Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 110

Thread: UNESCO Censorship (Censoring Jewish life in Europe) for Ottoman Archives

  1. #16
    1.5 million
    Guest
    Current Turkey has nothing to do with Ottoman Turkey you say? Well the current Republic of Turkey is only the final stage in the revolution against the Ottoman Sultan (read some of Taner Akcam etc) begun with the CUP and a large percentage - particularly of the Republican leadership was culled from CUP ranks...

    "I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am responsible for what happened to the Armenians in 1915. I did an analysis of the Deputies of the first National Assembly, I have found enough documentation that implicates about 25-30% of the Deputies of having participated in the massacres against the Armenians….Not only was there no accountability and no punishment for those who committed crimes against the Armenians, but many of the perpetrators unfortunately then became leaders of the Turkish Republic."

    Dr. Fatma Müge Göçek, (Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor) - Turkey, the European Union and the Armenian Question - a presention given before the International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights - December 2 2005

  2. #17
    1.5 million
    Guest
    "The first implementation of the CUP regime’s goal of creating a homogeneous nation was the elimination of the Armenians from Anatolia in 1915...It was a prerequisite for homogenisation in the name of modernisation that both internal and external conditions served to justify their policies under the rhetoric of state security and interests."

    Ayla Gul - Imagining the Turkish nation through ‘othering’ Armenians - in Nations and Nationalism 11 (1), 2005, p130. (Gul is an ethically Turkish professor in the International Relations Department of the London School of Economics and Political Science)

    "Turkism, as a racialised articulation of citizenship, emerged as the dominant discourse of the period. ...Turkism is defined here as...Turkishness as the determinative identity of the citizens of the empire. (In) March 1913, the Turkish Force Committee was founded. It explicitly claimed to cultivate the new Turkish citizens...the founders argued (that)from now on, the empire should be left to the real owners, the Turkish race. What was different from the Turkism that existed before the Balkan Wars was the idea that Turkism not only needed to become dominant, but it had to become so in an urgent manner. This sense of urgency combined with the dominance Turkism now enjoyed led Turkism to materialise into various events and acts in a very short period of time. Turkism...was manifest in...the displacement and elimination of Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire. The institutionalisation of Turkism meant the homogenisation of the citizenship in the empire. It was time again to go back to the purity of the origins of the Turkish race. That is why other races had to be eliminated. Turkism constructed an imminent threat posed by the Armenians and took action to exterminate that threat. Turkism operated as state racism. Enver Pasha, by then the head of the CUP, argued that by expelling the Armenians from the empire, the Turks in the Ottoman Empire would once again be healthy and clean. Otherwise the Turks would slowly cease to exist, just as an unhealthy person approaches death when not taken care of. In other words, the existence of the Turkish race depended on eliminating the unclean elements including other races, in this case the Armenians. Turkism and the Armenian tragedy in this sense can be seen as a function of the biological racism. Turkism, as racialised citizenship, negated the life of Armenian citizens in the empire."

    Bora Isyar Department of Sociology, York University, Toronto, Canada in The origins of Turkish Republican citizenship: the birth of race in Nations and Nationalism 11 (3), 2005, 343–360

  3. #18
    1.5 million
    Guest
    "I defended the Armenians who, even though they were completely innocent, were murdered simply because they were Armenians. The dictates of justice and the state’s badge required such intervention."

    Ottoman Senator Ahmet Riza - from his memoirs



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

    Mustafa Arif - Ottoman Minister of Interior (after Talat) - 13 December 1918



    "The criminal gangs who were released from the prisons, after a week's training at the War Ministry's training grounds, were sent off to the Caucasian front as the brigands of the Special Organization, perpetrating the worst crimes against the Armenians ... . The Ittihadists intended to destroy the Armenians, and thereby to do away with the Question of the Eastern Provinces."

    "In order to justify this enormous crime [of the Armenian genocide] the requisite propaganda material was thoroughly prepared in Istanbul. [It included such statements as:] the Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening up the straits [to enable the Allied fleets to capture Istanbul]. These vile and malicious incitements [were such, however, that they] could persuade only people who were not even able to feel the pangs of their own hunger."

    "among those Armenians who were atrociously wasted, despite the fact that they were most innocent, guiltless, and who had committed no crime whatsoever, were the Armenians of Bursa, Ankara, Eskiehir, and Konya."

    Ahmet Refik - Turkish Military Intelligence Officer in WWI - İki Komite-İki Kıtâl, İstanbul 1919

  4. #19
    1.5 million
    Guest
    "...the fact that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was not even the subject of an argument in any manner from the viewpoint of the actors of that period, with Mustafa Kemal at their head. Of course the word soykirim [genocide] (being a term belonging to the post World War II period) was not used in those days. To describe what had happened in 1915, words such as "katliam" [massacre], "taktil" [killings], "teb'id" [taking away, expulsion, expelling], "kital" [massacre] were used. Mustafa Kemal has dozens of speeches in which he defines the treatments reserved to Armenians as "cowardice", or "barbarity", and names these treatments "massacre". In September 1919, the American General Harbord, who visited Mustafa Kemal in Sivas, says "he, too, disapproved the Armenian Massacre." According to Mustafa Kemal, "the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the work of a small committee who had seized the power"


    "A discussion of the Armenian Genocide could reveal that this Turkish state was not a result of a war fought against the imperial powers, but, on the contrary, a product of the war against the Greek and Armenian minorities. It could show that a significant part of the National Forces consisted either of murderers who directly participated in the Armenian Genocide or of thieves who had become rich by plundering Armenian possessions."

    Taner Akcam - Historian and sociologist - The Genocide of Armenians and the silence of the Turks

  5. #20
    1.5 million
    Guest
    "The Armenian Genocide is proven in all its components - among them intent. The converging evidence is well in excess of that generally judged abundant in establishing other historical truths. The genocide was a horrendous crime. The evidence is there - province by province, city by city, village by village, hamlet by hamlet, with its countless variations according to time and place yet all the same in the vast process of extermination - genocide. A deliberate plan, carefully organized and brutally executed. The deniers and rationalizers offend the dignity of the historian and of all humanity."

    Yves Ternon - author of several volumes concerning human rights and genocide in - Freedom and Responsibility of the Historian - the "Lewis Affair" - 1999

    "We and many others have accepted the United Nations definition of genocide and there can be no argument about [the Armenian case] being genocide,"

    Prof. Yehuda Bauer, academic director - Yad Vashem

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    anywhere
    Posts
    2,902
    1.5million get the hell out of my thread! Mods are locking my threads because of you idiots! The main topic has nothing to do Armenians!!! I pointed it to something else!!! You stop it or i'll report your posts to the moderators!!! Armenian and related genocide discussions are not liked in this forum!!!

  7. #22
    Cato
    Guest
    Serdar

    Glad you came to your senses and recognized the Armenian Genocide.

    Khazar

    Not only was the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians unprovoked, but as with Jews in Germany many Armenians infact served in the Turkish army, and managed they fought at Turkey's crowning world war one battle, Gallipoli under the command of Mustapha Kemal, who not surprisingly himself was to recognize the Genocide (Which was done by people who had him banished to southern Syria in disgrace). You also failed to grasp the point of 1.5 mils comparison. It was not in order to claim Jews were attacking Germany, the point he was making was just that Armenian Ressistence to Turkey was the result of, not cause of the Armenian Genocide, while in Europe Jewish ressistence to Germany was the result of Germany slaughtering them, not the cause of it.

    1.5 Million

    Don't site wikipedia, it weakens your case since wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

  8. #23
    Khazar
    Guest
    1.5million
    Sorry Khazar - you are repeating the same type of lies Germans/Nazis (and Holocaust deniers)
    Holocoust deniers like to pretend Jews werent killed and instead just died of a disease which has nothing to do with the Nazi policies.

    In addition the Nazi's were put on Trial, real hard facts bought to the table, they had the chance to argue their case but the evidence was overwhelming and they were found guilty.

    The Ottomans were put on trial by the Brittish in Malta, they were found NOT GUILTY OF GENOCIDE.

    That's why today Great Britain rejects any genocide claims because it's already tried this case.


    Turks annhilated the Armenians of Anatolia - their numbers went from well over 2 million
    All cencus' in the area state the Armenians in the Eastern provinces didn't even have a population of 1.5 million.

    The way figures are inflated is ridiculous and shows what a hoax this all is.

    Thousands of eyewitness reports
    There's thousands of eyewitness reports of the Armenians agression but you choose to ignore this.


    Current Turkey has nothing to do with Ottoman Turkey you say? Well the current Republic of Turkey is only the final stage in the revolution against the Ottoman Sultan begun with the CUP and a large percentage - particularly of the Republican leadership was culled from CUP ranks
    Absolute nonsense, Talat Pasha and Enver ran away to Germany and Jalal died fighting somewhere far away.

    They had nothing to do with the revolution, they were part of the Ottoman Government and appointed officials.

    The Turkish Revolution overthrew the Ottoman Empire.

    AtaTurk was the leader of this.

    If you can bring your charge's against AtaTurk go ahead.

    Just open your eyes and realise the holes in the Armenian thesis, go find the remains of the Ottoman family and put them on trial, they are responsible for your wild accusations as they were the head of the Ottoman Empire.

    Today's Turkey has no authority over your ridiculous claims, it was not in power and did not order anything which you claim the Ottomans did.

    It just wouldn't stand up in a court of law, its absurd, Armenians know this and so don't want anybody to actually investigate their claimms.

    Your letters are a total hoax this is proven.



    The Memoirs of Naim Bey

    The third pillar upon which the charge of Armenian genocide rests is Aram Andonian's Memoirs of Naim Bey. Aram Andonian was an Armenian, employed as a military censor at the time of mobilization in 1914. After his April 1915 arrest and deportation from Istanbul, he made his way to Aleppo where he obtained a permit for temporary residence. After the British liberation of the city in October 1918, Andonian collected the testimonies of Armenian men, women, and children who had survived the deportations. As he relates the story, he also made contact with a Turkish official named Naim Bey, who had been the chief secretary of the deportations committee of Aleppo. Naim Bey handed over to Andonian his memoirs, which contained a large number of official documents, telegrams, and decrees, which, he stated, had passed through his hands during his term of office. Andonian translated these memoirs into Armenian. After some delay, they were published in Armenian, French, and English editions.[41]

    The documents reproduced in Naim Bey's memoirs are the most damning evidence put forward to support the claim of genocide. Particularly incriminating are the telegrams of the wartime interior minister. If authentic, they provide proof that Talât Pasha gave explicit orders to kill all Turkish Armenians—men, women, and children. One telegram dated September 16, 1915, notes that the Committee on Union and Progress had

    decided to destroy completely all the Armenians living in Turkey. Those who oppose this order and decision cannot remain on the official staff of the empire. An end must be put to their [the Armenians'] existence, however criminal the measure taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex nor to conscientious scruples.[42]

    The utter ruthlessness of Talât Pasha is a recurring theme in The Memoirs. Such a demonization, though, represents an important change from the way many Armenians regarded Talât before 1915. On December 20, 1913, for example, British embassy official Louis Mallet reported the Armenians had confidence in Talât Pasha, "but fear that they may not always have to deal with a minister of the interior as well disposed as the present occupant of that post."[43] Similarly, the German missionary Liparit described Talât as a man "who over the last six years has acquired the reputation of a sincere adherent of Turkish-Armenian friendship."[44] Even the American head of the international Armenian relief effort in Istanbul recalled that Talât Pasha always "gave prompt attention to my requests, frequently greeting me as I called upon him in his office with the introductory remark: ‘We are partners; what can I do for you today?'"[45] Talât Pasha may have turned into a vicious fiend, but the opinions of his contemporaries do not support this characterization.

    There are many doubts as to the authenticity of the documents reproduced in Naim Bey's memoirs. Several Armenian scholars suggest that a German court authenticated five of the Talât Pasha telegrams during the 1921 trial of Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated Talât Pasha in Berlin on March 15, 1921.[46] However the stenographic record of the trial, published in 1921, shows that defense counsel von Gordon withdrew his motion to introduce the five telegrams into evidence before their authenticity could be verified.[47]

    Two Turkish authors, Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca, who undertook a detailed examination of the authenticity of the documents in the Andonian volume, suggest that the Armenians may have "purposely destroyed the ‘originals,' in order to avoid the chance that one day the spuriousness of the ‘documents' would be revealed."[48] Orel and Yuca argue that discrepancies between authentic Turkish documents and those reproduced in the Naim-Andonian book suggest the latter to be "crude forgeries."[49] In addition, the two authors could find no reference to Naim Bey in the official registers and cast doubt on his very existence.

    When The Memoirs were published in 1920, Armenian activists described its author as an honest individual driven to make amends for his misdeeds. But according to a letter composed by Andonian in 1937, Naim Bey was addicted to alcohol and gambling, and the documents he provided were bought for money. To have "unveiled the truth about him," Andonian wrote, "would have served no purpose."[50] More likely, it would have undercut the very effectiveness of The Memoirs. Nobody would have believed the word of an alcoholic and gambler who might have manufactured the documents to obtain money.

    The documents contained in The Memoirs of Naim Bey depict both the Young Turk leadership and the general Turkish public as ruthless and evil villains. These materials were to influence public opinion in the United States and Western Europe and to provide the Armenians lobbying at the Paris peace conference with ammunition to support their calls for independence.[51] That is why the Armenian National Union, formed under the leadership of the veteran Armenian statesman Boghos Nubar Pasha, purchased the documents and entrusted Andonian with bringing them to Europe. While telegrams from the Naim-Andonian book were included in a dispatch sent to London in March 1921[52] and also in the dossiers of the Malta detainees, the British government never made use of these telegrams. The law officers of the crown apparently regarded the Naim-Andonian book as another of the many forgeries that were flooding Istanbul at the time.

    Turkish authors are not alone in their assessment that the Naim-Andonian documents are fakes. Dutch historian Erik Zürcher, writing in 1997, argued that the Andonian materials "have been shown to be forgeries."[53] British historian Andrew Mango speaks of "telegrams dubiously attributed to the Ottoman wartime minister of the interior, Talât Pasha."[54] It is ironic that lobbyists and policymakers seek to base a determination of genocide upon documents most historians and scholars dismiss at worst as forgeries and at best as unverifiable and problematic.
    Guenter Lewy

    Taner Akcam is no historian jeez, where are his so-called qualifications to prove this, the guy was a member of DHKP/C a Marxist Terrorist organisation, sentanced to 9 years in prison but escaped and is trying to get revenge on the "Capitalist State" lol

  9. #24
    Khazar
    Guest
    There Was No Genocide: Interview with Prof.Bernard Lewis By Dalia Karpel
    Haaretz daily (Weekend Issue), Jerusalem


    Half a year ago historian Bernard Lewis incurred a huge insult in Israel. The Tel Aviv municipality changed its mind to bestow on him honorary citizenship because of his statements in the French paper "Le Monde" which were interpreted as denial of the Armenian genocide and ended with Lewis standing in front of a criminal court. Already last week everything looked different. Tel Aviv University organized a special evening party for Lewis on the occasion of the publication of the Hebrew version of his book, "The Middle East: Two Thousand Years of History." Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Labour Party leader Ehud Barak, and other respectable people addressed the party, there was a lot of applause and a lot of honours. For Lewis, this evening a sort of compensation for the insult half a year ago.

    In this interview, Lewis wishes to clarify the circumstances of the scandal, which aroused huge criticism against him [in France], as well as in Israel, and caused him to stand trial.[Lewis said], "Four lawsuits were filed against me in Paris and all were based on my interview in 'Le Monde' on November 16, 1993. Among other things, the interviewers asked me on the massacres of the Armenians in 1915. I was aware of the risk entailed in any critical interpretation of such events. I was not enthusiastic to discuss this subject in the narrow framework of a journalistic interview. But the question was posed in an honest way, so I agreed to be interviewed. I never thought that a professional historian could refuse to respond to a question which falls within my expertise. I told them that the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government. I told them that there is no evidence for such a decision. The attempt to deal with such doubts through courts and libel cases did not cause these historians to change their minds."

    The legal suits against me were filed by several organizations, in their eyes my views, or rather my doubts, arouse opposition. One of the suits based itself on the French Law which regards the denial of the Jewish Shoah as a criminal offense, the three other suits were civil suits." The verdicts of these suits were given in March, June and July 1995 respectively. Two out of the three suits were rejected. In the third suit, it was not proved that "I was guided by any consideration alien to my vocation as historian, but I made a fault that I did cite in the interview 'elements which go against my thesis,' and thus overlooked the pain of the Armenians. The verdict was that I had to pay one franc to all the parties."

    Lewis continues: "Wrong assumptions were also adopted by journalists of "Haaretz" in connection to the whole polemics. These are mainly two issues: a) that the massacres of the Armenians in 1915 and the extermination of the Jews of Europe are basically events of the same kind; b) any critical discourse of the Armenian massacres is similar to Neo-Nazi denial of the Shoah. "Anybody who has a minimum concept of the historical evidence will admit that these analogies have no validity. The Armenians are proud of their struggle for an independent Armenia against the Ottoman regime. It was a national liberation movement, and they fought with great courage. But what happened to the Armenians has no similarity to what happened to the Jews in cold-blooded bureaucracy."

    Q: Why is this distinction so important for you?

    "Because I am not a Turk nor an Armenian and I have no allegiance to any of these groups. I am a historian and my loyalties are to truth. The concept of genocide was defined legally. It is a term that the UN used and the Nuremberg trials made use of it [as well]. I side with words which have accurate meaning. In my view a loose and ambiguous use of words is bad."The meaning of genocide is the planned destruction of a religious and ethnic group, as far as it is known to me, there is no evidence for that in the case of the Armenians. The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the 'Young Turks' back, and nobody want to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want?

    "The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."



    There are many major historians looking at the matter objectively, isn't it funny that more and more are comming out stating that what happened cannot be called a genocide.


    The Holocaust bears no meaningful relation to the Ottoman Armenian experience.

    1. Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians openly agitated for a separate state in lands in which they were numerically inferior. The Hunchak and Dashnak revolutionary organizations, which survive to this day, were formed expressly to agitate against the Ottoman government.


    2. Jews did not kill their fellow citizens in the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians committed massacres against local Muslims.


    3. Jews did not openly join the ranks of their countries’ enemies during World War II. By contrast, during World War I, Ottoman Armenians openly and with pride committed mass treason, took up arms, traveled to Russia for training, and sported Russian uniforms. Others, non-uniformed irregulars, operated against the Ottoman government from behind the lines.


    4. Solemn tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in accordance with agreed-upon procedures. By contrast, the Malta Tribunals, which were convened by the World War I victors, exonerated those alleged to have been responsible for the maladministration of the relocation policies.


    5. Open Armenian-Nazi collaboration is evident in the activities of the 812th Armenian Battalion of the [Nazi] Wehrmacht, commanded by Drastamat Kanayan (a.k.a. "Dro"), and its successor, the Armenian Legion. Anti-Jewish, pro-Nazi propaganda was published widely in the Armenian-language Hairenik daily and the weekly journal, Armenian.


    6. Hitler did not refer to the Armenians in plotting the Final Solution; the infamous quote is fraudulent. All sources attribute the alleged quote, "Who remembers the Armenians?" to a November 24, 1945 Times of London article, "Nazi Germany’s Road to War." The article’s unnamed author says Hitler uttered the phrase in an address on August 22, 1939 at Obersalzburg. The Times of London author claims the speech was introduced as evidence during the November 23, 1945 session of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Yet the Nuremberg transcripts do not contain the alleged quote.


    In fact, the quote first appeared in a 1942 book by Louis Lochner, the AP’s Berlin bureau chief during World War II. Lochner, like the Times of London author, never disclosed his source. The Nuremberg Tribunal examined and then rejected Lochner’s third-hand version of Hitler’s address and rejected it. Instead, it entered into evidence two official versions of the August 22, 1939 address found in captured German military records. Neither document contains any reference to Armenians, nor in fact do they refer to the Jews. Hitler’s address was an anti-Polish invective, delivered years before he conceived the Final Solution.


    7. The depth, breadth, and volume of scholarship on the Holocaust are tremendous. The physical and documentary evidence is vast and proves indisputably the aims, methods, and results of the racist Nazi policies. By contrast, scholarship on the late Ottoman Empire is comparatively scarce. Much research has yet to be completed and many conclusions have yet to be drawn. Non-biased research from that period has thus far revealed tragedies afflicting all sides in a conflict with numerous belligerents. Nothing has yet been uncovered which establishes genocide. In light of the ongoing research and the other distinctions raised above, it would be improper, if not malicious, to equate a desire to challenge Armenian American assertions with Holocaust denial.

  10. #25
    Khazar
    Guest
    Many Armenians died, many Turks died, to call a war a genocide is ridiculous.

    Ottomans were on the defensive and Armenians wanted a large state and so sensing the Ottomans at their weakest attacked with the backing of Russia to fight for this.

    They lost, they signed a peace treaty with AtaTurk after, no mentions of genocide were bought up then, why did they fight a war and then sign a peace treaty if this so-called thing happened.

    It would be a lie to call it a genocide, massacres occured on both sides this is the reality nobody is denying people died but what didn't happen was a planned systematic genocide.

  11. #26
    1.5 million
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Many Armenians died, many Turks died, to call a war a genocide is ridiculous.
    By the same token you would agree to the following then - "Many Jews died, many Germans died, to call a war a genocide is ridiculous"

    This is what you are essentially saying. To claim anything else is a complete distortion of the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Ottomans were on the defensive and Armenians wanted a large state and so sensing the Ottomans at their weakest attacked with the backing of Russia to fight for this.
    BS - false, false and false. Quite a laugh...these claims of yours. Just because you say so and believe so does not make it true. In fact there is no support for any of these contentions - the truth is entirely the opposite of what you say here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    They lost, they signed a peace treaty with AtaTurk after, no mentions of genocide were bought up then, why did they fight a war and then sign a peace treaty if this so-called thing happened.
    Nice to assume things isn't it when you have no conception of political reality in the world. It would take far to long to explain this in detail however consider this - Armenians no longer existed in Anatolia - they were crushed and (those who survived) were off licking their wounds thankful to be alive. Thier intellectual leadership were among the first to be killed - they had nothing...and you expect them to force the world community - already weary from war and disarming - and already licking their chops for the spoils of the war (oil & commerical deals in the ruins of the largest empire in modern history to be partioned up among the victors?) Humanitarian concerns voiced during the war were no longer of any use to the victorious allies - so no one cared anymore. Likewise the tiny nation of Armenia that had formed in the Caucuses was bruttally put down by Ataturk & Karabakir...its remnants (not yet taken by the Turks) was absorbed by the Soviet Union...again there was no one to voice the concern. Thus the barely alive Armenians cannot be blamed for being forgotten and shoved aside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    It would be a lie to call it a genocide, massacres occured on both sides this is the reality nobody is denying people died but what didn't happen was a planned systematic genocide.
    Wrong answer. Does your smiley indicate that you are knowingly being decieptfully or are you just happy and proud of what was done and wish to insult me?

  12. #27
    Cato
    Guest
    Khazar have you ever read any of Bernard Lewis' books?

    Well if you haven't you can start with the emergence of modern Turkey were he calls the Armenian Genocide "The first Holocaust of the 20th century".

    He may deny it in interviews, but where it counts he affirms it.

  13. #28
    1.5 million
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by serdar
    1.5million get the hell out of my thread! Mods are locking my threads because of you idiots! The main topic has nothing to do Armenians!!! I pointed it to something else!!! You stop it or i'll report your posts to the moderators!!! Armenian and related genocide discussions are not liked in this forum!!!
    Sorry - If it had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide or Turkish lies and denial of such you shouldn't have introduced it. You should have just mentioned the Jewish document. I made a brief point and was countered by blatant and disgusting and unacceptable Genocide denial. If the issue isn't important to you then just shut up about it.

  14. #29
    1.5 million
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cato
    1.5 Million

    Don't site wikipedia, it weakens your case since wikipedia can be edited by anyone.
    Thanks for your input. I very much understand the limitations of Wikipedia. WHat I linked to was Wikiquote - and the quotes really speak for themselves and tell the story. Check them out - you will see what I mean.

  15. #30
    1.5 million
    Guest
    Khazar - you are so predictable and your arguments are (typically weak)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Holocoust deniers like to pretend Jews werent killed and instead just died of a disease which has nothing to do with the Nazi policies.
    Genocide deniers say the same

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    In addition the Nazi's were put on Trial, real hard facts bought to the table, they had the chance to argue their case but the evidence was overwhelming and they were found guilty.

    The Ottomans were put on trial by the Brittish in Malta, they were found NOT GUILTY OF GENOCIDE.
    There was never any trial in Malta - there was no precedent for an international trial. The Ottoman Government convinced the Alllies to let it bring its own to justice - Malta was only estalished to stem the tide of escapes while the Allies were deciding what should be done. Those criminals who remained at Malta were given over to the Turks in exchange for British prisoners - severl of whom had prominant political connections. The Ottoman Trials resulted in a great many convictions and a gread deal of documentary evidence, eyewitness evidence and confessions (identicle to the proceedings at Nuremburg which based much of its evidentury proceedures from the Turkish trials. (oh and Holocaust deniers like to disparage these trials in the very same manner that Turkish denialist do with the ottoman Trials). BTW - the trials were held in what 1919/20...and Malta prisoners were realeased in what 1920/21? The term Genocide was not coined unitl 1943 by Ralph Lemkin - in his words to describe what had occured to the Armenians. He specifically cites how the Malta prisoners were released without a trail BTW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    That's why today Great Britain rejects any genocide claims because it's already tried this case.
    Sorry untrue. Political pressures to not recognize by Turkey accounts for most ations who do not recognize it. Not that it matters - it does not change the truth. The British produced "Blue Book" documenting tremendous numbers of eyewitness accounts to the Genocide has never been repudiated however. And there is ample evidence in the American, German, Austran etc archives...more then ample


    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    All cencus' in the area state the Armenians in the Eastern provinces didn't even have a population of 1.5 million.

    The way figures are inflated is ridiculous and shows what a hoax this all is.
    Ottoman census figures are known to be highly innacurate and underrepresnted numbers of Armenians. Other figures - including those accpeted by forgein Intelligence agencies show much higher numbers. Also you say "Eastern provinces" - this is not the same as Anatolia proper and in any event taking issue with the numbers is a typical denialist tactic...


    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    There's thousands of eyewitness reports of the Armenians agression but you choose to ignore this.
    False. There is no such thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Absolute nonsense, Talat Pasha and Enver ran away to Germany and Jalal died fighting somewhere far away.

    They had nothing to do with the revolution, they were part of the Ottoman Government and appointed officials.

    The Turkish Revolution overthrew the Ottoman Empire.

    AtaTurk was the leader of this.

    If you can bring your charge's against AtaTurk go ahead.
    There have been many studies that show a large percentage of CUP mid and high level operatives transitioning over to the Republican cause. Are you not aware of the purge and trials that Ataturk conducted in 1926 of a number of these prominant individuals who had outlived their usefulness? Are you really so ignorant of your own history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Just open your eyes and realise the holes in the Armenian thesis, go find the remains of the Ottoman family and put them on trial, they are responsible for your wild accusations as they were the head of the Ottoman Empire.
    I doubt that there will be a trial at this point...perhaps civili litigation at some point in time...anyway the Republic of Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman legacy in every sense of the word. They did assume Ottoman debts and legal obligations for instance....and so on...


    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Your letters are a total hoax this is proven.
    In fact this is not true. Just beacuse 2 Turkish reseraches say so and Lewy repeats it does not make it so. No matter - the proof is so overwhelming that these documents do not have to be used. Funny though - Hilmar Kaiser has recently verified (from other sources) some very specific data contained in two of the telegrams that your Turkish "scholars" claim are hoaxes...


    Quote Originally Posted by Khazar
    Taner Akcam is no historian jeez, where are his so-called qualifications to prove this, the guy was a member of DHKP/C a Marxist Terrorist organisation, sentanced to 9 years in prison but escaped and is trying to get revenge on the "Capitalist State" lol
    Ad hominem attack. Can't discount the message so attempt to discredit the messenger - another typical denialist tactic. You should read some Ackam sometime (he is a socialogist I believe...quite interesting enlightening stuff) - you might learn a little something about your own history...as for charges against Ackam - well we have seen how easy it is for Turkish jurists to claim treason and subversion and such...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-16-2004, 06:20 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2003, 10:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •