today marks the day that the first salvo for the Armenian massacre was started by turks

http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/

April 05, 1915
In Marash Turks demand 5,000 jackasses from the Armenians in an excuse to loot.
And commemorated on the 24th of April

Every year, on April 24, Armenians worldwide commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

huh.
never heard of that.
im not armernian, so...
???

"Who remembers the Armenians?" said Hitler, when he was asked if he thouht he could get away with his crimes.

what?
ive just never heard of the armenian genocide...
no-one's ever told me about it.
what was it?

Nobody regonizes it. U.S lobbying some law to regonize it. Not sure about the law thing.

"Who remembers the Armenians?" said Hitler, when he was asked if he thouht he could get away with his crimes.
What is your evidence that Hitler made this statement? What was his audience? When did he make it? When was it first reported?

It sounds like propaganda/misinformation to me.

dude, it was freakin' hitler. he said stuff like this all the time. he was these statements.

okay, well, if it was the ottomans doing what, i dont care. the turk empire kicked ass.

What is your evidence that Hitler made this statement? What was his audience? When did he make it? When was it first reported?


John Toland: Hitler. p585. quoting from Hitler's Table Talk. Conversation orderingn his generals to show no mercy to Poles and similar inferior races because Germany needed lebensraum.

okay, well, if it was the ottomans doing what, i dont care. the turk empire kicked ass.
Mass murder doesn't matter if the murderers "kicked ass"?

John Toland: Hitler. p585. quoting from Hitler's Table Talk. Conversation orderingn his generals to show no mercy to Poles and similar inferior races because Germany needed lebensraum.
I too understand that the quotation supposedly comes from an address given to the top brass (on August 22, 1939) prior to the invasion of Poland. The quotation first appeared in The Times (London) on November 24, 1945.

Not only can the quotation not be found in the original minutes of this gathering, it makes little sense in the context of the invasion of Poland. Hitler was not planning a genocide of the Poles. It is interesting that the quotation is never seen in the "original German". Besides, had Hitler said anything like it, he would have needed to say more, to explain himself, for the very reason that the Armenian genocide was indeed a forgotten piece of history.

I am not aware that Hitler referred to the Armenian genocide on any other occasion -- though I am open to correction. This unique alleged reference seems totally unlikely. Much British wartime propaganda made fun of Hitler. It was at about the time this quotation was "discovered" that he was being turned into a figure of unique and execrable evil, and the Nuremburg version of history was being constructed.

today marks the day that the first salvo for the Armenian massacre was started by turks

Well, I don't know ....what do the Turks say about it? I'll bet they have a different idea about that, huh? So who's right?

In any and all disagreements or conflicts, there's always another story and it's often in the best interest of everyone to research the issue carefully. I'm not so sure about the Armenian incident, but my guess is that the Turks felt that they had some revenge for something that was done to them previously by the Armenians. And so goes history ....when was the first punch thrown? In the Garden of Eden, perhaps?

Baron Max

I too understand that the quotation supposedly comes from an address given to the top brass (on August 22, 1939) prior to the invasion of Poland. The quotation first appeared in The Times (London) on November 24, 1945. I came across an earlier reference to a book What about Germany by Louis P Lochner, published in 1943. How reliable it is I don't know.


Not only can the quotation not be found in the original minutes of this gathering, it makes little sense in the context of the invasion of Poland. Hitler was not planning a genocide of the Poles. It is interesting that the quotation is never seen in the "original German". Besides, had Hitler said anything like it, he would have needed to say more, to explain himself, for the very reason that the Armenian genocide was indeed a forgotten piece of history. It does make sense in the context: Hitler often referred to the alleged German need for "lebensraum" as a justification for his invasion and often cited great conquerors and killers in a Social Darwinist justification of such acts and claimed that they had got away with their acts and so they were justified. The Poles and other "inferior races" were to be reduced to helots. In the context- whether it was Hitler's own speech or propaganda aginst him- it makes equal sense as a half-forgotten slaughter used as a example. Hapsburg is an instance of ignorance of the Armenians and a lot of people probably only learned of the Armenian slaughter through Hitler's alleged reference. If it was part of a speech then people may have omitted it in their reports of what was said. However, unless Lochner provides a better source or there is unpublished evidence in the Nuremberg archive, it would be better not to cite it with regard to Hitler's own views. As i said, here its importance is that either Hitler or a propagandist thought it an example of a forgotten and successful crime.


I am not aware that Hitler referred to the Armenian genocide on any other occasion -- though I am open to correction. This unique alleged reference seems totally unlikely. Much British wartime propaganda made fun of Hitler. It was at about the time this quotation was "discovered" that he was being turned into a figure of unique and execrable evil, and the Nuremburg version of history was being constructed.Hitler was pretty funny, as Chaplin and Orwell pointed out. It's been suggested that one reason for appeasement was that many British politicians couldn't believe Hitler and didn't take what he said seriously. British propaganda seemed to make of Hitler and the nazis a comic combination of ogres and bogey men: certainly German atrocities were mentioned when they were fairly small, but- for example- hardly anyone seems to have believed in the extermination camps, partly from distrust of jewish sources partly from an inability to imagine them.

what?
ive just never heard of the armenian genocide...
no-one's ever told me about it.
what was it?

http://come.to/armenia

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/

Some 1.5-2.0 Armenians being slaughtered by the Turks in the early 20th century.

Largely forgotten, probably because WWI and WWII came after that, and the Holocaust was even scarier. You seldom talk about the silver medalists, do you?

Thanks for your Lochner reference, Thersites.
This (http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/arm_uscongress/arm_uscongress.html) site (though heavily biased) does a good job at discrediting Lochner. But one always wants to hear "the other side".

Untangling the truth about WWII is a fascinating business! Friendly Fire: The Secret War Between the Allies by Lynn Picknett et al comes out in paperback next week (in UK). I am looking forward to learning something new. Don't miss it!

I am not aware that Hitler referred to the Armenian genocide on any other occasion -- though I am open to correction. ...
Much British wartime propaganda made fun of Hitler. I'm not sure who was the better historian; Hitler (for finding obscure German references to the Armenian Genocide) or the people that wrote those comments, by finding his reference?


It was at about the time this quotation was "discovered" that he was being turned into a figure of unique and execrable evil, and the Nuremberg version of history was being constructed.
2 questions?
1) you don't think Hitler was evil? unique or otherwise?
2) do you think the history of Hitler & the nazis was politically vilified, after the fact?

I do not believe that Hitler ever made this remark about the Armenians, Randolpho. There are three contemporary records of the meeting at which it is said to have been uttered (one of them used as evidence at Nuremburg), none of which makes reference to any such remark.

I suspect that Lochner made it up, but it is also possible that someone did plant the alleged "transcript" on him. I do not believe that Hitler intended to treat the Poles in the way that the Turks are said to have treated the Armenians. Why not? Because this was 1939. Barkhorn1x made an accurate observation in the recent thread on Dresden when he wrote: "What was unthinkable in 1940 was common place in 1945." There was an escalation of mayhem during the war years. Indiscriminate mass-murder was not contemplated in 1939.

Sixty years after WWII, it is still incredibly difficult to establish many facts. One needs to read what "revisionist historians" have written, but while some of them have done masterful research work, they also often show poor judgement in weighing their new evidence.

In response to your two questions. I really do not have a grasp of Hitler's personality. For all that I have read about him, I do not feel that I know him. After the end of the war in Europe, there was a deliberate aim by the Allies (fostered by the Jews) to paint the Nazi regime as having been uniquely evil. I doubt that that can accurately be said of any person, regime or institution. Most people have learned a very skewed, selective and unbalanced version of the events of WWII, created by the Victors and promoted by the Jewish-controlled media (e.g. Hollywood).

Randolphonot sure why my name is so difficult to spell for so many people, could be they want to 'anglosize' me? I don't like the 'pseudo-greek' affectation of using "ph" for "f", if its so hard, just copy & paste.

I do not believe that Hitler ever made this remark about the Armenians, Randolpho. There are three contemporary records of the meeting at which it is said to have been uttered (one of them used as evidence at Nuremburg), none of which makes reference to any such remark.maybe, could be true. whether Hitler said it or not, both the Turks & Germans did the same, killed people in their way of their ideas of 'turkish nationality' or 'aryan superiority'

Most people have learned a very skewed, selective and unbalanced version of the events of WWII, created by the Victors and promoted by the Jewish-controlled media (e.g. Hollywood).so Hitler may have been a good guy, a misguided nationalist or poorly understood? as to the answer to the second question, I'm not sure you answered it, unless you are implying 2 things;
1) that the nazis were also misunderstood, &
2) that "jews" control the media?
how do you justify those points?

It is believed that it is a myth that Hitler made the quote about Armenians. It is the Armenian diaspora that has probably kept the myth alive.

In my opinion it is more significant that the quote is plausible than whether or not Hitler actually made the quote. Jews are not the only victims of genocide and Armenians should have recieved acknowledgement of their victimization the way the Jews did. The same kind of quote could have been attributed to Turkish leaders saying nobody cared that Belgian King Leopold killed a million people in the Congo so who would care about them killing the Armenians. Or the quote could have been attributed to King Leopold saying nobody cared about the Americans exterminating the native Americans so who would care about him killing a million Africans. It is politically correct to acknowledge the barbarity of what Hitler did to the Jews because Hitler lost his war against the nations that would dominate the spin bias in the telling of history.

I administer myself a sharp mental kick for mis-spelling your name, Randolfo. Apologies!

I don't think historians should concern themselves with whether people were good or evil. They should concern themselves with hard facts. I would like to understand Hitler better, not in order to pass judgement on him but in order to have a better grasp of his motives and actions, and thus have a better understanding of the history of WWII.

Although the Nuremburg Trials were concerned to a degree with the "administration of justice", they were mainly staged (like Soviet show trials) as a means of managing and creating the historical record. The aim was to create a picture favourable to the Allies: a history in which they were the "good guys". An impartial observer might have found the Soviet regime as obnoxious as the Nazis; might have found the indiscriminate bombing of German towns difficult to excuse; might have found postwar vengeance against the Germans distasteful. Hitler and the Nazis needed to be painted the blackest shade of black. Facts were of secondary importance. They might be invented or ignored, as required. The influence of the Nuremburg Trials and its associated history-creation has lingered unto the present day.

The Armenian quotation is an example of a “fact” being invented. (Not invented at Nuremburg, but revealed in The Times just as the Trials commenced.) At present, the history of WWII is full of such inventions and distortions. It is not a matter of Hitler or the Nazis being “misunderstood” – not more misunderstood than everything else at any rate. It is just so difficult to establish whether what one reads conforms to a reliable and balanced account of events. The best one can do is to detect likely falsehoods and discrepancies with other accounts. One goes to more sources; gropes with a greater accumulation of “facts” – many of which may be inaccurate or misleading. Slowly, one hopes one is getting a clearer picture. Never underestimate how many lies you have been told!

Jewish control of the media? Look here (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-controlledpress-folder.html), here (http://libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion03.html), here (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/jewishmedia_uk.shtml), here (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p14_Marchetti.html) and here (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/zionazis/DarkSecret.html).

You do know that "jew watch" is well-known as a racist website. It's blatantly nazi-istic.

And what is wrong with judaism? You seem to have a problem with it if you're making rants about "them" controlling the media.
(never thought I'd be defending Randolfo)

And on the subject of Randolfo:
Yes, I think the Ottomans kicked ass, on nearly all ways. They were a center of military strength, power, grace, learning, and had some of the greatest rulers ever seen upon this Earth.
As for my name: I just like the Austrian Habsburgs more than the Osmanli or the Hohenzollerns or Wettins, Hanoverians, or even the Stuarts.
As for the thing of "kicking ass being the only thing that counts". No, it's just what counts the most: what legacy you can establish that can outlast your empire. Or, in my words, how much you kick ass.

But, eh. RiverApe, it's my opinion that you have problems with judaism, and that insults me. Not because i'm jewish, because im not, but because i'm an advocate of equality. And discrimination is a clear breach of the basics of equal rights.

River Ape:
You seem to assume that everything you have been told is a lie, though. It may be unfair, but going by some of Lynn Picknett's other books [Templar conspiracies/ The Truth About Christianity etc] s/he has already built up the incredulity about anything they write. Richard Desmond is the only jewish newspaper proprietor in the UK, I think. It's been said that Rupert Murdoch's mother was a jew, on very dubious sites, but it looks as if she she stopped being one on her marriage, if she was at all. You omit the continuing xenophobia and antisemitism of the Rothermere/Harmsworth family.
Certainly some of the accusers at Nuremberg could be accused of war crimes. the fact that not every criminal can be caught and convicted doesn't mean we shouldn't try all those that we can.

Well, Hapsburg, I will readily admit that not only jewwatch but all the other sources I gave should be treated with suspicion. However, the evidence for the extent of Jewish control of the media is, I think, overwhelming. There may be individual cases in inaccuracy in the sources I gave to you, but I believe that the great majority of the claims are true -- and may easily be verified as accurate.

Instead of telling me that jewwatch is well known to be racist, why not tell me which of its facts are wrong? (A couple may be out-of-date.)

I am not certain whether you dispute the fact that Jews control much of the entertainment and news media -- or whether you just think that anyone who raises the matter "has a problem".

Thersites, you are quite right to tell me to beware of Lynn Picknett! I shall read her new book with the utmost skepticism. However, her team are great diggers up of information, some of it correct and verifiable. One can always make an effort to cross-check. The conclusions she draws are sometimes questionable, but one is free to exercise ones own judgement.

May I refer you to her book "Double Standards"? Take a look at chapters 12 and 13, which deal with the air crash in which the Duke of Kent was killed. It is historical detective work of the highest standard.

With regard to Rupert Murdoch, I was certainly under the impression that his mother was the Jewish multi-millionairess Dame Elisabeth Joy Green. He is a strong supporter of the Zionist cause. I am not sure when you last read something antisemitic in the Daily Mail or Evening Standard. However, in regard to Jewish control of the media, my answer is as before: there are numerous websites whose claims may be examined and considered. I do not wish to contribute a list of claims of my own.

Now, in fairness to Randolfo, has anyone anything more to say about the Armenians?

I love Jews. My first best friend was a Jew. I love debate. I have never found a sub group of Americans who shared my love of debate and were better at it than Suburban Boston Jews. I am surprised that Darwin wasn't a Jew. Einstein Freud and Marx and so many other thinkers who changed our world have been Jews. The Jewish over-achievement is incredibly impressive and If I were a Jew I would probably be proud of being Jewish and think Jews are superior because Jews have a track record that indicates that they may be superior. But...........

If no Jews lived in the USA American foreign policy would have been different. Jews have contributed to causing the USA to have a stupid Middle East policy for the last sixty years. If no Jews lived in the USA the media coverage of the Israel Palestine conflict would have clearly stated that the Palestinians are the by far the larger victims in that conflict. Jews do not control the Media but they have enough influence over the media to warp the coverage of the Palestine issue and make sure that the sentiments of my previous three sentences are not communicated by major media.


The Ottoman Empire was not good to minorities but they were probably better to minorities than most of the other empires of their time were. Christian non-Turks could hold high positions in the Ottoman empire. It was when the empire started to be carved up and was losing pieces of itself, when ethnic and religious nationalism were on the rise, and when the Christian West surpassed the Ottomans in power and began meddling in the Ottoman empires internal affairs, that the time came when the Ottoman empire started to brutalize it's minorities. This brutalization peaked in the Armenian Genocide. I believe that the Ottoman Empire had already ended and the republic of Turkey did the Armenian Genocide. The sentiments that created the willingness of the Turks to do the Armenian Genocide are still at work and are pushing the Turks to repress the Kurds. The Turks don't want to lose any more territory and therefore want everybody within their borders to become Turks or leave.

The question is whether the term "Armenian genocide" is accurate, whether it was a genocide in the way that Hitler's attempt tp destroy the jews and gypsies of Europe or Stalin's treatment of several small nations were genocides.
The Ottoman empire didn't treat christian subject races or jewsas badly as Europe treated minorities for most of its history, but that isn't saying much. They were very definitely second-class subjects just because they weren't muslims. Paradoxically christians couldn't threaten the emperor's power because they were christians, so they were used as viziers and advisers- and could be easily disposed of when things went wrong. Armenians, like jews, were allowed to prosper as merchants and every now and then they were plundered by the muslim mob- again, to distract attention from the emperor's power. All the way through the nineteenth century there were regular small-scale massacres of Armenians- many of them by Kurds, ironically now.
The events of 1915 were the last and worst of all these. Some Armenians allied with the Russians [who had a large Armenian population- present day Armenia is the Russian part of the Armenian ancestral lands] to revolt in an attempt to get independence; There was also the attempt to unite the empire by inventing a religious aspect to the war, which further alienated the Armenians and raised enmity to them. At best, the Turks tried to pacify and evacuate an enormous number of people and showed so little concern for the lives of civilians that an enormous number died; at worst, it was an attempt to wipe out an inconvenient people. There were probably enough turkish troops and soldiers who hated the Armenians enough and opportunist muslims to make a massacre inevitable, regardless of the actual intentions of the men who ordered and carried out the operation.
For a comparable situation and reaction, contrast what the Turks did there with the often-criticised British response to the 1916 rising in Dublin.

weren't the Janissarries originally christian prisoners, and were refaithed or just re-aligned in thier loyalty to the ottoman empire?
i read somewhere that they were. it was in my "special forces" book that i bought about a year ago.

The question is whether the term "Armenian genocide" is accurate, whether it was a genocide in the way that Hitler's attempt tp destroy the jews and gypsies of Europe or Stalin's treatment of several small nations were genocides..

I think Hitler thought the Jews were something like a cancer on humanity and he would be doing a good deed for the human species by removing the Jews from the gene pool. It's amazing and frightening to me that people followed and loved a madman like Hitler. Could Americans become as stupid and cruel as the Germans were?

I am comfortable calling any killing of one ethnic group by a different ethnic group a genocide if ten percent or more of the ethnic group was killed and over a million people were killed. The fact that the Turks were more interested in ethnic cleansing the Armenians than killing the Armenians does not matter much too me because the Armenians did die as a result of Turkish policy.

The Armenian Genocide reminds me of the Cherokee "Trail of Tears" because both people were marched to death with the actual deaths being caused by sickness and starvation rather than a gas chamber or bullet.


For a comparable situation and reaction, contrast what the Turks did there with the often-criticised British response to the 1916 rising in Dublin.

I understand that Ireland was forced to export food to England during the potato famine. That was earlier than 1916. I never heard about Dublin 1916. I think I will Google it.

I think Hitler thought the Jews were something like a cancer on humanity and he would be doing a good deed for the human species by removing the Jews from the gene pool. It's amazing and frightening to me that people followed and loved a madman like Hitler. Could Americans become as stupid and cruel as the Germans were?

yes.
ever heard of:
The Aryan Nations.
The Aryan Brotherhood.
the World Church of the Creator.
National Socialist American Worker's Party (Nazi Party of America)
Charles Manson and his "family"

all american neonazis or neonazi groups to some extent.

I think Hitler thought the Jews were something like a cancer on humanity and he would be doing a good deed for the human species by removing the Jews from the gene pool. It's amazing and frightening to me that people followed and loved a madman like Hitler. Could Americans become as stupid and cruel as the Germans were?


Do you realise that hitler not only planned to kill the jews?

I think Hitler thought the Jews were something like a cancer on humanity and he would be doing a good deed for the human species by removing the Jews from the gene pool.
Interestingly, there were also Jews who held a similar opinion about the Germans. Among these was Theodore J Kaufman, whose book Germany Must Perish! was published in the US in 1941. (Google it!)

Of course, a good chunk of the Old Testament is a record of Jewish extermination of their enemies: man, woman and child. The Amalekites, Canaanites, Mideanites, Philistines, Edomites, etc.


Could Americans become as stupid and cruel as the Germans were?
Did you never hear the expression "The only good injun is a dead injun"?

Genocide is part of the evolutionary story. The best policy is to make sure it does not happen to ones own tribe or race.

weren't the Janissarries originally christian prisoners, and were refaithed or just re-aligned in thier loyalty to the ottoman empire?
i read somewhere that they were. it was in my "special forces" book that i bought about a year ago.

Every year (or was it every five years?) several thousand christian children from the balkans were taken from thier families to serve as slaves in different capacities in the ottoman empire. Some who showed aptitude were sent to be trained as administrators most were sent to be trained to fill the ranks of the jannisery corps. The fact that your families life hangs upon your actions can be a real motivator.

weren't the Janissarries originally christian prisoners, and were refaithed or just re-aligned in thier loyalty to the ottoman empire?
i read somewhere that they were. it was in my "special forces" book that i bough about a year ago.almost right, the closest thing you could call it was a "child tax", every year, Turkish officials would go to christian villages & take a few under 5 y.o.'s from each. they would school them to be more turkish than the turks; training in religion, culture, war. they were used as the main shock troops (& how could christians revolt, knowing that the first troops in to crush them, would be their own sons? very psychological), this system served the turkish empire well, until the Jannisaries became too set in their ways, & did not moderize with the rest of Europe.

The question is whether the term "Armenian genocide" is accurate,how so? 1.5 mill dead, thats got to be a lot of hatred


The events of 1915 were the last and worst of all these. Some Armenians allied with the Russians [who had a large Armenian population- present day Armenia is the Russian part of the Armenian ancestral lands] to revolt in an attempt to get independence; to me, the most curious thing about the whole episode, was that the Turks & Armenians didn't do a population swap, as the Turks did with the Greeks & Bulgarians. Maybe there wasn't enough turks in the eastern hinderlands, to vouch for their safety, so they killed the Armenians, since there were no turks there to be massacred in return? or turks were unwilling to give up Cilicia & Caucasus


At best, the Turks tried to pacify and evacuate an enormous number of people and showed so little concern for the lives of civilians that an enormous number died; at worst, it was an attempt to wipe out an inconvenient people.the US did something similar during the Depression & to break a strike at Phelps Dodge
see below:


http://digital.library.arizona.edu/bisbee/main/history.php
The Bisbee Deportation was still fresh in Fred Watson's mind when interviewed 60 years later. This is not surprising, because on July 12, 1917, Watson and 1,185 other men were herded into filthy boxcars by an armed vigilante force in Bisbee, Arizona, and abandoned across the New Mexico border.


http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6549
The reason for the demise of the Mexican community in Detroit and in cities across the nation was a little-reported, guileful, organized government campaign. The effort deprived thousands of Mexicans — most of whom were in the United States legally, many of whom were actually American citizens — of their basic civil liberties. They were sent packing back to Mexico as the United States confronted the economic horrors of the Great Depression.

how so? 1.5 mill dead, thats got to be a lot of hatred No. It's a lot of bodies [and most estimates are for fewer dead}, but genocide usually means intentional and deliberate murder. The way things were then it could have been the result of incompetence, brutality and carelessness.


to me, the most curious thing about the whole episode, was that the Turks & Armenians didn't do a population swap, as the Turks did with the Greeks & Bulgarians. Maybe there wasn't enough turks in the eastern hinderlands, to vouch for their safety, so they killed the Armenians, since there were no turks there to be massacred in return? or turks were unwilling to give up Cilicia & Caucasus Population exchanges took place at the end of wars: this was in the middle of a war. Armenians had revolted [or were alleged to have revolted] in support of neighbouring Russia [that's why i compared it with Dublin 1916]. The Turks certainly weren't going to let the Russians take over strategically vital territory, nor could they leave a hostile population there at that time.


the US did something similar during the Depression & to break a strike at Phelps Dodge

Not very similar: the sheer number involved makes a big difference. One of the few intelligent and logical things Marx said was "Quantity becomes quality."

I understand that Ireland was forced to export food to England during the potato famine. That was earlier than 1916. I never heard about Dublin 1916. I think I will Google it.
Late 1840s. The British government didn't force Ireland to export food. At the time they were great believers in the market economy and free trade. The west of Ireland was densely populated by peasants living on an almost entirely potato-based subsistence diet. Parts of eastern Ireland raised cattle and some wheat- nothing like enough to feed the west. However, like most subsistence economies, the west of Ireland did not have much money so it made much better economic sense for areas outside the famine to continue exporting to England.
It was literally GBplc. then. Entry on the electoral roll was based on owning land worth a certain value or having a lease on land worth rather more- investing in the country. The theory was that if you had no permanent stake in the country you had no interest in the future of the country because you had no property except your skills and your strength and could just take them somewhere else if things went wrong.

For all that Ireland had become part of the Union (the British Kingdom) in 1801, it was a classic case of a colonial possession paying tribute (in the proper and original sense of the word**) to the imperial overlord. In this case, most of the tribute was exacted in the form of rent gathered from poor farmers. The element unusal to Ireland was the hazardous dependence on the potato crop.

Had the crop failed for a single year (1845), history would have recorded that the actions of the colonial masters were admirable (as these things go). Thousands of tons of grain were purchased from the US and shipped to Ireland and other relief measures were put in place. Despite the depleted potato harvest, a full planting of the crop was made again. Thus, the time-old danger of "eating the seed-corn" was apparently averted.

Good and bad harvests were associated from time immemorial with "good and bad seasons" - i.e. the weather. The recurrence of a crop failure due to blight (the fungus Phytophthera infestans) does not seem to have foreseen.

It was the repeated blighting of the crop that brought about hopelessness, despair, and a downward spiral of degradation and death. The will to help Ireland was crippled by the sense that she was a helpless case. The only solution seemed to lie in emigration. Ships were chartered, and grants of land were made in Canada. (In recent years, historians have examined the actual port records and have cast doubt on the traditional belief that there was a net export of grain in even the worst years of the blight.)

Ireland would almost certainly have been a happier land as an independent country. But whether the tragedy caused by the potato blight would have been any less is open to doubt. Indeed, an England that was a foreign country might have resisted the immigation of the hundreds of thousands of Irish who saved themselves by a passage across the Irish Sea.

**A payment or tax given by a feudal vassal to an overlord.

Sorry, Randolfo . . . now back to Armenia!

There was no such thing as an Armenian Genocide. Let me explain you very briefly what happened:

During the first world war when all the countries were getting there independence from the Ottoman Turks some Armenians also wanted independence. The Russians told them that they would help them for this cause if the Armenians would fight the Turks. So, some Armenians started to fight against the Turks. But the problem was that the Turks couldn't tell which Armenains were against them and which were not. So, Istanbul decided to move the Armenians to Syria where they could not join forces with the Russians and couldnt cause any problem anymore. Many Armenisans died due to diseases and difficult conditions during this movement. There was no such thing as a systematic killing of all the Armenians. If that would have been the case they would have killed first the high-level Armenian officials in Istanbul in those days.


Recent News:

Ottoman Archieves Opened for Historians

Prime Ministry State Archives Director General Yusuf Sarinay said that there were tens of thousands of documents in Turkish State Archives refuting the Armenian allegations.Holding a news conference, Sarinay said, ''Armenians have been making propaganda against Turkey for a long time. There are more than 1 million documents related with Armenians directly and indirectly in our archives from 1870s to 1922. These documents are waiting for a scientific examination.''

''When we read those documents, we see that the Ottoman Empire decided to relocate Armenians to suppress a de facto uprising and put an end to Armenian's collaboration of Russian army, not to prevent a likely rebellion” he said. Noting that the allegations of so-called Armenian genocide were based on subjective works and evaluations like memories instead of scientific documents, Sarinay said, ''there are tens of thousands of documents in our archives refuting these allegations. Our basic target is that the history should be written objectively. Therefore, we have opened our archives to all scientists.''

''Armenians created an imaginary history. The Republic of Turkey remained silent against their allegations till 1990s in order to prevent revival of past hatred, however, its silence did not resolve the issue. On the contrary, this silence was wrongly perceived as a sign of its being guilty,'' he said. Sarinay kept on saying, ''when we examine these documents as a whole, it is evident that the decision of the Ottoman Empire to relocate Armenians was totally legal. The Ottoman Empire had also made some arrangements about properties of Armenians, and adopted a law about return of these properties to Armenian people when they returned. The Ottoman Empire had never targeted a genocide. It had made such an temporary decision on political and military grounds. Western historians and Armenian diaspora ignore these documents to preserve their imaginary history.''

''There were many high-level Armenian officials in Istanbul in those days. If the Ottoman Empire had intended a genocide, it would have killed those officials first. The Ottoman Empire had sent notes to Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland in 1919, which had not been involved in the World War I, to send jurists. If they had sent jurists to Turkey, all those allegations would have been buried in the history,'' he stressed.

''Once again, we call on Directorate General of Armenian State Archives to pave the way for scientific studies. Also, archives of the American diaspora in the United States should be opened,'' he said.Upon a question, Sarinay told reporters, ''according to the latest population census in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians had a population of 1 million 161 thousand. Sources say that nearly 400 thousand Armenians had left for Russia, and 450-750 thousand Armenians had been subject of the relocation. However, warfare and epidemics made it impossible to clarify all these figures.

''Turkish Prime Minister tayyip Erdogan and Turkish opposition leader Deniz Baykal had called the Armenian side to open their archives. Erdogan said Turkish archives were open to all, and Turkey expected the same from the Armenians and all related states. The Armenian Tashnak Archives are closed to researchers. The Armenian politicians argue that there is nothing to be discussed or researched because all of the reality is clear. Armenian Foreign Minister Vaskan Oskanyan said "the problem is not a matter of science but politics. Historians has nothing to discuss."
JTW News desk. Compiled from Anatolian news agency and other nes sources.

There was no such thing as an Armenian Genocide. Let me explain you very briefly what happened:

During the first world war when all the countries were getting there independence from the Ottoman Turks some Armenians also wanted independence. The Russians told them that they would help them for this cause if the Armenians would fight the Turks. So, some Armenians started to fight against the Turks. But the problem was that the Turks couldn't tell which Armenains were against them and which were not. So, Istanbul decided to move the Armenians to Syria where they could not join forces with the Russians and couldnt cause any problem anymore. Many Armenisans died due to diseases and difficult conditions during this movement. There was no such thing as a systematic killing of all the Armenians. If that would have been the case they would have killed first the high-level Armenian officials in Istanbul in those days.
In short, gross incompetence and stupidity. You forget to mention the long history of government-approved attacks on Armenians which inspired the Armenians to revolt and the attacks, looting and killing by other tribes on the way through though.

Yeah the Ottoman Empire had no other problem but the Armenians. They were thinking about the Armenains day and night :D
The Ottomans had so much more bigger problems they really did not care about the few Armenians and tought about systematically destroying them.

Yeah the Ottoman Empire had no other problem but the Armenians. They were thinking about the Armenains day and night :-D actually it had many, but if they had lost any territory with an Armenian majority, they would have lost the connection with the Turks & Turic peoples of the steppes, from the Caucasus Mts to Cilicia would have wedged the Turks onto eastern Anatolia & Thrace. & you're being disingenuous, since you probably already know this, but won't give it up, for fear of people knowing your motivations

The Ottomans had so much more bigger problems they really did not care about the few Armenians and tought about systematically destroying them.few? nice to know how you feel about a few Armenian deaths, lets see, if 1.5 million died because of the genocide, that must have been all of the "few", right?

i have a feeling just an odd feeling, wildblue, u like system of a down. correct me if im wrong
I'm too old to listen to it regularly, I like a little, (yep, an Armenian band). I prefer classical guitar & anything from Mozart & the Killer B's (Bach, Beethoven & Brahms)

Armenia was the first nation to declare Christianity as its official religion. This probably makes it stand out like a red flag in the Moslem world.

One thing you must understand is, that during the fall of the Ottoman Empire, they were engaged in several wars and were being spread out. The Armenian-Turk conflict was most definitely a mutual conflict. Yes there were eyewitness accounts of Turkish brutalities, but there are also eyewitness accounts of Armenian brutalities in the rural regions of turkey. It was a civil war, and the deaths were going to happen, no matter what. Recently British archeologists discovered mass graves with Turkish bodies in Armenia. The problem is, the Ottoman Empire as well as the modern Republic of Turkey have for a long time been viewed as villains, the country that people love to hate. There is still a lot of racism towards Turks today. If you want an example, travel to Berlin or Greece, or watch the French reaction to Turkish ascension into the EU. The reason why the Armenian Genocide hasn’t been well published is because there is little firm evidence of an actual genocide occurring. Yes there was killing of civilians, but it was mutual. And how often do you have a war where civilians were left unarmed. And as far as Ottoman documents ordering the attacks on Armenians...Look at the bombing of Hiroshima, the bombing of Dresden, the march to the Atlantic, look at the targeting of civilian targets in any war...it's a common (unfortunate) strategy of war.

If you look at Ottoman History, you'll find that as far an empire goes, they were one of the most progressive empires in history. In comparison to their European competitors, slaves could rise to high paying offices. Conquered countries were allowed to retain their own religion (Need an Example? The Greek Orthodox is still based out of Istanbul (Constantinople). They were also a longstanding safe haven for Jews facing prosecution in Europe.

In fear of being redundant, I'll just sum up what I'm trying to say.

There are Mass Graves in Armenia that contain Turkish bodies.
Little Evidence exists of a true "genocide" happening.
It was a civil war, and in war (unfortunately), civilian casualties happen.

I'm not justifying the killing of Armenians (or Turks) by saying it was a war. I'm just saying that it was a mutual campaign of bloodshed, and was part of a dark time in world history, for everyone.

It was a civil war, and the deaths were going to happen, no matter what. Recently British archeologists discovered mass graves with Turkish bodies in Armenia. I like to google facts, when they are interesting or like yours, hard to believe.

could you post some links or URL's because this:
"turkish graves" Armenia

did not un-earth your 'facts'

why is that?

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/subatan.html

http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Turkish_History_Institution_Presid ent-_Armenians_Committed_Genocide

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/04/28/2003252380

Also, check out readings by UCLA Prof Stanford Shaw and Princeton Prof Bernard Lewis- B. Lewis's house was actually bombed for saying that the genocide was not actually a true genocide by extremist Armenians.

Most Archaeological Circulars are not online. I read about the excavations in a few journals.

I found those by searching under the criteria you set.

The problem with googling facts is that google is not a very valid source of information. That’s why when writing papers, a googled piece of evidence is not an acceptable source, because anybody can go on there and write false facts about anything. And most valid academic resources are not online...not many sites have the full transcript of lord Byrons "The Corsair"...thank you NPR online! Hell, you can find "evidence" of the 9/11 attacks being done by the US government, which we all know is ridiculous.

But, you asked for links, and there you go. This was a pretty haphazard search too, because who can genuinely say they are going to fully research a topic for a mere online forum. Maybe for a senior thesis, but for "sciforums"...not so much

We keep throwing around the term "genocide" with no clear, concise definition. This is what the Geneva Convention of 1948 defines Genocide as:

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.

The atrocities committed in Anatolia and Armenia cannot be considered genocide because the Ottoman aim was not to destroy the Armenian race. The Ottomans had no intention of getting rid of them entirely, just controlling them during a time of crisis. It was a civil war, amongst many rebellions against the weak Ottoman Empire. When the orders came to attack villages, it was not to destroy the race, but to scare the other rebelling villages into submission and to deter other villages from joining such a revolution. Stalin’s purges were not to destroy the Russian race, but to scare the people into submission. The mass removal from Armenia and northern Anatolia was to divide the Armenian people, which would divide the strength of their insurrection. Suppressing the revolution was vital for them, because of the other serious problems. not only coming out a series of lost wars, there was British naval pressure from the west, the growing Arab insurrection in the south, the Russian pressure from the north (which was also funding and supporting the Armenian revolution) as well as the turbulent times occurring within turkey it’s self (The Young Turks usurping control from the sultanate, which many of the Turkish citizens them selves were politically divided). I think the Turkish government should apologize for the acts of supression, and most certainly offer repirmands, but we shoulding throw the term genocide around so frivolously.

I second Jeff. His reply was very parallel to what I knew about that time of history in Anatolia. Ottomans, who were in their worst time of their Empire, during the WW I, after loosing much of their lands but the motherland had troubles with many other enemies. There were many other civilian rebellions following previous Arabian and Greek rebellions, balkanian revolts and Young Turks were among these. The problem with Armenians caused more by logistics, they were asked to move south in a terrible winter condition. Many of the civilians died during their journeys. They were forced to do it immediately due to their revolts during the Russian attacks from north Anatolia.
I've investigated the websites Overdose linked in his/her reply. A few of you were asking about the other side of the story, the opinions of turksih side. Well I believe he is Turkish, and he has stronger facts about the incident than Armenian side. I've also recently heard about the problems of opening files on Armenian Government myself. If it's all politics and not history as Armenian minister say, well my friend, it's "poli-tic".. A word from Ancient Greek meant to reason lies and traversy going on in the "democratic" senates in a polite way.

bogus,
that site is magic, fantasy stuff, we're talking about real people, real history here

real history? then let the historians decide if there really was so called "armenian genocide'
national archives are open to the world to search. why armenian gov't refusing to discuss it and open its own archives. because they are liars.
historicals facts should be the job of the historians and politicians.
anyone who claims that there was a so called"armenian genocide" should ask first: why armenian gov't refusing Turkey's offer to open archives and discuss it in front of international historians?

historicals facts should be the job of the historians and politicians.

correction: historicals facts should be the job of the historians NOT politicians.

Well, with Armenians everywhere going into murderous revolt with the aim of subjugating all other peoples, of enslaving their neighbors, then I wonder that they are so surprised that the other people behave defensively.

History shows that Larger Political Jursidictions are more Peaceful and Prosperous than separate smaller states, that historically become centers of War and Poverty.

So in the interests of Civilization, small Ethnic Rebellions really need to be put down. If their particular Traditions and Culture are so Violent and Vindictive, then their absence from the Global Political Mix will hardly be missed or lamented.

Babylon, though, had a unique and creative way of handling Rebellious Minority Ethnic Groups. They would move them off their land and Colonize them somewhere else. There would no longer be any "my land this" or "my land that". Well, it did not always work. The Jews, settled in Babylon to pacify them, well, they opened the City Gates to the Persians.

Perhaps Ghenghis Khan had it right. Kill em all, and colonize the land with your own people, or at least people who are grateful to the concerns of the Larger Political Jurisdiction.

it might seem like a Paradox but it IS true, that if you kill all the War Mongering Rebells, you really will have Peace.

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/subatan.html
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Turkish_History_Institution_Presid ent-_Armenians_Committed_Genocide
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/04/28/2003252380 Burak Gursel
Representative of the Turkish Trade Office in Taipei
3 turkish links? all sourced to turks?

Also, check out readings by UCLA Prof Stanford Shaw and Princeton Prof Bernard Lewis- B. Lewis's house was actually bombed for saying that the genocide was not actually a true genocide by extremist Armenians.
Being on the outs with extremists does not make you right nor your point correct, just that Lewis & Shaw hold a diff pov

I found those by searching under the criteria you set.your funny, LCD may work for TV, but I was hoping for BBC, PBS, NYT, Archeology, you know, a more credible source


But, you asked for links, and there you go. This was a pretty haphazard search too, because who can genuinely say they are going to fully research a topic for a mere online forum. Maybe for a senior thesis, but for "sciforums"...not so muchwhy not for sciforums? Is the standard of truth less for an anonymous site, we are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, put your wares out on the table for all to see, taste, smell, buy or put back

Since this thread is apparently still alive, I took the liberty to clean up the bickering, off-topic, and frivolous posts.

3 turkish links? all sourced to turks?

Being on the outs with extremists does not make you right nor your point correct, just that Lewis & Shaw hold a diff pov
your funny, LCD may work for TV, but I was hoping for BBC, PBS, NYT, Archeology, you know, a more credible source

why not for sciforums? Is the standard of truth less for an anonymous site, we are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, put your wares out on the table for all to see, taste, smell, buy or put back

Turkish government has opened its archives to find out about the truth. Still, armenian gov't refusing to open its archives. Are they afraid of something called truth??
Armenian diaspora, perhaps , should ask armenian government why they refuse to cooperate.
After all, archives will be examined before an international commitee of historians.
And so called armenian genocide is a matter of history, not politics.
Turkish archives show that numbers of the victims vastly exagrated , and armenian gangs, who sided with russia, were killing turkish civilians.
Meanwhile, there were many top armenian official at ottoman government. Strange that there were not harmed??
Anyway, the best way to find about the truth to get armenian government to open its national archives.

Please don't type in all-caps. Particularly if you want someone to actually read your post.

Please don't type in all-caps. Particularly if you want someone to actually read your post.

ok skinwalker, will do

TURKISH GOVERNMENT HAS OPENED ITS ARCHIVES TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE TRUTH. STILL, ARMENIAN GOV'T REFUSING TO OPEN ITS ARCHIVES. ARE THEY AFRAID OF SOMETHING CALLED TRUTH??

btw, writing in all caps is seen as "shouting" on the internet, bad form, why are you so angry? if all you said was true, no one would have shot Hrant Dink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6279241.stm

what?
ive just never heard of the armenian genocide...
no-one's ever told me about it.
what was it?

1915, Hapsburg: after the British invaded the Dardanelles, the Turkish government accused the Cristian Armenians of being a fifth column (or potential thereof) for the Allied forces. They used that excuse to attack them and try to exterminate them. 1.5 million Armenians were slain.

btw, writing in all caps is seen as "shouting" on the internet, bad form, why are you so angry? if all you said was true, no one would have shot Hrant Dink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6279241.stm

jjust be brave and answer my question
Why the armenian gov't refuse to open its national archives before international committee of historians. Why you so afraid?
Let both sides can accept the outcome, whatever it is
but again, being armenian or armenian tool you are, you may continue to hide
best regards

during the war, if any ethnic group helps the enemy, then there are treated as enemy. armenians should have calculated this fact and not sided with Russians. they made the choice but could not learn how to live with it.
suck it up armenians. you helped Russians, and got what you deserve.
By the way, how wildblueyonder explains, during so called genocide, there were still armenian officials in the government, and most of the civilians send to Syria and Iran. only armenian gangs who fight agains turkish forces killed.
it is easy to corrupt historical facts.
Open your national archives, until then just shut up and suck it ip

during the war, if any ethnic group helps the enemy, then there are treated as enemy.

Are you implying that this practice is right and should be condoned?


armenians should have calculated this fact and not sided with Russians.

It looks like you're saying there wasn't a genocide, but because they sided with the "wrong side" (whatever that really means in any conflict) they deserved the genocide they didn't get. Am I reading this correctly?


suck it up armenians. you helped Russians, and got what you deserve.

Even the children? Even all the Armenians that didn't understand what the conflict was about or what was about to occur? I'm not sure your intolerance of humanity and open racism will allow you much more latitude in this forum. Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but there's no soap box available for racists in this forum. I suggest you start a blog somewhere if you want a soapbox, but curb the racist garbage.

same mumbo jumbo, different name
once, just once answer my questions regarding WHY armenian counterpart is refusing, for years, opening its national archives...
if you cant handle what i say, not how I say it, may be it is you who should go somewhere
also Turks did not kill children, get your facts straight, and Turks are not trying to justfy what happened to Armenians
yes, terrible things happened to Armenian nation in 1915, it is a fact
but naming those events "genocide" is different story
why nobody talks about armenian gangs' slaughter towards Turkish villagers?
how about ASALA, armenian terrorist organization, who killed dozens of Turkish diplomats around the world?
i bet you dont even know anything about it. you only know what armenian diaspora wants you to know
please answer the questions above if you want to be taken seriously


It looks like you're saying there wasn't a genocide, but because they sided with the "wrong side" (whatever that really means in any conflict) they deserved the genocide they didn't get. Am I reading this correctly?



Even the children? Even all the Armenians that didn't understand what the conflict was about or what was about to occur? I'm not sure your intolerance of humanity and open racism will allow you much more latitude in this forum. Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but there's no soap box available for racists in this forum. I suggest you start a blog somewhere if you want a soapbox, but curb the racist garbage.[/QUOTE]

I really don't know much about the Armenian Genocide (or if there ever was one). I never studied or read it and only heard reference to it in passing on a couple of occasions. To be quite honest, I never dwelled on it since genocides have occurred throughout history and it seems more important to focus on modern genocides and near-genocides in places like Bosnia and Dafour.

So, with regard to your insistence that I answer your questions, I really cannot. I'm wholly ignorant on the subject.

A subject, however, that I'm quite familiar with is that of intolerance and racism, a few of the hallmarks of which are apparent in your rants here. You said "Armenians got what they deserved." At the very least, there's a lot of hatred there which serves the good of no one, least of all your own cause (whatever it might be). At most, it implies that you have a disregard for an entire society based solely on their misfortune to be born Armenian. A bigoted and racist position to be sure.

My suggestion is this: leave the hatred and emotion out of your posts, for instance the accusation that another member is a "tool" of Armenians ignores the hypothesis that said member is perhaps simply ignorant of the details -again, a position that will not help your cause (whatever it might be).

Education is what's important here, not your hatred, emotions, or cause. With education comes facts. With facts comes the potential for falsification. With that potential, necessarily, comes citations to sources. You'll have a better chance of convincing others of your opinion if it at least has the appearance of being unbiased and objective.

If this is something you're incapable of, I'll not allow the thread to continue.

I really don't know much about the Armenian Genocide (or if there ever was one). I never studied or read it and only heard reference to it in passing on a couple of occasions. To be quite honest, I never dwelled on it since genocides have occurred throughout history and it seems more important to focus on modern genocides and near-genocides in places like Bosnia and Dafour.

So, with regard to your insistence that I answer your questions, I really cannot. I'm wholly ignorant on the subject.

A subject, however, that I'm quite familiar with is that of intolerance and racism, a few of the hallmarks of which are apparent in your rants here. You said "Armenians got what they deserved." At the very least, there's a lot of hatred there which serves the good of no one, least of all your own cause (whatever it might be). At most, it implies that you have a disregard for an entire society based solely on their misfortune to be born Armenian. A bigoted and racist position to be sure.

My suggestion is this: leave the hatred and emotion out of your posts, for instance the accusation that another member is a "tool" of Armenians ignores the hypothesis that said member is perhaps simply ignorant of the details -again, a position that will not help your cause (whatever it might be).

Education is what's important here, not your hatred, emotions, or cause. With education comes facts. With facts comes the potential for falsification. With that potential, necessarily, comes citations to sources. You'll have a better chance of convincing others of your opinion if it at least has the appearance of being unbiased and objective.

If this is something you're incapable of, I'll not allow the thread to continue.

my friend Skinwalker
i am also against hatred, and violence.it doenst matter who commits against who, regardless of ethnic origin or religion
my offer to you is please inform yourself about a subject before making comment about it. you must be educated man so you know "one cannot have an opinion without knowledge"
maybe you should read both side of the medallion before making your final decisions.
even the hard core criminals have right to tell their own side of story.
my question to you is have you read Turkish side of the story?
that is why Turkish gov't asks over and over again to Armenian gov't to open its national archives so everyone in the world can find out what really happened. however, this invitation has been refused by Armenian side so far, and all they do is lobbying and making other countries to accept their claims without looking at the historical facts.
my reason of being upset is not because I hate Armenians, on the contrary, i have armenian friends. it is because armenian diaspora in a historic mission to brainwash others to make them accept their false claims
what Turkish gov't say is simple: both countries will open its archives before international committee of historians NOT politicians, and we will both accept the outcome. why afraid???
I am sorry for the events that took place in 1915, however calling it "genocide" is the job of historians. and the only link i have to support is in Turkish, i will give it anyway. http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/
best regards

A subject, however, that I'm quite familiar with is that of intolerance and racism, a few of the hallmarks of which are apparent in your rants here. You said "Armenians got what they deserved." At the very least, there's a lot of hatred there which serves the good of no one, least of all your own cause (whatever it might be). At most, it implies that you have a disregard for an entire society based solely on their misfortune to be born Armenian. A bigoted and racist position to be sure.

that wasnt what i mean, and i agree

what Turkish gov't asks from Armenian gov't is to from an international comission to investigate the events of 1915, and we will accept the outcome
it is that simple.[/B]
If this is something you're incapable of, I'll not allow the thread to continue

jjust be brave and answer my question
Why the armenian gov't refuse to open its national archives before international committee of historians. Why you so afraid?
Let both sides can accept the outcome, whatever it is
but again, being armenian or armenian tool you are, you may continue to hide
best regards

Hello, Aziz. You may have made a mistake by posting.


during the war, if any ethnic group helps the enemy, then there are treated as enemy. armenians should have calculated this fact and not sided with Russians. they made the choice but could not learn how to live with it.
suck it up armenians. you helped Russians, and got what you deserve.

I see. So the Turkish view is then that genocide is a-ok, because the Armenian minority "sided with the Russians". Killing civilians is all right, because they were on the wrong side. I see.


By the way, how wildblueyonder explains, during so called genocide, there were still armenian officials in the government, and most of the civilians send to Syria and Iran. only armenian gangs who fight agains turkish forces killed.

And hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Unless you think that women and children constitute a gang? They were "send to Syria"? Of course they were. Just like Jewish people were "send to Russia" by the Nazis. Is there a connection between your bigoted worldview and "Mein Kampf" being a Turkish bestseller?


it is easy to corrupt historical facts.
Open your national archives, until then just shut up and suck it ip

Funnily enough, Europe and the US have investigated the matter and have decided that there was indeed a massacre.

Turkey in the EU? Oops. That little genocide thing is kind of an albatross, don't you think?

Geoff

Hello, Aziz. You may have made a mistake by posting.



I see. So the Turkish view is then that genocide is a-ok, because the Armenian minority "sided with the Russians". Killing civilians is all right, because they were on the wrong side. I see.



And hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Unless you think that women and children constitute a gang? They were "send to Syria"? Of course they were. Just like Jewish people were "send to Russia" by the Nazis. Is there a connection between your bigoted worldview and "Mein Kampf" being a Turkish bestseller?



Funnily enough, Europe and the US have investigated the matter and have decided that there was indeed a massacre.

Turkey in the EU? Oops. That little genocide thing is kind of an albatross, don't you think?

Geoff

again, Geoff, you are not reading right
when armenians sided with russians, they got what they deserved
did i say turks killed civilians??
do not put words to my mouth. or you just believe what you wanna believe
turks fought against armenian gangs, who also killed turkish civilians
and why everyone of you, who respond to me, avoid to answer my questions?
it is armenians who hate turks not the other way around
once i was at school, i met ana armenian girl and armenian guy on different occasions.
we were talking this and that, not even a political issue
once they learned that i am turkish, they left the able without saying a word
who hates who?
turks want from armenian gov't to open its archives before international committee
that's all
and before responding to any of my posts, please answer some questions I asked above and before
but no one seems to be doing so

again, Geoff, you are not reading right
when armenians sided with russians, they got what they deserved
did i say turks killed civilians??
do not put words to my mouth. or you just believe what you wanna believe
turks fought against armenian gangs, who also killed turkish civilians
and why everyone of you, who respond to me, avoid to answer my questions?
it is armenians who hate turks not the other way around
once i was at school, i met ana armenian girl and armenian guy on different occasions.
we were talking this and that, not even a political issue
once they learned that i am turkish, they left the able without saying a word
who hates who?
turks want from armenian gov't to open its archives before international committee
that's all
and before responding to any of my posts, please answer some questions I asked above and before
but no one seems to be doing so

you are a bigot yourself, moron
read both side of the story to make your final conclusions
i dont care about what US thinks, we know armenian diaspora working hard over there
why dont you ask your armenian friends why they refuse to share their national archives with the world.
if they are right, they should cooperate
but you and you armenian friends biggest bigots,

Aziz-boy! Nice to see you back. Time for some medicine.


again, Geoff, you are not reading right
when armenians sided with russians, they got what they deserved
did i say turks killed civilians??

You don't have to. History already does that, little fellow.


do not put words to my mouth. or you just believe what you wanna believe
turks fought against armenian gangs, who also killed turkish civilians
and why everyone of you, who respond to me, avoid to answer my questions?

If questions you had, answer could I make, if these questions I could see, there Yoda.


it is armenians who hate turks

Gee whiz, with all the genocide and all, it's really hard to imagine why any Armenian would hate a Turk. I mean, what's two million people, really?

:shrug:


once i was at school, i met ana armenian girl and armenian guy on different occasions.
we were talking this and that, not even a political issue
once they learned that i am turkish, they left the able without saying a word
who hates who?

Ah, they might hate you, because your people murdered millions of theirs, and also because the fact that you're a Turk means you might believe some lunatic theory about the Armenian Holocaust that you were spoon-fed by the pack of drooling, inbred idiots that form your government: like that the Armenians started the whole business or something, or - even if they did start something - that that would somehow justify the mass-murder of millions of innocents. Things like that.

So who really hates who? Hmm. A poser.


turks want from armenian gov't to open its archives before international committee
that's all

How Armenian government going to have archives open to, when Armenian government not exist at time! How open going to? Armenia exist not as independent state before 1918! How archives have? What archives these? Too, what open archive difference make, when Armenians all second-class citizens because of dhimmitude by inbred Turks? How that help?


and before responding to any of my posts, please answer some questions I asked above and before
but no one seems to be doing so

Questions which? Archives what? Sense you no make.

Geoff

you are a bigot yourself, moron

Is which? Geoff not understand.


read both side of the story to make your final conclusions

Read have, both sides. Aggressive comments by dimwitted Turkish ministers no satisfactory Geoff feel. Aggressive, ad hominem comments by dimwitted Turkish civilians also no satisfactory.


i dont care about what US thinks, we know armenian diaspora working hard over there
why dont you ask your armenian friends why they refuse to share their national archives with the world.
if they are right, they should cooperate
but you and you armenian friends biggest bigots,

Yes - I who believe genocide wrong biggest bigot.

Is "Throw Jew Down Well Day" in Turkistan yet? Oh joyfullness!

Make for cultural understanding,

Geoff

The Ottoman empire didn't treat Christian subject races or Jews as badly as Europe treated minorities for most of its history, but that isn't saying much.Yes, it's often said by scholars that Jews were generally treated better in Muslim lands than in Christian lands. That has only changed recently, and I suspect that it's just backlash against the way the State of Israel was created.
Turkey in the EU? Oops. That little genocide thing is kind of an albatross, don't you think?Not just the genocide itself, but the entire issue. In Turkey it's illegal to even call it genocide. People have been prosecuted for simply speaking about it. They want it to be forgotten. It is indeed an embarrassment, but they're too consumed by their sense of "honor" to apologize.

Is which? Geoff not understand.



Read have, both sides. Aggressive comments by dimwitted Turkish ministers no satisfactory Geoff feel. Aggressive, ad hominem comments by dimwitted Turkish civilians also no satisfactory.



Yes - I who believe genocide wrong biggest bigot.

Is "Throw Jew Down Well Day" in Turkistan yet? Oh joyfullness!

Make for cultural understanding,

Geoff

all that mumbo jumbo, and any of you still did not have any answer yet
may be you guys dont have the guts
for the last time
WHY armenian gov't still refusing to open its national archives before international committee of historians. Turkish gov't had opened them.
if armenians right about their claims, bring it on, you cowards

I have no dog in this hunt, since I give two shits about either Armenia or Turkey as modern nations. But if the "coward" comment was directed at the forum in general, I resent it and I'm offended by it.

Because of that, I ask you this: what evidence do you have that the Armenian government has documents that tell a different story? What evidence exists that documents a different story outside of the Armenian government's alleged documentation?

Cite your sources or STFU. I don't mean to be blunt, but you really are beginning to sound like UFO/Alien nutters that go on and on about how this government or that has documented proof of alien visitation and, because they don't allow 100% of their archives to be scrutinized, this evidence that they're hiding something.

No shit. Governments hide things. It just isn't evidence that they're hiding what's relevant to you or the UFO nutters.

Rather than sound like a kook, my recommendation is that you cite sources and sensibly discuss real evidence or move on. Create your own blog if you like, but continually making a claim that has no evidential basis is not serving your cause, whatever it might be.

Cheers.

all that mumbo jumbo, and any of you still did not have any answer yet
may be you guys dont have the guts
for the last time
WHY armenian gov't still refusing to open its national archives before international committee of historians. Turkish gov't had opened them.
if armenians right about their claims, bring it on, you cowards

Prove they have so refused. Post a link, little fellow, and we shall see. Why are you so afraid to do so? Are you afraid I'll take a look at it?

Maybe you should be.

Geoff

GeoffP, Please knock off the "little fellow" insults. I'll delete your posts if you continue.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Good: and do so his, as well.

I look forward to your developments.

Geoff

today marks the day that the first salvo for the Armenian massacre was started by turks

http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/

And commemorated on the 24th of AprilThe Armenian genocide, as any self-respecting Turk will tell you, is a myth.

The only genocide I beleive in and am abhored by is the Jewish one.
More documentaries are needed to expand on our knowledge of that attrocity.
We all know that only the Jews suffer, being the chosen ones and all.

The Armenian genocide, as any self-respecting Turk will tell you, is a myth.

The only genocide I beleive in and am abhored by is the Jewish one.
More documentaries are needed to expand on our knowledge of that attrocity.
We all know that only the Jews suffer, being the chosen ones and all.

Hey , how about the poor bastard rawandians???:itold:

The Armenian genocide, as any self-respecting Turk will tell you, is a myth.

And that's the problem: the deep, internalized utter respect, that total conviction excluding all possibility of negation, that drives the problem. The fact of the matter is there's no doubt hte Armenian Holocaust occurred, lest Hitler was so deluded he imagined the entire thing. It's that reason that means Turkey shouldn't be joining the EU - now or in any future short of full apology, of real societal regret. But Turkey has not been humbled - recently - and so that thing is alien. It cannot be done. And therein, the problem.

Geoff

Prove they have so refused. Post a link, little fellow, and we shall see. Why are you so afraid to do so? Are you afraid I'll take a look at it?

Maybe you should be.

Geoff

i just send "little fellow" remarks back to you straight
if you read some newspapers , you will see iy yourself that Armenian gov't hs refused Turkish gov't offer to open nat'l archives.
my advise to you is instead of attacking others about matters you have not rearched or read, just educate yourself and read the stories of both sides, and also use your common sense, of course if you have any....
best regards
... and as of today Turkish Gov't is waiting Armenian gov't's posotive response to open nat'l archives...


And that's the problem: the deep, internalized utter respect, that total conviction excluding all possibility of negation, that drives the problem. The fact of the matter is there's no doubt hte Armenian Holocaust occurred, lest Hitler was so deluded he imagined the entire thing. It's that reason that means Turkey shouldn't be joining the EU - now or in any future short of full apology, of real societal regret. But Turkey has not been humbled - recently - and so that thing is alien. It cannot be done. And therein, the problem.

Geoff

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr


And that's the problem: the deep, internalized utter respect, that total conviction excluding all possibility of negation, that drives the problem. The fact of the matter is there's no doubt hte Armenian Holocaust occurred, lest Hitler was so deluded he imagined the entire thing. It's that reason that means Turkey shouldn't be joining the EU - now or in any future short of full apology, of real societal regret. But Turkey has not been humbled - recently - and so that thing is alien. It cannot be done. And therein, the problem.

Geoff

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr
here is the site my friend, check it out
i believe you are just another naive person
who only believe what he is told
best regards, anyway

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr
we are waiting for Armenian gov't response to open its nat'l archivesbest regards

I hope Turkey can one day admit its faults. Currently it doesn't seem like the time is ripe.

I hope Turkey can one day admit its faults. Currently it doesn't seem like the time is ripe.

as i said, Turkey is waiting Armenian gov't response to cooperate and open nat'l archives before international committee of historians, not politicians
then Turkey will accept the outcome
until then , there is nothing to accept or deny

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html
here it is in English

It looks like Turkey is using a delaying tactic. There was no Armenian gov't during WW I. It was part of the Russian empire.

It looks like Turkey is using a delaying tactic. There was no Armenian gov't during WW I. It was part of the Russian empire.

... and there was no Turkey during WWI. it was Ottom Empire.
as you see, you logic just dont work

Ottoman

i just send "little fellow" remarks back to you straight
if you read some newspapers , you will see iy yourself that Armenian gov't hs refused Turkish gov't offer to open nat'l archives.
my advise to you is instead of attacking others about matters you have not rearched or read

Au contraire, ma petit.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/armenian_genocide.htm
http://www.genocide1915.info/
http://www.cilicia.com/armo10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The Hamidian massacres, the extermination of tens of thousands of civilians in full view of American and British naval vessels, the disappearance of almost 2 million people, Ras al-Ain...sorry. Your argument doesn't cut it.

Oh - and don't call me "friend". It's an insult to me, you see. My advice to you is you let go your national bigotry and open your eyes. Or maybe just refrain from commenting on the issue altogether.

Geoff

Au contraire, ma petit.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/armenian_genocide.htm
http://www.genocide1915.info/
http://www.cilicia.com/armo10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The Hamidian massacres, the extermination of tens of thousands of civilians in full view of American and British naval vessels, the disappearance of almost 2 million people, Ras al-Ain...sorry. Your argument doesn't cut it.

Oh - and don't call me "friend". It's an insult to me, you see. My advice to you is you let go your national bigotry and open your eyes. Or maybe just refrain from commenting on the issue altogether.

Geoff

let me say it again , my f(r)iend
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html
how armenian you are, bigot and liar

Call me what you like. I've had a variety of "insults" thrown at me by people with more teeth than you. Call me Armenian? I call it a compliment.

Read my links, if you dare.

Geoff

Here: a gift, Aziz. A little commentary about the love Turks held for Armenians:


Turkish rule...meant unutterable contempt...The Armenians (and the Greeks) were dogs and pigs...to be spat upon, if their shadow darkened a Turk, to be outraged, to be the mats on which he wiped the mud from his feet. Conceive the inevitable result of centuries of slavery, of subjection to insult and scorn, centuries in which nothing that belonged to the Armenian, neither his property, his house, his life, his person, nor his family, was sacred or safe from violence—capricious, unprovoked violence—to resist which by violence meant death.

Ramsay, William M. Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years' Wanderings. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1897 pp. 206-207.

Enjoy. And explain, if you can.

Geoff

how armenian you are, bigot and liar

And lastly: I note your insult was "and how armenian you are". As in: you consider the state of being Armenian in itself wrongful.

My work is done. Dolts to punish elsewhere. :poke:

Geoff

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html

you can not move the facts from sciforms
someone has moved my previous post
here it is again and again...

azizbey:

Are you Turkish?

If so, I can understand what you have been brought up to believe in your country.

Now that you have access to the resources available on the internet, I urge you to research this matter for yourself, rather than simply repeating what you have been taught.

A good starting point, which you might like to discuss, is the wikipedia article on the Armenian genocide, here:

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

Please tell us what you think after you have read that article.

Do you think it is biased, or incorrect? If so, what is the motive for that?

Quite so. The Turkish educational system, I understand, is replete with brainwashing on the subject, which is not that uncommon a state more generally. Small wonder the public outcry there; to say nothing of the more deplorable reading material consumed in Turkey.

The Turks rewrote history to cover up their atrocities against the Armenians. They've institutionalized the lie, jailing critics and making it ILLEGAL to deviate from the government story. Much like the Japanese refusal to acknowledge atrocities against the Koreans & Chinese during their brutal occupation. Tokyo has institutionalized the lie as well. They just don't hire murderers to take out outspoken critics of this policy like Ankara does.

azizbey:

Are you Turkish?

If so, I can understand what you have been brought up to believe in your country.

Now that you have access to the resources available on the internet, I urge you to research this matter for yourself, rather than simply repeating what you have been taught.

A good starting point, which you might like to discuss, is the wikipedia article on the Armenian genocide, here:

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

Please tell us what you think after you have read that article.

Do you think it is biased, or incorrect? If so, what is the motive for that?

as Geoffp repeats whatever he is thought
i do the same, only one exception, i read the arguments of both sides

Quite so. The Turkish educational system, I understand, is replete with brainwashing on the subject, which is not that uncommon a state more generally. Small wonder the public outcry there; to say nothing of the more deplorable reading material consumed in Turkey.

as if there is no brainwashing going on in Armenia or its diaspora

The Turks rewrote history to cover up their atrocities against the Armenians. They've institutionalized the lie, jailing critics and making it ILLEGAL to deviate from the government story. Much like the Japanese refusal to acknowledge atrocities against the Koreans & Chinese during their brutal occupation. Tokyo has institutionalized the lie as well. They just don't hire murderers to take out outspoken critics of this policy like Ankara does.

submitting the facts is rewriting the history? obviously you have not read the link i have posted, i suppose

as if there is no brainwashing going on in Armenia or its diaspora

Never been to Armenia. I was never taught any of this in school, so I have no philosophical predisposition on the matter.

I originally closed the thread after it broke down into a flame war. Since the topic already exists, I copied the 2nd and 3rd threads into the original. This thread topic isn't welcome at this time since the opposing sides aren't capable of discussing it without degenerating into ad hominem remarks and insults.

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html

you may attack, but cannot change the facts

I've already explained my decision to close the thread and why. This is not the forum to allow for flamewars between members who disagree. If participants cannot discuss a topic without resorting to insults, then the topic shan't be discussed.

If you feel so passionate about your position (whatever it may be), start a blog. If you have another topic that you can discuss, feel free to start a thread. But if it is the same topic of Armenians vs. Turks, I'll close it an give an infraction for circumventing moderation by spamming.

I'll leave the thread open for now, but should it resume with insults and flames, I'll close it again.

Perhaps, Aziz, you could hold up some examples from the site and explain why you feel or don't that they are correct.

For example, in the first page of your link I note:


The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The message was as follows: “I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty’s Government against the Turks.”

The statement is entirely uncited. What are we meant to conclude by it?

Geoff

As a matter of fact, much of the site is completely uncited.

Here's another interesting one: there's a listing of Turks supposedly killed by Armenians (which then presumably provides the excuse for the Genocide, I guess) and identified by one: "Prof. Dr. Metin ÖZBEK, Anthropologist". He lists a series of wound marks and the like on the skeletons of the victims. He does not, I note, provide any photographic evidence whatsoever.

All "Dr Osbek's" points are based on cranial skull morphology. Now, it was my understanding that cranial morphology had essentially been demolished by Gould. So, in the first case, his identification of the victims is sketchy at best.

In the second case, he has no evidence that Armenians of any kind were involved with the crime - are Turks incapable of killing other Turks? does not the fact that the region is Turkish suggest, rather, that it was other Turks who were responsible, if that is the game "Dr. Ozbek" wishes to play? - but he has no hesitation whatsoever to point his finger at them. There is no end to the kind of specious impressions this individual lays out; yet there they are, for all to see. What is one forced to conclude from this? My impression is that the Turkish charges are spurious and contrived.

Most of this is summed up in the bizarre conclusion:


It is concluded that these skeletons belong to mostly young people who were deliberately killed and some of them were burned. The skulls demonstrated that these skeletons belong to people from the Alpin race-type. Where Anatolia is concerned, they most probably belong to Turks. The scientific discoveries prove that these people were subjected to severe torture and killed brutally. These facts confirm the statements of the witnesses who live in the same area today.

The final bit is used in a sweeping rant and damnation of the Armenians - and yet, even were they involved (and there is not a shred of evidence any were), what possible difference would a single event make to the outcome of the entire case, which is of a genocide against Armenians?


Thus the part of history related to Armenians has to be rewritten because the people who were massacred violently were not the Armenians but the Turks.

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/cavusoglu.html

Clearly, the only thing that needs being rewritten is the Turkish perspective on their religious minorities, probably starting with Aziz.

Geoff

azizbey:


as Geoffp repeats whatever he is thought
i do the same, only one exception, i read the arguments of both sides

So, having read the wikipedia article that I linked for you, what do you think about it? Is is fair, or not? If not, what do you take issue with?

Well, I don't know ....what do the Turks say about it? I'll bet they have a different idea about that, huh? So who's right?

In any and all disagreements or conflicts, there's always another story and it's often in the best interest of everyone to research the issue carefully. I'm not so sure about the Armenian incident, but my guess is that the Turks felt that they had some revenge for something that was done to them previously by the Armenians. And so goes history ....when was the first punch thrown? In the Garden of Eden, perhaps?

Baron Max

I realize you suggested they do some research, which is a good suggestion, but the odd thing about your post is you seem skeptical about the idea that one group might actually have committed an unprovoked atrocity. Or let's say: bear 95 % of the blame. I am quite sure some Jews did some bad things in pre-holocaust germany, but still, the Nazis were the bad guys, even if they have a version of blame. For example.

Turkey is going to Lahey International Court of Justice (ICJ) very soon, they will submit national archives, also archives from party of Tashnak in Boston, Greek orthadox church in Istanbul, and the documents of the foreign government employees who were in Turkey at the time of the incident.
also Armenian gov't will be invited to make their own case. ICJ will give the final decision, once and for all
i will post more info as the trial starts


azizbey:



So, having read the wikipedia article that I linked for you, what do you think about it? Is is fair, or not? If not, what do you take issue with?

i have read the wikipedia, and who has written that, just read the my post about ICJ


Here's another interesting one: there's a listing of Turks supposedly killed by Armenians (which then presumably provides the excuse for the Genocide, I guess) and identified by one: "Prof. Dr. Metin ÖZBEK, Anthropologist". He lists a series of wound marks and the like on the skeletons of the victims. He does not, I note, provide any photographic evidence whatsoever.

All "Dr Osbek's" points are based on cranial skull morphology. Now, it was my understanding that cranial morphology had essentially been demolished by Gould. So, in the first case, his identification of the victims is sketchy at best.

In the second case, he has no evidence that Armenians of any kind were involved with the crime - are Turks incapable of killing other Turks? does not the fact that the region is Turkish suggest, rather, that it was other Turks who were responsible, if that is the game "Dr. Ozbek" wishes to play? - but he has no hesitation whatsoever to point his finger at them. There is no end to the kind of specious impressions this individual lays out; yet there they are, for all to see. What is one forced to conclude from this? My impression is that the Turkish charges are spurious and contrived.

Most of this is summed up in the bizarre conclusion:



The final bit is used in a sweeping rant and damnation of the Armenians - and yet, even were they involved (and there is not a shred of evidence any were), what possible difference would a single event make to the outcome of the entire case, which is of a genocide against Armenians?



Clearly, the only thing that needs being rewritten is the Turkish perspective on their religious minorities, probably starting with Aziz.

Geoff

there are lots of evidence of Amenian crimes and killings against turkish population during WWI, if you visit the site i have previously posted, you will see.
then again, you have a choice to refuse any documents you dont like, and believe in the ones your ideology accepts


azizbey:

Are you Turkish?

If so, I can understand what you have been brought up to believe in your country.

Now that you have access to the resources available on the internet, I urge you to research this matter for yourself, rather than simply repeating what you have been taught.

A good starting point, which you might like to discuss, is the wikipedia article on the Armenian genocide, here:

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

Please tell us what you think after you have read that article.

Do you think it is biased, or incorrect? If so, what is the motive for that?

i have read the info at wikipedia long ago. history is written by the winners, well thats not exactly true. but the truth is armenian diaspora and lobby are working very hard, systematically for years to get foreign gov't to accept that there was a (so called) genocide, however, we will see the truth when both parties bring their evidences to the International Court of Justice in Lahey, then, so be it

there are lots of evidence of Amenian crimes and killings against turkish population during WWI, if you visit the site i have previously posted, you will see.
then again, you have a choice to refuse any documents you dont like, and believe in the ones your ideology accepts

Well, in that they a) jumped to all their conclusions with a clear political bias, b) were based on crap science and c) were completely uncited I'd say I do quite well to refuse them.

Other people with a brain would probably feel the same.

Well, in that they a) jumped to all their conclusions with a clear political bias, b) were based on crap science and c) were completely uncited I'd say I do quite well to refuse them.

Other people with a brain would probably feel the same.

well
a) nobody jumped to any conclusion on Turkey's part, may be it is foreign gov'ts and some states in the US, with the help of Armenian diaspora, recognized so-called genocide without further investigation.
that's a no brainer...
b) archives are crap science? my work is done here
c)uncited? all the claims by Turkish gov't cited and documented. you and armenian diaspora will see them in Lahey International Court for Justice

and anyone with brain will want to see Armenian Gov't positive response to meeting in Lahey, so before int'l committee, both sides will settle this monkey business once and for all...
if I were you, I would ask the Armenian gov't to go to Lahey
and accept the final decision, or will they , again, refuse it?

well
a) nobody jumped to any conclusion on Turkey's part, may be it is foreign gov'ts and some states in the US, with the help of Armenian diaspora, recognized so-called genocide without further investigation.
that's a no brainer...

No, the examples illustrated contained a doctor who was very eager to jump to the conclusion that it was the Armenians who had murdered a family of putative Turks, despite no evidence whatsoever of Armenian associations. I expect it's reflective of the entire site.


b) archives are crap science? my work is done here

You're admitting that the Turkish archives are crap science? My work is done here.


c)uncited? all the claims by Turkish gov't cited and documented. you and armenian diaspora will see them in Lahey International Court for Justice

Yes. Uncited. No newspaper links, no independent accounts. Uncited. As substantial as the air.


if I were you, I would ask the Armenian gov't to go to Lahey
and accept the final decision, or will they , again, refuse it?

And when the final decision supports the Armenian claims, what will you do? Will you accept it, or will you reject it and most more anti-Armenian nonsense?

Geoff

[QUOTE=GeoffP;1334937]No, the examples illustrated contained a doctor who was very eager to jump to the conclusion that it was the Armenians who had murdered a family of putative Turks, despite no evidence whatsoever of Armenian associations. I expect it's reflective of the entire site.
there is evidence, if you go to the web site and read it

You're admitting that the Turkish archives are crap science? My work is done here.
you still resist not to get it. go to the web site , and you will see the original documents. and my work is still done with the ones who still cant read the documents


Yes. Uncited. No newspaper links, no independent accounts. Uncited. As substantial as the air.
really? see above


And when the final decision supports the Armenian claims, what will you do? Will you accept it, or will you reject it and most more anti-Armenian nonsense?
not even armenians devoted himself as much as you do to this matter. they should be proud or pay you salary for being spokesman, anyway, as i have said, of course if you read it, the outcome will be accepted by both parties, that's why i certainly think, Armenian gov't will refuse to accept the deal
Geoff

there is evidence, if you go to the web site and read it

I did. It was all essentially in the same vein: no public reportage, no links to associating institutions, contrived results. That's insufficient.


you still resist not to get it. go to the web site , and you will see the original documents. and my work is still done with the ones who still cant read the documents

What original documents? Link them. All I saw was reports transcribed onto the site. No proof. No public reportage. No third parties. No links to same. Contrived results. Your position is bollocks.


really?

YES, really. I repeat: uncited. No newspaper links, no independent accounts. Uncited.


not even armenians devoted himself as much as you do to this matter. they should be proud or pay you salary for being spokesman,

LOL. The extremis refuge of the inarticulate: the accusation of mercenarialism. :D


anyway, as i have said, of course if you read it, the outcome will be accepted by both parties, that's why i certainly think, Armenian gov't will refuse to accept the deal

Your statements make no sense on a logical or moral ground. Rephrase and repost.

Geoff

I did. It was all essentially in the same vein: no public reportage, no links to associating institutions, contrived results. That's insufficient.



What original documents? Link them. All I saw was reports transcribed onto the site. No proof. No public reportage. No third parties. No links to same. Contrived results. Your position is bollocks.



YES, really. I repeat: uncited. No newspaper links, no independent accounts. Uncited.



LOL. The extremis refuge of the inarticulate: the accusation of mercenarialism. :D



Your statements make no sense on a logical or moral ground. Rephrase and repost.

Geoff

if you check the site carefully, you will see the original documents of each claims, of course they are in arabic, but you will see the translation, or if you dont believe the translation, then hire a translater, or if you dont believe the documents at all, wait for Lahey

by the way, when i look at it, your statements dont kame any sense either. when it comes to your logic and moral ground, that's another story, long story

in addition, if you like to lower the level of discussion to an unapropriate levels, may be you dont belong here. i handle the likes of you on the streets, over here i would like to follow the rules of the site.

if you check the site carefully, you will see the original documents of each claims, of course they are in arabic, but you will see the translation, or if you dont believe the translation, then hire a translater, or if you dont believe the documents at all, wait for Lahey

I checked and found a lot of spurious implications and bad logic.


by the way, when i look at it, your statements dont kame any sense either.

Well, that's seemingly because you don't understand evidendiary process or logic; a failing common to Nazis, I notice.


in addition, if you like to lower the level of discussion to an unapropriate levels, may be you dont belong here. i handle the likes of you on the streets, over here i would like to follow the rules of the site.

I lower the level of discussion, and you make threats? You seem to have proved my point for me, really. I've tried again and again to point out the ridiculous leap of faith involved in the conclusions of the people on your site, yet you ignore them and then try to threaten physical violence. So you've in essence supported some of the things these nasty, nasty Armenians have been saying about your nation.

Congratuations!

Anyway, you wouldn't really want to me the likes of me on the streets. So don't bother. You can't get me kicked off the site - but do try! - and you can't do anything else. You're basically helpless. Not my fault though.

Geoff

I checked and found a lot of spurious implications and bad logic.



Well, that's seemingly because you don't understand evidendiary process or logic; a failing common to Nazis, I notice.



I lower the level of discussion, and you make threats? You seem to have proved my point for me, really. I've tried again and again to point out the ridiculous leap of faith involved in the conclusions of the people on your site, yet you ignore them and then try to threaten physical violence. So you've in essence supported some of the things these nasty, nasty Armenians have been saying about your nation.

Congratuations!

Anyway, you wouldn't really want to me the likes of me on the streets. So don't bother. You can't get me kicked off the site - but do try! - and you can't do anything else. You're basically helpless. Not my fault though.

Geoff

here is the hero, the defender of armenian claims!!!
i threw piece of bait, and you did not miss a second to show your real colors.
dont worry, i dont think you will be kicked out of here, we love people like you
anyway, i would like to wait and see the results of Lahey case
until then rest easy

here is the hero, the defender of armenian claims!!!
i threw piece of bait, and you did not miss a second to show your real colors.[

...what in the hell are you talking about? Do you have any argument to offer? A point, perhaps?


dont worry, i dont think you will be kicked out of here, we love people like you

The site noob says "we"? :D What is it he's meant to be proving? Ridiculous.


anyway, i would like to wait and see the results of Lahey case
until then rest easy

Oh. And here I thought you were going for a showdown. Whatever.

This thread is closed yet again. This time it will not reopen. azizbey earned a three-day ban for his threat -perhaps this will give him time enough to cool off. If he chooses to come back and discuss other topics in a reasoned manner, without insults, flames, and threats, fine.

If he does come back, others need not bait or troll him. I might consider infractions for such behavior.