Armenian Genocide (viewer discretion advised) - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Ozzy
#13427184
Aekos... I actually dont like arguing in numbers, afterall we are not talking about math but wikipedia says "...104,241 are officially registered with Jewish religious communities in Germany..." So official number of Armenians in Turkey and Jews in Germany is more or less same.

And also since you compared holocaust vs Armenian genocide... Let me do one too; Nazi party in their most powerfull time (economicly, technologicy, ideologicy) killed around 6 million jews in 4-5 years and in afterward they left many documents, death camps even special gas chambers on the other hand Ottoman Empire in its last breath, low on everything (supplies, money, tech, manpower) managed to kill around 1,5 million Armenians in 2-3 years and they also managed to hide their tracks.

Anyway... Departation of Armenians was a tragedy just like departation of Ahiska Türks in Soviet Russia.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13427468
Were there other groups killed along side the Armenians or was it just Armenians?
By Smilin' Dave
#13427539
Thunderhawk wrote:Were there other groups killed along side the Armenians or was it just Armenians?

There is also alleged to be a Pontic Greek genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_Genocide

Also an Assyrian one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide
Although this article gets a bit confusing because it blurs into the Armenian genocide.
User avatar
By TheEconomist
#13478360
Turkey will recognize the so called "Armenyan genocide" when:

1. USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and other South American countries recognize their genocides on the native Americans. Between 40-80 million native Americans were wiped out and genocided by the British and Americans alone.

2. When the British recognize their genocide on Indians, Africans, Native Americans, and native Australians.

3. When the French recognize their genocide on the Algerians, among others.

4. When the Belgians recognize their genocide Africans in Congo.

5. When the Russians recognize their genocide on Ukrainians, Turks and other Muslims.

6. When the Armenians recognize their genocide on Azeri Turks in Nagarno-Karabach.

7. When the Chinese recognize their genocide on Uyghurs, Tibetans and on Chinese during the Cultural Revolution.

8. When the Japanese recognize their genocide on Chinese and others during WW2.

9. When the Americans recognize the genocide they've commited against the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagazaki.

10. When the Italians recognize the genocide on Africans in their colonies.

11. When the Serbs recognize their genocide on Bosnian muslims and Albanians.
By Smilin' Dave
#13479040
The crimes you are referring to are widely recognised in academia, and in many cases won't result in a crimnal offence. Is the fact of the Armenian genocide widely discussed in Turkish academia, or is the possibility of 'insulting Turkishness' tend to kill debate from this perspective?

I am also unclear why people point to the crimes of others, rather than say... take the moral high ground? Is modern Turkey to be placed in the same category as the 'evil empire' of the Soviet Union? :lol: These attempts at relativism seem problematic.

The Serb comparison is an odd one, since the Serbian government has been at least partially cooperative on the issue of war crimes trials. Turkey however threatens to sever diplomatic ties with any country that recognises the Armenian Genocide.
User avatar
By TheEconomist
#13479283
The crimes you are referring to are widely recognised in academia, and in many cases won't result in a crimnal offence. Is the fact of the Armenian genocide widely discussed in Turkish academia, or is the possibility of 'insulting Turkishness' tend to kill debate from this perspective?


The so called "Armenian genocide" is discussed and debated heavily in Turkey. It is just forbidden to call it a "genocide" and rightfully so. Why do you automatically assume that we're not discussing it?

The examples I listed in my previous post are not just "crimes", most scholars accept for example that the native Americans were genocided by the British, the Spanish and the Americans. Is there any debate about this in the USA? Do the Chinese debate their genocide on the Uyghurs and the Tibetans?

If the Armenians are so sure of their case, shouldn't they go to an international court of some sort with their complaints instead of sneaking behind closed courtains with their allegations? Why won't they go and sue Turkey in an international court? Who exactly will they sue? The Ottoman Empire? Ottoman officials??


I am also unclear why people point to the crimes of others, rather than say... take the moral high ground? Is modern Turkey to be placed in the same category as the 'evil empire' of the Soviet Union? These attempts at relativism seem problematic.


Why should Turkey take the "moral high ground" by admitting to something that it's not responsible for? Even if there was a so called armenian genocide it occured in the Ottoman Empire, there was no Turkey then.

Problematic to whom?

It is hypocritical and morally incoherent to suggest that Turkey alone shoud admit some alleged genocide officially if the same countries I have mentioned do not take responsibility for their own actions in the past.

The Serb comparison is an odd one, since the Serbian government has been at least partially cooperative on the issue of war crimes trials. Turkey however threatens to sever diplomatic ties with any country that recognises the Armenian Genocide.


Because the facts in the Serbian case are overwhelming and there are living individuals to turn over to criminal courts.

The Malta tribunals of 1919 where 118 Ottoman officials were held without any lawyers and with complete access of the British to the Ottoman archives "failed to find any evidence supporting the theory that the Ottomans had ordered a plan of genocide to exterminate the Armenians."

http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/h ... e-compared
By Smilin' Dave
#13480016
The so called "Armenian genocide" is discussed and debated heavily in Turkey. It is just forbidden to call it a "genocide" and rightfully so. Why do you automatically assume that we're not discussing it?

As stated, banning one side of the discussion limits debate, if you can call something so one sided a debate. It appears my assumption was correct, based on your own statement.

The examples I listed in my previous post are not just "crimes", most scholars accept for example that the native Americans were genocided by the British, the Spanish and the Americans.

Genocide isn't a crime now :lol: ? I used the term crime because the purpose of this debate isn't to agree on whether these other examples are genocide or not. Demanding that we do so is a diversion and nothing more.

Do the Chinese debate their genocide on the Uyghurs and the Tibetans?

China has been censured for these things in past, so Turkey's treatment by the international community isn't comparitively exceptional. I'm sure they don't get a particularly broad debate about it domestically, because it's something that can get you locked up... time of like in Turkey. You know, the more you make these comparisons, the more unattractive Turkey's position on this matter looks.

If the Armenians are so sure of their case, shouldn't they go to an international court of some sort with their complaints instead of sneaking behind closed courtains with their allegations?

The perpetrators are dead, who would go on trial? And Congress isn't exactly behind closed curtains. Would you like to discuss allegations that the Turkish state covertly sponsors academics to discredit genocide scholars?

Even if there was a so called armenian genocide it occured in the Ottoman Empire, there was no Turkey then.

Which raises the question as to why modern Turkey is so touchy on the subject. Could it be because national hero Ataturk continued to wage war against Armenians after the fall of the Ottoman empire? Because the modern Turkish state draws some legitimacy as a successor state to the Ottoman Empire (and the Young Turks)? No, it must be a conspiracy :roll:

Why should Turkey take the "moral high ground" by admitting to something that it's not responsible for?

Pretty sure the Armenians didn't kill themselves. You don't think the government and its allies might have had a role to play in the outcome?

Problematic to whom?

Turks I would assume. Would you like the current Turkish government to be treated as a totalitarian pariah state? You could be friends with North Korea, what with its skewed representation of world history and all.

It is hypocritical and morally incoherent to suggest that Turkey alone shoud admit some alleged genocide officially if the same countries I have mentioned do not take responsibility for their own actions in the past.

Perhaps, but in few of the countries you listed was it illegal to even suggest a genocide took place. You don't think that's a stroke too far? How about the threat to deport Armenians by Erdogan recently in response to the prospect of US recognition? Incidentally has the Turkish government recognised the other events you have listed, or would that seem hypocritical?

The Malta tribunals of 1919 where 118 Ottoman officials were held without any lawyers and with complete access of the British to the Ottoman archives "failed to find any evidence supporting the theory that the Ottomans had ordered a plan of genocide to exterminate the Armenians."

On the other hand, hadn't Turkish court martial ordered Talat Pasha's death in absentia?

Anyway, let's get down to basics here: On what basis do you deny that the events that took place do not qualify as a genocide?
User avatar
By TheEconomist
#13481079
As stated, banning one side of the discussion limits debate, if you can call something so one sided a debate. It appears my assumption was correct, based on your own statement.


No side of the debate is banned. What is banned is saying that the Turks, Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire commited the act of "genocide" against the Armenians without presenting any firm evidence for these allegations.


Genocide isn't a crime now ? I used the term crime because the purpose of this debate isn't to agree on whether these other examples are genocide or not. Demanding that we do so is a diversion and nothing more.


No, it is a legitimate argument. Most historians are in agreement that the events I previously mentioned can be termed as genocides. There is no doubt that the native Americans were genocided by the British, the Spanish and the Americans. Other less known genocides are the Congolese genocide and the native Australian genocide. Some argue that the genocide against the Native Americans is still ongoing today!! So again, calling for Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide without recognizing other genocides or to even refuse to discuss them is hypocritical and morally totally unacceptable.

China has been censured for these things in past, so Turkey's treatment by the international community isn't comparitively exceptional. I'm sure they don't get a particularly broad debate about it domestically, because it's something that can get you locked up... time of like in Turkey. You know, the more you make these comparisons, the more unattractive Turkey's position on this matter looks.


China is not the only country which refuses to discuss it's own past. France, Japan, Belgium and the US all refuse to have a debate about some of the darker chapters of their history as well. Turkey is not unique in any way as genocide, war and massacres throughout history has been the rule, not the exception.


The perpetrators are dead, who would go on trial? And Congress isn't exactly behind closed curtains. Would you like to discuss allegations that the Turkish state covertly sponsors academics to discredit genocide scholars?


Exactly. Ask that question to the Armenians. The Republic of Turkey is certainly not responsible for any alleged genocide since it is the product of a revolt against the Ottoman Empire itself.

Parliaments are not the right place to discuss these allegations. What do the politicians know about the so called Armenian genocide? Can a majority of the U.S. representatives even point out Armenia in the map? I doubt so. It is not up to the politicians to write history, it is the historians job and genocide should not be politicised like the Armenian allegations. If you don't understand the concept of freedom and objectivity in academia I don't think I can discuss this matter with you.


Which raises the question as to why modern Turkey is so touchy on the subject. Could it be because national hero Ataturk continued to wage war against Armenians after the fall of the Ottoman empire? Because the modern Turkish state draws some legitimacy as a successor state to the Ottoman Empire (and the Young Turks)? No, it must be a conspiracy


Turkey is touchy about this subject because it is frankly nothing more than Armenian propaganda aimed to demonize Turkey and in the long run to get Turkish territory. Turkey is touchy about this subject because there was no genocide and because this is a matter for historians to discuss, not for politicians.

Pretty sure the Armenians didn't kill themselves. You don't think the government and its allies might have had a role to play in the outcome?


Killings do not constitute a genocide. Turkey does not deny that Armenians were deported to the southern provinces of the Ottoman Empire and that many Armenians perished during the deportations. At least half a million to one million Muslim Turks also perished as a result of the conflict. Also, one must know the background to these events and it is well known that the deportations were a reaction to the Armenian massacres of Muslim Turks during WW1 when Russia invaded the Ottoman Empire. Do you care to discuss this, what sparked the conflict?

Turks I would assume. Would you like the current Turkish government to be treated as a totalitarian pariah state? You could be friends with North Korea, what with its skewed representation of world history and all.


This comment is too ridiculous so I won't even bother answering it.

Perhaps, but in few of the countries you listed was it illegal to even suggest a genocide took place. You don't think that's a stroke too far? How about the threat to deport Armenians by Erdogan recently in response to the prospect of US recognition? Incidentally has the Turkish government recognised the other events you have listed, or would that seem hypocritical?


No, the crime of genocide is a serious one and accusing Turkey of such a heinous crime without firm evidence is a gross slander against Turkey that can not be accepted. Turkey did not commit such a crime and has not been judged for such a crime by any court. It must be discussed in a scholarly milieue and the politicians must stay away from writing history.


Anyway, let's get down to basics here: On what basis do you deny that the events that took place do not qualify as a genocide?


What is your basis to claim those events qualify to be termed as a genocide?
User avatar
By Bosnjak
#13481195
Why did Armenia not give refuge to the Armenians from Turkey? Why they let their brothers starve in the Dessert.

Armenia is also responsible for the deaths.
By Beirut
#13481228
TheEconomist wrote:No side of the debate is banned. What is banned is saying that the Turks, Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire commited the act of "genocide" against the Armenians without presenting any firm evidence for these allegations.

Bro, seriously? How do you think Armenians end up in Lebanon? They took refuge here through marching through Syria after witnessing the murder of their relatives. Many of them died of hunger and did not make it to Lebanon, unfortunately. Ever heard how the Armenians ended up here, and the stories their grandfathers witnessed?
Armenians anxious over Turkish plan

Protesters gathered to show Armenian President Sarkisian their views.

Armenians in Lebanon have protested over a proposed agreement between Armenia and Turkey.
As the BBC's Jim Muir reports, they want Turkey to recognise as genocide the killing of some 1.5m Armenians under Ottoman rule during World War I before any deal is signed.
Waving the red, blue and orange Armenian flag, chanting slogans and brandishing banners condemning the proposed agreement with Turkey, thousands of Lebanese Armenians converged on a luxury hotel in the suburbs of East Beirut to leave President Serzh Sarkisian in no doubt about their feelings.
Many came here on foot from the suburb of Burj Hammoud and other nearby areas where Armenian survivors settled after fleeing Turkey 90 years ago.
Those survivors established now-thriving communities in bustling streets where most of the shop signs and advertisements are now in Armenian.
President Sarkisian flew to Lebanon on the latest leg of a mission to the diaspora which had earlier taken him to Paris, New York and Los Angeles.
He is trying to persuade anxious Armenian exiles that peace with Turkey does not mean forgetting what they call a genocide in which 1.5 million perished.


All around the world, we Armenians are one, and we are against this protocol
Mher Krikorian
In Lebanon, he will face an uphill task in talks with community leaders.
All the major political parties - which wield considerable influence in the intricate and delicate Lebanese political system - are against the proposed accord with Turkey.
So too are all the religious leaderships.
Lebanon's 150,000 or so Armenians are virtually all descended from survivors.
Most trekked overland through Syria, while a few arrived directly by boat.
Generations may have passed since then, but the Armenian community is tight-knit, memories are long and vivid, and feelings intense even among the young for whom Turkey is a terrible myth.
"I was born and bred here, but I still feel very, very Armenian," said Ani Didanian, who is 44.
"My great-grandfather walked to Lebanon. Two of his aunts froze to death in the snow, an uncle was massacred, and his father and mother were lost - they never found them.
"We're here because we want to say no to the agreement. It is not fair. You can't just negate the past, and go on.
"The Turks should pay the price for all the stolen land, and the one and a half million victims that died."
Fear of forgetting
Mher Krikorian, a 21-year-old student, said that Armenians of the diaspora were worried that the horrors of the past would be glossed over and forgotten.
"Our Armenian history is full of blood, and with this protocol they will forget it. We want our culture, our history to be known around the world.
"And we still have lands over there, inside Turkey. All around the world, we Armenians are one, and we are against this protocol."
This was not just a demonstration by angry young men. There were angry old ladies too.
"My grandfather was one of seven brothers in the same family, but the other six were all hanged and only he escaped," said 70-year-old Sosi Azadourian.
"My grandmother hanged herself, because they were raping all the women."
Lucy Srabian, a 42-year-old journalist, said her grandparents made their way to Lebanon as the only survivors from a family of 60 souls.
"When President Sarkisian says 'We're not going to forget the genocide', what is he going to do not to forget it?" she asked.
"If he is going to have a friendly relationship with Turkey, then where does the genocide stand? We don't know, and that bothers us all."
"It's the moral compensation we need, the recognition. We cannot deal with it if they don't admit they've done something wrong, and we feel that they feel with us.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8293896.stm




"الساكت عن الحق شيطان أخرس"
which means "A person who does not speak out against the wrong is a mute devil."

Unfortunately, some people&countries(i.e USA) retain a tit-for-tat attitude and that's childish and sick.

Bosnjak wrote:Why did Armenia not give refuge to the Armenians from Turkey? Why they let their brothers starve in the Dessert.

Ottoman Armenia*. Armenians weren't controlling themselves.
By Aekos
#13481353
TE wrote:Also, one must know the background to these events and it is well known that the deportations were a reaction to the Armenian massacres of Muslim Turks during WW1 when Russia invaded the Ottoman Empire.


Just no. The deportations were seen as a solution to the "Armenian problem" by the Ottoman authorities. After being one of the most loyal ethnic groups in the empire, the Armenians were oppressed and massacred in the 1800s. This called for several liberation movements, and the Ottomans saw the entire group of people as a thorn in their side. The plan was to ethnic cleanse the Armenians from their traditional homelands, and then to leave them to die. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
#13481536
@Beirut what was with Armenia, was it under Sowiet controle?
By Aekos
#13481620
^
75%+ of Armenia was under Ottoman control, the rest was Soviet. The Ottomans almost completely annihilated the Armenian civilians of Ottoman Armenia, today's Armenia is only a small part of the historical Armenian homeland.
By Smilin' Dave
#13481711
No side of the debate is banned. What is banned is saying that the Turks, Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire commited the act of "genocide" against the Armenians without presenting any firm evidence for these allegations.

You have to this point presented no firm evidence yourself. Perhaps we can punish you for this? After all laws are intended to do nothing if not ensure academics use firm argumentation in their works.

No, it is a legitimate argument. Most historians are in agreement that the events I previously mentioned can be termed as genocides. There is no doubt that the native Americans were genocided by the British, the Spanish and the Americans. Other less known genocides are the Congolese genocide and the native Australian genocide. Some argue that the genocide against the Native Americans is still ongoing today!! So again, calling for Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide without recognizing other genocides or to even refuse to discuss them is hypocritical and morally totally unacceptable.

Don't change the subject. You called me, for some bizzare reason, on referring to a long list of genocides and ethnic cleansings etc. with the broad term crime. You are still apparently trying to drag me into some irrelevant side argument which doesn't involve the Armenian genocide. So I call this a diversion. On the Australian example, our former PM publically apologised for what was done to our Aboriginal population. Has the Turkish government done anything like this?

France, Japan, Belgium and the US all refuse to have a debate about some of the darker chapters of their history as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crime_of_Napoleon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold%27s_Ghost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_I ... ve_the_Man
You list four countries that refuse to have anything to do with their crimes, I show you four examples where debate has been had and amazingly, no one was threatened with arrest. You either didn't check your claims first, or you have conveniently ignored evidence to the contrary. I suppose this is easy when you think it's okay to ban arguments simply because they are 'incorrect'. :roll:

Turkey is not unique in any way as genocide, war and massacres throughout history has been the rule, not the exception.

If it is so common, why not just admit it and move on? Once again your negationist arguments seem to get mixed up with your denialist arguments. "Nothing happened!... but if it did it's totally normal!... But anyone else that does it should be held to account!"

If you don't understand the concept of freedom and objectivity in academia I don't think I can discuss this matter with you.

Ha! The Turkish government supports anything but freedom and objectivity in academia:
In 1990, psychologist Robert Jay Lifton received a letter from the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, questioning his inclusion of references to the Armenian Genocide in one of his books. The ambassador inadvertently included a draft of a letter, presented by scholar Heath W. Lowry, advising the ambassador on how to prevent mention of the Armenian Genocide in scholarly works. Lowry was later named to the Atatürk chair of Ottoman Studies at Princeton University, which had been endowed with a $750,000 grant from the Republic of Turkey. The incident has been the subject of numerous reports as to ethics in scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_G ... onal_Study
I warned you that such a discussion wouldn't make the Turkish position look too good, but you had to lay down the official line anyway.

At least half a million to one million Muslim Turks also perished as a result of the conflict.

That would suggest that around half of all casualties suffered by the Ottoman empire during the conflict were the result of Armenians, which is laughable. Honestly, where do you get such rubbish?

This comment is too ridiculous so I won't even bother answering it.

Your question was ridiculous. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

the politicians must stay away from writing history.

Yet there is a law in Turkey that is used to intervene in the writing of history. A law you have supported whole-heartedly. Apparently it only bothers you when politicians involve themselves in history when it goes against your argument.

What is your basis to claim those events qualify to be termed as a genocide?

Why have you answered my question with a question? I state that it is a genocide because what the Ottoman Empire did to the Armenians and other minority populations fits the legally accepted definition of genocide. But don't just take my word for it:
http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/files/Ar ... ocide1.pdf
I mean, Geoffrey Robertson isn't a politician or a historian, but he does know a thing or two about laws.

Now, I demand you provide hard evidence that Armenian rebellion and massacres were the cause of the deportations. I would suggest starting with a chronology, since most of the major acts of Armenian resistance seem to have started after acts like the Tehcir law. I answered your question, and now you had better answer mine.
#13852251
“ The armenian massacre allegations are made up of invented imperialist rumors, lies and slanders. '' K.Ataturk, January 17, 1921

Before 1915 events, Armenian bandits who were armed by Russians were burning thousands of Turkish villages with people inside. They were making terror in the East. Then ITC government decided to deport Armenians to prevent this terrible chaos there. But later imperialists began to slander Turks and make its propaganda just because their plans failed as Turkish revolutionaries managed to liberate Eastern region from invaders.

Some people try to lecture us about freedom of speech. But they even prohibit the discussion of this issue in their own countries. I think western people should look at the mirror before judging other people. If I say '' It did not happen '' in France I will get jailed. This is a great example for hypocracy of western nations. That's europeans understanding of democracy and freedom of speech. Maybe we should forbid the denial of Algerian Genocide, we should apply punishment for that, sounds good right ?

Somebody even goes further and say there were also Greek Genocide, Assyrian Genocide etc. I'm really so impressed, I didn't know that we are such an evil nation. Those are not enough, we also made native american genocide, aboriginal genocide, jewish genocide, discriminations against black people etc. yeaa we are sons of devil...

Can anybody explain me how Greeks captured the majority of Thessaloniki while they were third minority after Jews and Turks in the city ? maybe it's something related to 1917 Thessaloniki Fire ? what a coincidence, the fire only killed Turks and Jews, and Greeks became the majority instantly. God loves Greeks indeed !

The existence of Armenian state is based on lies, hatred and propagandas. Admit that they are good at role-playing. They can deceive people very professionally and manage to show themselves as so innocent and sweet.

''You are mistaken to think the Armenians are innocent as a 7 year old girl. However, their latest actions have proven how savage they can be'' Lord Curzon, 12 March 1920

Do you have any idea what actions he talk about there ? let me guess, massacres of Armenians toward Turkish settlers in the East, maybe ?

I enter YouTube, I browse a Turkish song and click on the video. Then I look at comments, I see some Armenians who say '' fuck Turks you killers accept genocide '' etc. there are tons of examples I saw. In each eurovision songs of Turkey, they come there and make their propagands irrelevantly. Same in football videos as well.

I bet that Armenians could find nothing to live for if Turks did not exist. Because we are the only reason why they are still alive. They need their hatred toward Turks to breathe, otherwise they can't live.

We played a friendly match against Armenia in 2008 or 2009, I don't remember well. Our president saw it as an opportunity to improve the relations and he decided to invite Armenian president to Turkey to watch the game in the stadium together. Security forces took every take precautions at their best to host Armenian team in the greatest standards. Azerbaijan flags (who are the sisters of Turks) were even PROHIBITED to be brought into the stadium to prevent provacations. Who would do such a gesture ? then the match was played without a problem.

But recently, Armenian president clearly stated that they would like to invade Agri, our province. He thanked that way. So, you see how they still carry their hatred and grudge toward Turks ? even though we do everything to improve our relations, they can not give up their hatred feelings. Who is evil here ?

As I said, Armenians make their propagandas in every area, doesn't matter if it's relevant or irrelevant. Most of their eurovision entries include hatred messages to Turkish people and that events. They look for an opportunity to spill their hatred anywhere. I don't really understand, why don't they get a life ? don't they have anything else to do for god's sake ?

Even though we were likely to apologize for events, it's getting impossible as Armenians act that way because they fan the flames and destroy all of our symphaty feelings.

Turkish state calls for an international debate arena where all of historical archives will be divulged. But why nobody comes ? don't they trust their evidences ? but they even believe in that issue so much to prohibit counter-arguments. So let them accept that and share their evidences.

Don't expect an apologize from Turkish state as long as they maintain such an attitude toward us.

I surely promise that if Armenians apologize for their massacres in East before 1915 events, we'll apologize too. Otherwise, no way.

Btw, there are people who compare it to Jewish Genocide. First of all it's recognized by all the world internationally. But there are still many states who do not accept those Armenian claims, especially Israel. It's not the same situation, so you can not talk like that, please. It's not a physical law and you have to allow us to express our opinions about the issue. You can not consider us equal with Nazis. This is a terrible anti-Turk propaganda. Of course you can do that because you have the power of media and you can even use it to show armenian claims as if it's a physical law.
#13853923
Devrim wrote:Before 1915 events, Armenian bandits who were armed by Russians were burning thousands of Turkish villages with people inside. They were making terror in the East. Then ITC government decided to deport Armenians to prevent this terrible chaos there.

This really doesn't come close to explaining why property was seized, my prominent intellectuals in urban centres who clearly were not guerillas were arrested and executed, why churches were destroyed and so on. Further, recently Erdogan acknowledged the Dersim Massacres as being worthy of apology. A reading of the events around Dersim reveals that like the crimes against Armenians, it was against a back drop of an armed conflict. War is not an excuse for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Devrim wrote:Some people try to lecture us about freedom of speech. But they even prohibit the discussion of this issue in their own countries. I think western people should look at the mirror before judging other people.

If I said Ataturk was a war criminal (by modern standards he was) in Turkey, how would that go over? You go on and on about being entitled to an opinion but 'Insulting Turkishness' leaves limited ground for expression of opinion for some.

Try not to personalise your answer to this, even though you prominently display his image and signature as a symbol of your own identity.

Devrim wrote:Can anybody explain me how Greeks captured the majority of Thessaloniki while they were third minority after Jews and Turks in the city ? maybe it's something related to 1917 Thessaloniki Fire ? what a coincidence, the fire only killed Turks and Jews, and Greeks became the majority instantly. God loves Greeks indeed !

Since we're talking about arson, how about Smyrna in 1922? No no, don't tell me, you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for that one.

It's a bit silly to complain about hypocrisy... and then be hypocritical.

Devrim wrote:So, you see how they still carry their hatred and grudge toward Turks ? even though we do everything to improve our relations, they can not give up their hatred feelings. Who is evil here ?

Acknowledging the massacres etc. rather than engage in negationism might be a step in the right direction if you're really interested in 'improving relations'.

Devrim wrote:Even though we were likely to apologize for events, it's getting impossible as Armenians act that way because they fan the flames and destroy all of our symphaty feelings.

...I amazed how you can insist that everything is the fault of the Armenians. Perhaps next you can claim they organised their own death marches?

Devrim wrote:I surely promise that if Armenians apologize for their massacres in East before 1915 events, we'll apologize too. Otherwise, no way.

Why does it matter who goes first? Your apology wouldn't be any less genuine if it were first or last. Instead you turn it into a political weapon, set conditions etc. Why can I imagine you hyping any Armenian apology through your 'propaganda machine' while neglecting your end of the bargain?

Devrim wrote:But there are still many states who do not accept those Armenian claims, especially Israel.

Israel doesn't have a monopoly on the history of the Holocaust.

In fact, no nation has a monopoly on history. In terms of determining fact, Turkey's recognition is irrelevant. Any honest observer can't but acknowledge what happened. Instead it is a political question, and the constant evasion of true recognition just makes Turkey look foolish.
#13854073
Smilin' Dave wrote:This really doesn't come close to explaining why property was seized, my prominent intellectuals in urban centres who clearly were not guerillas were arrested and executed, why churches were destroyed and so on. Further, recently Erdogan acknowledged the Dersim Massacres as being worthy of apology. A reading of the events around Dersim reveals that like the crimes against Armenians, it was against a back drop of an armed conflict. War is not an excuse for ethnic cleansing and genocide.


Armenians have lived in Turkish lands with great privileges for 600 years so if Ottomans really wanted to totally destroy them, they'd have already did it before 1915. Of course there will be such casualties on the occasion of war, it's normal. Like what has USA been doing in Iraq for 10 years.

When balkans were lost, all of newly founded countries (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia etc. ) totally destroyed mosques, expelled Turks or burned them to provide the majority of their nation in those lands. But why nobody brings it into questions ? do I ask them for an apologize ? there are much more things that occured before 1915 to be discussed.

As for Dersim which is my hometown; I'm strongly against its being recognized as a genocide, cause it's not different to what is Israel doing in Palestinian lands. Ataturk did the best thing for Dersim and saved us from bandits. Of course there were casualties as in every war, but it's not genocide. as it's so easy to use the term '' genocide '', Iraq War is a genocide too, Palestinian War is a genocide too, and of course invasions of Libya, Afghanistan etc. all are genocides. But this is another issue, if you want to talk about this, create another thread and I'll share my evidences, now don't even refer to my hometown without a knowledge, and look at the mirror first. Talk about Iraq genocide.

Government's attitude toward Dersim is for their own benefits, they have never gained seats from there in any elections so they think that this action may help them to get more sympathy. This is a personal apology and it does not concern the state as long as the president does not apologize. So don't use it as an argument. Erdogan is not the head of the state.

If I said Ataturk was a war criminal (by modern standards he was) in Turkey, how would that go over? You go on and on about being entitled to an opinion but 'Insulting Turkishness' leaves limited ground for expression of opinion for some.

Try not to personalise your answer to this, even though you prominently display his image and signature as a symbol of your own identity.


Actually many things have changed here since you first began to hear such things about Turkey, traitor government ignores the attacks and insults toward Ataturk, recently a bitch clearly said that Ataturk was a dictator in a national channel and nothing was done.

But of course, if you live in the country that Ataturk created and improved, you have to like him, this is my mentality, like it or not.

Since we're talking about arson, how about Smyrna in 1922? No no, don't tell me, you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for that one.

It's a bit silly to complain about hypocrisy... and then be hypocritical.


Izmir was burned by Greeks while they were running away from Turkish troops.

Acknowledging the massacres etc. rather than engage in negationism might be a step in the right direction if you're really interested in 'improving relations'.


Actually I don't give a fuck about Armenia and if it's up to me I will work for ground connection between Azerbaijan and Nakchivan. Talk to armenian lover government. They would even apologize immediately if they were not scared of a possible loud reaction from Turkish people.

...I amazed how you can insist that everything is the fault of the Armenians. Perhaps next you can claim they organised their own death marches?


No but the world always look for an opportunity to blame Turks for each event. Nobody talks about massacres toward Turks and this makes me angry. If you always talk about Turks faults and never say anything in favor of us, of course I will always insist to understand you because you give a anti-Turk image.

I'll give you one example, children in Southern Cyprus are taught that Turks were the ones who killed Jesus.

hy does it matter who goes first? Your apology wouldn't be any less genuine if it were first or last. Instead you turn it into a political weapon, set conditions etc. Why can I imagine you hyping any Armenian apology through your 'propaganda machine' while neglecting your end of the bargain?


Yes it does. As long as Armenians call their attacks toward Turkish villages genocide, nor will we. Everything is mutual. It's enough that some people use their diaspora to blame Turks for everything, from now on we will work for the recognizitions of multiple Turkish genocides that were commited by Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Brits, French etc.

Israel doesn't have a monopoly on the history of the Holocaust.

In fact, no nation has a monopoly on history. In terms of determining fact, Turkey's recognition is irrelevant. Any honest observer can't but acknowledge what happened. Instead it is a political question, and the constant evasion of true recognition just makes Turkey look foolish.


I think you can not understand, jewish genocide is recognized internationally but I want to say that there are still many different opinions about Armenian issue, even many historians presented some arguments about that. There are still many states which do not recognize it. So you can not talk as if it's a physical fact.
#13854253
Devrim wrote:Armenians have lived in Turkish lands with great privileges for 600 years so if Ottomans really wanted to totally destroy them, they'd have already did it before 1915.

This is a pretty hollow argument. A comparable argument could be used to dismiss any massacre anywhere in the world. It also completely ignores the apparent escalation of hostility towards Armenians in the lead up to WWI, for example the Hamidan and Adana massacres.

When balkans were lost, all of newly founded countries (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia etc. ) totally destroyed mosques, expelled Turks or burned them to provide the majority of their nation in those lands. But why nobody brings it into questions ?

Because this is a thread about the Armenian Genocide? I'm also unclear on why the existence of other crimes makes the crime you in particular are defending any less awful. Try going to a murder trial and saying "hey, people get murdered all the time, case dismissed".

do I ask them for an apologize ?

Maybe you should?

As for Dersim which is my hometown

So was your family moved there as part of the subsequent resettlement program?

I'm strongly against its being recognized as a genocide, cause it's not different to what is Israel doing in Palestinian lands.

You can raise all these supposed similar examples all you want, it won't diminish what Turkish government forces have done.

Ataturk did the best thing for Dersim and saved us from bandits.

It's pretty well established that during the military campaign loyal tribes were massacred with the 'rebels'. Never mind the killing of women and children. This makes the bandits thing a nonsense, because it highlights that the reason they were killed was not because of some action they took, but what is called a 'crime of status'.

Of course there were casualties as in every war

So why is there always a fuss about what Armenians are supposed to have done under the auspices of the Russian army?

Also, death marches for civilians is not war, it's a massacre. Or were you under the impression all conflict revolves around rounding up the defenceless and marching them into inhospitable territory?

Iraq War is a genocide too... and of course invasions of Libya, Afghanistan etc. all are genocides.

Except none of these events would fit any reasonable definition of genocide. Where is the deliberate attempt to destroy a people in all these examples?

now don't even refer to my hometown without a knowledge

I think I probably know more about the Dersim massacres than you do. After all you're apparently so ignorant of the topic you think it equivilent to the Iraq War.

Actually many things have changed here since you first began to hear such things about Turkey, traitor government ignores the attacks and insults toward Ataturk, recently a bitch clearly said that Ataturk was a dictator in a national channel and nothing was done.

The law is on the books, and apparently ultra-nationalists like yourself are still slavering to enforce it. I take this as proving my point.

But of course, if you live in the country that Ataturk created and improved, you have to like him, this is my mentality, like it or not.

Great, except visitors to your country are threatened with the same law. Have to accept the laws of the country you're in though, right? Well, you'll just have to live with those laws about acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Think that's unfair etc.? Maybe now you have an inkling of why your approach is ridiculous.

Izmir was burned by Greeks while they were running away from Turkish troops.

Once again you blame the victims for Turkish crimes, without a shred of evidence.

Actually I don't give a fuck about Armenia and if it's up to me I will work for ground connection between Azerbaijan and Nakchivan.

Which means your whole previous post was a lump of worthless hypocrasy.

Nobody talks about massacres toward Turks and this makes me angry.

Then your inability to understand the Armenian position is completely inexplicable. Oh sorry, forgot, you follow some idiotic brand of nationalism that blinds you to all things not Turkish.

Everything is mutual.

Mutual action does require a script in which one party is made to look my guilty by having to go first.

from now on we will work for the recognizitions of multiple Turkish genocides that were commited by Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Brits, French etc.

Great, but your using your logic these crimes should go unrecognised because
- Turks did the same things to other peoples
- Massacres happen all the time

even many historians presented some arguments about that

No legitimate historian questions that Turkish government forces and their allies massacred Armenians. Instead the only 'debate' are the same lame excuses as you've just parroted.

So you can not talk as if it's a physical fact.

You're saying there weren't massacres? :roll: Because Ottoman Turkey's own allies and the then neutral U.S concur that there were. People saw the bodies for fucks sake. Do you think your ridiculous attempts to establish morale equivilence actually change the fact that there were massacres? How could you possibly be so delusional? Oh sorry, forgot the idiot brand of nationalism thing again.
#13854277
Because this is a thread about the Armenian Genocide? I'm also unclear on why the existence of other crimes makes the crime you in particular are defending any less awful. Try going to a murder trial and saying "hey, people get murdered all the time, case dismissed".


I just want equality. This is more like; a person comes and get punished because it was claimed that he killed somebody. But the court justifies another killer. I don't want to be judged in such a court which is totally biased.

Maybe you should?


If I do, people will say '' they did not belong to balkans so they did not deserve to stay there and also mosques are not from our nation '' which shows the terrible hypocracy of Turk-haters. Nobody will let those things be discussed because nobody wants something to occur in favor of Turks. Turks always deserve to be blamed, even for jesus' death. I'm not sure if I told that children in Southern Cyprus are taught that Turks are the ones who killed jesus.

Btw when I asked why nobody talks about Turkish massacres you said '' because it does not belong to the thread '' so why do you talk about Dersim events now ? this is such a hypocracy. I know why, because you dislike Turks and you do not want Turkish victims to be mentioned. But we should only talk about what have Turks done in history, not what have been done toward Turks.

And you can not really claim that you know more things about my hometown's past, have you ever been to Dersim at least ? have you ever talked to a person from Dersim ? And you are not the one who will question my ancestries, you should know your place. Not only me, but Dersim people are proud of Ataturk. Go there and say that Ataturk was a murderer, see the reaction. :)

You're saying there weren't massacres? Because Ottoman Turkey's own allies and the then neutral U.S concur that there were. People saw the bodies for fucks sake. Do you think your ridiculous attempts to establish morale equivilence actually change the fact that there were massacres? How could you possibly be so delusional? Oh sorry, forgot the idiot brand of nationalism thing again.


Dead bodies ? you mean the ones in Iraq, Afghanistan ? and you expect me to believe in those imperialist nations claims, how funny.
#13855141
Devrim wrote:I just want equality.

Yet few of the 'equal' examples you've given are actually comperable to the Armenian example. You keep raising Iraq and Afghanistan, which leads me to believe that you either have no concept of current events, no concept of the Armenia example, or both. Or I suppose you're just being intellectually dishonest.

If you really wanted equality, nothing stops you from 'promoting' these other supposed examples you've raised. Instead you've raised them with the express purpose of distracting or diminishing what was done to the Armenians. That's not 'equality', it is a standard tactic of negationism.

Devrim wrote:If I do, people will say '' they did not belong to balkans so they did not deserve to stay there and also mosques are not from our nation '' which shows the terrible hypocracy of Turk-haters.

When massacres of Turks by Armenians are raised by historians, this doesn't happen.

Devrim wrote:Turks always deserve to be blamed, even for jesus' death.

And I think extrapolating an incident in Cyphrus to the rest of the world in absurd.

Devrim wrote:Btw when I asked why nobody talks about Turkish massacres you said '' because it does not belong to the thread '' so why do you talk about Dersim events now ?

It's a comperable incident. Your approach has been (if we pretend you have been consistent about anything...) that these things happen in a conflict. I've shown you an example that even where things happened during a conflict it wasn't found to be acceptible. An example which highlights that massacres can occur during a conflict, which have nothing to do with that conflict.

Devrim wrote:And you can not really claim that you know more things about my hometown's past, have you ever been to Dersim at least ?

Do you think you magically know something about the massacres because of your physical presense a considerable time afterward? :roll: You haven't been to Afghanistan, but apparently nothing will shut you up about that.

Devrim wrote:And you are not the one who will question my ancestries, you should know your place.

My place is on this forum where I can express an opinion. You won't answer the question, because if your family was moved there as part of a resettlement program, your bias towards the Alevis and Kurds would be completely apparent.

Devrim wrote:Not only me, but Dersim people are proud of Ataturk.

... the people who would have had little good to say about the Kemalists from Dersim are probably dead or have been driven off the land. That's kind of the point I've been making. Thanks to significant crimes against humanity though I will struggle to defeat your rigged test however :roll: .

Devrim wrote:Go there and say that Ataturk was a murderer, see the reaction.

Some clown will call the police and I'll be locked up for insulting Turkishness?
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]