in the Ottoman empire were hostile to the Turks
-If the Armenians collaborated with the Russians during WWI
-If the Armenians were or are racist or antisemitic
-If the Turks were or are friendly to Jews or Israel
-Whether the Holocaust was ‘worse’ than what happened to the Armenians
-If the Armenians ever committed massacres of their own
-Whether partisans of either side are associated with right- or left-wing causes
-Whether Hitler ever said “who remembers the Armenians?” (probably not)

We know — and most of those who disagree with calling the massacres ‘genocide’ agree — that hundreds of thousands died (estimates range from 300,000 to 1.5 million — Wikipedia). The question is, were they killed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?”

This has two parts: was it aimed specifically at Armenians, as such (as opposed to, e.g., as revolutionaries), and was there intent.

One way to determine if it was directed at Armenians qua Armenians is to ask if the victims included a great number of Armenians who were not in any sense combatants — e.g., children, old men, most women. And this was indeed the case, because entire Armenian populations were marched by foot over great distances, during which they died of hunger and disease, as well as deliberate murder. This is quite different from a non-genocidal massacre of political or war prisoners, for example.

There is a huge amount of similar eyewitness testimony to these events; to call it all “propaganda” is unreasonable.

What about intent? Clearly the meaning is the ‘intent’ of people who were in control of or made use of the mechanisms of the regime. So it could be argued that anti-Jewish pogroms in Czarist Russia were not actually genocidal, even though the regime was antisemitic, insofar as pogroms were initiated by local Jew-haters and not part of a coordinated policy promulgated by the regime.

In the case of the Armenians, laws calling for deportation and/or confiscation of property (for example, the Tehcir Law of 1915) were put into place and enforced by Turkish soldiers and police. The population displacement is thus seen to be a deliberate act of the regime, and not either local actions or a result of the disorder associated with war.

Even if the minimal estimate of Armenian deaths is accepted, it is still a substantial proportion of the population. It’s clear that Armenians were singled out because they were Armenians, and that the Armenians died as a direct result of orders and policies of the Ottoman regime and in particular the “Three Pashas“.

Therefore the legal sense of the word ‘genocide’ is correctly applied in speaking of the Armenian Genocide.

[The Lawspeaker]

Imagine the stir it would cause if Germans said too that they were not so sure whether the Jewish Holocaust has taken place or not. Can you imagine Germany denying the Holocaust?

The U.N is an institution that only seeks to put blame on certain people particularly in the West so it can distribute their wealth to people that haven't worked for it and who have had a century-reputation of hanger-ons and leeches. When it comes to the genocide I think it is indeed time for a new investigation. Whether it has or has not happened should be the left in the middle until conclusive evidence of it has been found and published.

[Hoca]

For people who want the truth:

Part I:

Nationalists who use history have different goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their nations' battles. They have a purpose -- to triumph for their cause, and they will use anything to succeed in this goal Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his error when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools a logical and consistent account results.

Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.

There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be.

Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others.

Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes.

The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.

Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?

To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.

Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.

To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.

1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.

2. Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides.

3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.

On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.

The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest.

Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides.

The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.

The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.

In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882.

By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus.

This was the toll of Russian imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed.

The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder.

The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East.

The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.

The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted.

But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand.

What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians.

The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.

The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed.

Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion.

The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed. The sides were drawn.

In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked.

Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.

The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found.





Part II:

Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.

It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.

Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict.

For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained. They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families.

Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.

One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)

Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat.

No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.

That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood.



Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds




In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies.

The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.

These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.

One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.

The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.

The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted?

Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history.

Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today.

The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.

The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.

The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.

Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.

Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared.

For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan.

Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.

The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.


The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth




Part III:

A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.

A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-I Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:

It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide.

A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.

Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.

Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.

Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.





The only question is the truth.

Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?

I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.

To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.

When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.

In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.

The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.

Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.

What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.




Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.

The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.

Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.

The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.

The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.

Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.

Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?

Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.

I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.

Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.

The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.

Professor Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

[Musso]

Do you have actual evidence of the genocide taking place ? If not - likewise.

You made a statement about all the legal scholars/councils being bribed by Armenians. I want some evidence. If you can't provide evidence for your statements then maybe it's better not to shut your mouth and stop wasting my time.

Armenian Genocide has been affirmed by such scholars and academia in general, the burden of proof is on you to prove that all those people were bribed by Armenians.

[The Lawspeaker]

For people who want the truth:

Part I:

Nationalists who use history have different goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their nations' battles. They have a purpose -- to triumph for their cause, and they will use anything to succeed in this goal Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his error when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools a logical and consistent account results.

Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.

There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be.

Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others.

Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes.

The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.

Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?

To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.

Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.

To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.

1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.

2. Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides.

3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.

On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.

The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest.

Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides.

The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.

The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.

In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882.

By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus.

This was the toll of Russian imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed.

The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder.

The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East.

The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.

The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted.

But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand.

What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians.

The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.

The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed.

Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion.

The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed. The sides were drawn.

In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked.

Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.

The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found.





Part II:

Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.

It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.

Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict.

For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained. They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families.

Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.

One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)

Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat.

No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.

That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood.



Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds




In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies.

The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.

These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.

One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.

The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.

The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted?

Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history.

Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today.

The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.

The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.

The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.

Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.

Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared.

For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan.

Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.

The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.


The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth




Part III:

A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.

A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-I Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:

It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide.

A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.

Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.

Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.

Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.





The only question is the truth.

Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?

I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.

To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.

When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.

In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.

The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.

Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.

What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.




Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.

The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.

Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.

The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.

The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.

Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.

Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?

Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.

I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.

Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.

The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.

Professor Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

Thank you. I know enough. I'll vote no and I think that Armenia should compensate Turkey for the libel that has been spread by Armenia and that has damaged Turkey's external reputation.

[adsız]

I agree. They are probably trying to Jew the Turks err con the Turks out of a lot of money. The Armenian lobby in particularly France and the United States is strong and they tend to use the same tactics as the Jewish lobby uses. So I am not sure whether a genocide has or has not taken place and it should be left to neutral historians and archaeologists. Just look at how Jewish organisations have sucked and have continued to suck huge amounts of money out of Europe (particularly Germany) and the United States and are wielding their influence (playing the German/Western guilt card) and then you see what is actually taking place and what the Armenians probably try to achieve too.

Now unless I have seen some convincing evidence that the Armenian genocide has taken place I will take the story with a truck load of salt. And tear-jerking horror stories are no evidence.Once , a couple years ago some ermenians claimed that there was a mass-grave in South Eastern Turkey. Prof. Halaçoğlu invited them and some western antropologists to the site to see and take samples of skeletons.
the samples were tested in a laboratory in, i rememeber Norway. Finally it was understood that the bones belonged to some people who died 2000 years ago and some animals.

Turkey always ask ermenians to form a neutral committe of historians and archeologist to investigate deeply the issue but no response from ermenians.

They think they will prove their fabricated gen-ocide by convincing politicians .
They never think of bringing a lawsuit in the court ICJ either. Because they do not have any legal evidence but some stories as you said.

Ermenians say to the western: We are christian so are rght. You must support our lies.

They are not honest.

[Hoca]

Historian about the Armenian Question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2VIK7g_1aU

In short; don't take everything for granted that Armenians cheats are telling you.

[gregorius]

Thank you. I know enough. I'll vote no and I think that Armenia should compensate Turkey for the libel that has been spread by Armenia and that has damaged Turkey's external reputation.

He holds an honorary doctorate from Boğaziçi University, Turkey, and is a board member of the Institute of Turkish Studies.

Very unbiased just like you saying whos unbiased and whos not :)

[The Lawspeaker]

He holds an honorary doctorate from Boğaziçi University, Turkey, and is a board member of the Institute of Turkish Studies.

Very unbiased just like you saying whos unbiased and whos not :)

Money talks. I would say that he has been bribed like scientists have been bribed in many cases. And knowing the behaviour of the Armenian lobby groups I would say a Turkish inquiry should be held.. followed by criminal charges if found guilty.

[gregorius]

Historian about the Armenian Question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2VIK7g_1aU

In short; don't take everything for granted that Armenians cheats are telling you.

The first two editions of Lewis' The Emergence of Modern Turkey (1961 and 1968) describe the Armenian massacres of World War I as "the terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished".[20] In later editions, this text is altered to: "the terrible slaughter of 1915, when, according to estimates, more than a million Armenians perished, as well as an unknown number of Turks."[21] Lewis was later one of 69 scholars to co-sign a 1985 petition asking the US Congress to avoid a resolution condemning the events as "genocide".
The change in Lewis' textual description of the Armenian massacres, and his signing of the petition against the Congressional resolution, was controversial among some historians and journalists, who suggested that Lewis was engaging in historical revisionism to serve his own political and personal interests.[22][23] The original text had already drawn criticism for what some historians believe to be its exaggeration of unity and strength among Armenians:[24] "[Lewis] implies that both had equal military and political force at their disposal to defend their interests. The fact is that the Armenians had neither a police force nor an army".[25]

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4127

[Hoca]

He holds an honorary doctorate from Boğaziçi University, Turkey, and is a board member of the Institute of Turkish Studies.

Very unbiased just like you saying whos unbiased and whos not :)

He is certainly more of an expert than your paid Armenian-paid Politicians that can't distinguish their ass from a hole in the ground and never studied the topic.

Armenia should stop running away and start corporating and setting up a COMMISSION

[The Lawspeaker]

He is certainly more of an expert than your paid Armenian-paid Politicians that can't distinguish their ass from a hole in the ground and never studied the topic.
I would say that Dutch politicians are notoriously corrupt and they don't even attempt to hide it anymore so your assumption is probably correct.

[wvwvw]

Do you have actual evidence of the genocide taking place ? If not - likewise.

There is a huge amount of evidence, that is why the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution unanimously recognizing the massacres as genocide.

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/images/fotobu/c3_72.jpg

A few quotes:

Did the Armenian Genocide really happen? The Turks seem to say no, most other countries say yes. Lets look at things we can consider "proof" via as unbiased sources as possible. By unbiased I am using soiurces that were not at war with the Ottoman Empire and who have no particular reaspon to fabricate such a story.

QOUTES

German ambassador Count von Wolff-Metternich, Turkey's ally in World War I, wrote his government in 1916 saying: "The Committee [of Union and Progress] demands the annihilation of the last remnants of the Armenians and the [Ottoman] government must bow to its demands."

In its attempt to carry out its purpose to resolve the Armenian question by the destruction of the Armenian race, the Turkish government has refused to be deterred neither by our representations, nor by those of the American Embassy, nor by the delegate of the Pope, nor by the threats of the Allied Powers, nor in deference to the public opinion of the West representing one-half of the world.

Mustafa "Ataturk" Kemal
Founder of the modern Turkish Republic in 1923 and revered throughout Turkey, in an interview published on August 1, 1926 in The Los Angeles Examiner, talking about former Young Turks in his country...

These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule.

Enver Pasha

One of the triumvirate rulers publicly declared on 19 May 1916...

The Ottoman Empire should be cleaned up of the Armenians and the Lebanese. We have destroyed the former by the sword, we shall destroy the latter through starvation.

In reply to US Ambassador Morgenthau who was deploring the massacres against Armenians and attributing them to irresponsible subalterns and underlings in the distant provinces, Enver's reply was...

You are greatly mistaken. We have this country absolutely under our control. I have no desire to shift the blame onto our underlings and I am entirely willing to accept the responsibility myself for everything that has taken place.

Talat Pasha

In a conversation with Dr. Mordtmann of the German Embassy in June 1915...

Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate (grundlich aufzaumen) its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.

After the German Ambassador persistently brought up the Armenian question in 1918, Talat said "with a smile"...

What on earth do you want? The question is settled. There are no more Armenians.

Prince Abdul Mecid

Heir-Apparent to the Ottoman Throne, during an interview...

I refer to those awful massacres. They are the greatest stain that has ever disgraced our nation and race. They were entirely the work of Talat and Enver. I heard some days before they began that they were intended. I went to Istanbul and insisted on seeing Enver. I asked him if it was true that they intended to recommence the massacres which had been our shame and disgrace under Abdul Hamid. The only reply I could get from him was: 'It is decided. It is the program.'

Grand Vezir Damad Ferid Pasha

Equivalent rank in the US would be head of the cabinet I think. He described the treatment of the Armenians as...

A crime that drew the revulsion of the entire humankind.

Mustafa Arif

Minister of Interior stated on 13 December 1918...

Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.

Most of the quotes of Turkish origin are from Vahakn Dadrian's collections which were published in Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review, Vol. 2 (Israel Charny, ed.)

[gregorius]

Money talks. I would say that he has been bribed like scientists have been bribed in many cases. And knowing the behaviour of the Armenian lobby groups I would say a Turkish inquiry should be held.. followed by criminal charges if found guilty.

I find it very strange how you can say the scholars who accept the Armenian genocide are biased and ´bribed´ but this mcarthney I dont know if you ever read his work isnt biased.
Scholarios made a point about his work at the first page of this thread

[The Lawspeaker]

There is a huge amount of evidence, that is why the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution unanimously recognizing the massacres as genocide.

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/images/fotobu/c3_72.jpg

A few quotes:

Did the Armenian Genocide really happen? The Turks seem to say no, most other countries say yes. Lets look at things we can consider "proof" via as unbiased sources as possible. By unbiased I am using soiurces that were not at war with the Ottoman Empire and who have no particular reaspon to fabricate such a story.

QOUTES

German ambassador Count von Wolff-Metternich, Turkey's ally in World War I, wrote his government in 1916 saying: "The Committee [of Union and Progress] demands the annihilation of the last remnants of the Armenians and the [Ottoman] government must bow to its demands."

In its attempt to carry out its purpose to resolve the Armenian question by the destruction of the Armenian race, the Turkish government has refused to be deterred neither by our representations, nor by those of the American Embassy, nor by the delegate of the Pope, nor by the threats of the Allied Powers, nor in deference to the public opinion of the West representing one-half of the world.

Mustafa "Ataturk" Kemal
Founder of the modern Turkish Republic in 1923 and revered throughout Turkey, in an interview published on August 1, 1926 in The Los Angeles Examiner, talking about former Young Turks in his country...

These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule.

Enver Pasha

One of the triumvirate rulers publicly declared on 19 May 1916...

The Ottoman Empire should be cleaned up of the Armenians and the Lebanese. We have destroyed the former by the sword, we shall destroy the latter through starvation.

In reply to US Ambassador Morgenthau who was deploring the massacres against Armenians and attributing them to irresponsible subalterns and underlings in the distant provinces, Enver's reply was...

You are greatly mistaken. We have this country absolutely under our control. I have no desire to shift the blame onto our underlings and I am entirely willing to accept the responsibility myself for everything that has taken place.

Talat Pasha

In a conversation with Dr. Mordtmann of the German Embassy in June 1915...

Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate (grundlich aufzaumen) its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.

After the German Ambassador persistently brought up the Armenian question in 1918, Talat said "with a smile"...

What on earth do you want? The question is settled. There are no more Armenians.

Prince Abdul Mecid

Heir-Apparent to the Ottoman Throne, during an interview...

I refer to those awful massacres. They are the greatest stain that has ever disgraced our nation and race. They were entirely the work of Talat and Enver. I heard some days before they began that they were intended. I went to Istanbul and insisted on seeing Enver. I asked him if it was true that they intended to recommence the massacres which had been our shame and disgrace under Abdul Hamid. The only reply I could get from him was: 'It is decided. It is the program.'

Grand Vezir Damad Ferid Pasha

Equivalent rank in the US would be head of the cabinet I think. He described the treatment of the Armenians as...

A crime that drew the revulsion of the entire humankind.

Mustafa Arif

Minister of Interior stated on 13 December 1918...

Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.

Most of the quotes of Turkish origin are from Vahakn Dadrian's collections which were published in Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review, Vol. 2 (Israel Charny, ed.)

Pictures of victims are no real evidence either since starvation was rife in the Ottoman Empire and just some quotes used in a book by Israel Charny are no evidence either. The man has vested interest in the genocide industry since he is the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. It's funny to see that a lot of those people are somehow connected to organisations about the Holocaust.

[The Lawspeaker]

I find it very strange how you can say the scholars who accept the Armenian genocide are biased and ´bribed´ but this mcarthney I dont know if you ever read his work isnt biased.
Scholarios made a point about his work at the first page of this thread
Scholarios is Greek and thus he has every reason to blacken the reputation of his Turkish neighbour and those who defended them against, evidently, false claims.

[gregorius]

Scholarios is Greek and thus he has every reason to blacken the reputation of his Turkish neighbour and those who defended them against, evidently, false claims.

So he is biased? and a the jewish scholar isnt? Please...

[gregorius]

I would say that Dutch politicians are notoriously corrupt and they don't even attempt to hide it anymore so your assumption is probably correct.

wel with 700 000 turks in the Netherlands, the politicians should be in favor of the turks huh?

[Hoca]

Gregor this is not a football game who buys the most politicians wins the game. We already told you, Historians should decide in a commission but Armenia refuses for some (good) reason.

[adsız]

Anyone who has a little brain will know the page Raine posted is biased by ermenians. Just look at the first page :)

[gregorius]

Gregor this is not a football game who buys the most politicians wins the game. We already told you, Historians should decide in a commission but Armenia refuses for some (good) reason.You are the one who tells the politicians are bought up, same goes for the lawspeaker.

Tell me? you mean with turkey?

[wvwvw]

Scholarios is Greek and thus he has every reason to blacken the reputation of his Turkish neighbour and those who defended them against, evidently, false claims.

Like I said there's ton of evidence, there were many witnesses although the Ottoman government took precautions and imposed restrictions on reporting and photographing, there were lots of foreigners in the Ottoman Empire who witnessed the deportations. Foremost among them were U.S. diplomatic representatives and American missionaries. They were first to send news to the outside world about the unfolding genocide. Some of their reports made headline news in the American and Western media. Also reporting on the atrocities committed against the Armenians were many German eyewitnesses. The Germans were allies of the Turks in WWI Numerous German officers held important military assignments in the Ottoman Empire. Some among them condoned the Young Turk policy. Others confidentially reported to their superiors in Germany about the slaughter of the Armenian civilian population. Many Russians saw for themselves the devastation wreaked upon the Armenian communities when the Russian Army occupied parts of Anatolia. Many Arabs in Syria where most of the deportees were sent saw for themselves the appalling condition to which the Armenian survivors had been reduced. Lastly, many Turkish officials were witnesses as participants in the Armenian Genocide. A number of them gave testimony under oath during the post-war tribunals convened to try the Young Turk conspirators

Finally what happened to Armenians happened to the Greeks and Assyrians of Turkey as well:
Greek Genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Nygreeks.jpg
"Turks Slaughter Christian Greeks", The Lincoln Daily Star (article), October 19, 1917.

Assyrian Genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide

[Onur]

As I said before, this is a legal question. Genocide is a legal term. Legal and Genocide scholars have overwhelmingly agreed with the label of Genocide to be attributed to the Armenian Genocide. But it seems you let your personal biases blind you to this fact.
If it`s only a legal question then it`s already a lost case for you because the post-WW2 genocide convention clearly states that the events prior to jewish genocide cannot be considered as a genocide and that law cannot bu applied to any event realized before WW-2.



And no Armenia is not asking for any money. It seeks moral rectification and justice, so that it can close that chapter of it's history.Armenia owes it to the 1,500,000 victims of the genocide.
Don't speak from your ass without knowing anything about this issue.

Armenian state doesn't recognize our border with them and they officially claim that the eastern Turkey is part of greater Armenian kingdom. For example, some of you Greeks keep demanding for Istanbul and Izmir but we mutually recognized our borders in 1923 but Armenian state didn't and they refuses to recognize for a century. Their constitution calls Turkey as "western Armenia" and their official seal of state has a picture of Agri mountains from eastern Turkey.

They also demand billions of dollars compensation from us because of our so-called occupation of western Armenia for 900 years!!!

Read this recent statement;

http://www.armtown.com/news/en/ays/20130424/201304243/

[Hoca]

Wikipedia and Armenian written sites.. there you have your Armenian proof :picard1:

[Onur]

Historian about the Armenian Question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2VIK7g_1aU

In short; don't take everything for granted that Armenians cheats are telling you.
This is the best response a man can tell for the so-called Armenian genocide claims.

He clearly describes what happened in eastern Turkey back then. Armenians started an armed rebellion with the help of Russians, massacred over 200.000 Turks while we were in Gallipoli losing our 250.000 young soldiers and then rightfully got deported out from the place.

[The Lawspeaker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Nygreeks.jpg
"Turks Slaughter Christian Greeks", The Lincoln Daily Star (article), October 19, 1917.

Assyrian Genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide
This is also known as "wartime propaganda". Look at the date. October 19, 1917.

The United States may have not declared war on Ottoman Turkey but they were on the Allied side since April 6, 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_Germany_(191 7)). Any statements regarding enemy nations (Ottoman Turkey was one of Germany's allies) should be considered as propaganda and therefore dismissed as such.

[adsız]

Raine,

would you stop copy/paste-ing too long pages ?
You are polluting the forum.

[Hayalet]

This is also known as "wartime propaganda". Look at the date.
Indeed. As soon as the war was won by the Allies, there was no outrage in the Western media, no call for a Nurembergesque trial or anything.

[Philo]

Do you believe the Armenians suffered a genocide?
Yes.


Wikipedia and Armenian written sites.. there you have your Armenian proof :picard1:

So wikipedia is now anti-Turk? Interesting..

[Loki]

This is the best response a man can tell for the so-called Armenian genocide claims.

He clearly describes what happened in eastern Turkey back then. Armenians started an armed rebellion with the help of Russians, massacred over 200.000 Turks while we were in Gallipoli losing our 250.000 young soldiers and then rightfully got deported out from the place.

... and it's for this reason why I also wouldn't call it a genocide. We should be careful with terminology. All wars and civil uprisings are not genocides.

[The Lawspeaker]

Indeed. As soon as the war was won by the Allies, there was no outrage in the Western media, no call for a Nurembergesque trial or anything.
Exactly.

[gregorius]

Raine,

would you stop copy/paste-ing too long pages ?
You are polluting the forum.
Your posts are longer....

[Pecheneg]

I've seen a lot of funny things throughout the years from their side. One Turkish woman claimed Genghis Khan was a Turk. Why? She cited some British historian who claimed that Genghis Khan had red hair and blue eyes, which of course made him a Turk.

Assuming that you are not making it up, she must be a sad case indeed because combination of "blue eyes & red hair" is very rare in Turkey and she should have known this, perhaps she was talking about ancient Turkic Kyrgyz people who were described in Tang Dynasty texts as having red hair, fair complexion and light (green/blue) eyes or; you are just making this up to portray Turks as some kind of idiots, like these white supremacist teenagers;

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t120368/
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59313
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t82064/


Anyway, you are not in a position to mock anyone because your compatriots (Albanians) are known for being hardcore Nordicists, which is actually even funnier than your trolling thread in Greece sub-forum.






Btw, why is it that I get insulting rep. comments from Turks immediately as I make comments that do not sit well with them?[/FONT]

Names? It's very smart of you, that you are trying to place all Turks under suspicion but why don't you just report them (whoever they are) instead of pretending to be a rare genius?